The Rise And Fall Of The Fourth Amendment: A Case Study
Imagine, if you will, that you are David Holland. You live in New York City. It’s 1:40 a.m. You’re walking down East 129th Street in Manhattan. You’re in a poor part of town, near a housing project. It’s late at night. All of a sudden, you see four police officers turn the corner up ahead and start walking towards you.
What do you do?
David decided to turn around and start walking in the other direction. In America, you’re allowed to do that. You’re allowed to turn around and start walking the other direction when you see police. You’re allowed to do it for a good, reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. You’re even allowed to do it when you see a large group of police officers coming in your direction near a poor housing project in a “high crime area.”
Woops. Just kidding. You’re in a “high-crime area.” Check your Constitutional rights at the door.
So one of the police officers (Officer Porras) asks David to “Stop!” David stops. Officer Porras asks David for identification. David complies and gives his driver’s license to the officer. After David hands his driver’s license over, Officer Porras asks him if he lives in the nearby public housing developement. David says no. Shortly thereafter, Officer Porras announces that he has no further questions for David, meaning he’s free to leave.
But there’s one small problem: Officer Porras has refused to give David back his driver’s license. So even though David is “technically” free to leave, he can’t very well leave without his driver’s license, which would serve as his primary means of identification should another police officer request his ID in the future. So really, David is not free to leave in any meaningful sense. Really, David is still being detained by the NYPD despite the fact that the officer who questioned him has expressly concluded his criminal investigation of David. As of this moment, David has been detained illegally.
To wit, after Officer Porras informs David that his investigation is complete, a second Officer, Officer Woodard, approaches David and proceeds to ask him the exact same questions that Officer Porras asked him a moment earlier. Officer Porras, still in possession of David’s driver’s license, says nothing, and allows Officer Woodard to continue asking David the same questions that Officer Porras has asked him mere seconds earlier. There is no legitimate purpose to Woodard’s questioning. Some might even refer to this as harassment. But David is in a high-crime area, so nothing is true, and everything is permitted (which would be good if these officers were members of the Ancient Order of Masyaf Assassins. Unfortunately, they are not).
As a result of the foregoing behavior by the NYPD, David becomes annoyed. Perhaps because he’s already answered the first Officer’s questions. Perhaps because they refused to give him his driver’s license back. Perhaps because he’s discovered that these men are not members of the Ancient Order of Masyaf Assassins, which has depressed him greatly.
Or perhaps it’s because David is asking himself a simple question: Why do I need to go through this again? The police are clearly just harassing me at this point. Aren’t I allowed to stick up for myself?
So David decides to stick up for himself. David makes it clear that he wants to leave. He then tries to physically remove himself from the situation. But he couldn’t, because “Officer Porr[a]s then assisted Woodard and [a third officer] in blocking defendant’s egress.” So David decides that the police don’t have a right to do this to him, and pushes Officer Porras out of his way so he can leave.
You can imagine how well that worked out for David: David was shortly thereafter “restrained” by all four police officers, and was placed under arrest for assault and disorderly conduct. During a search incident to arrest, the officers discover marijuana and crack cocaine on David’s person, leading to drug possession charges as well.
During a pre-trial suppression hearing, David’s defense attorney files a motion to suppress the drugs found on his person, based on the fact that the police had illegally detained him, and therefore, all evidence detained against him is fruit of the poisonous tree, and ought to be suppressed. Because David’s detention was illegal after officer Porras concluded his initial investigation, any evidence of drug activity found subsequent thereto was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, cannot be used against David in a court of law.
There are exactly three countries on Earth that do not provide guarantees for paid maternity leave. Papua New Guinea and Swaziland are two of them. Care to guess the third?
(via hautepussy)
Thanks for answer, what you folks tend to not understand like my uncle told me many times, my race is told from birth, that by the time i'm 21, I will end up in jail. So it's expected of me. That's my heritage. Give me what you want and I'll take advantage of you. Until you change the early training you're going to get the same thing. As for money so many in my family don't want to work because of the social programs don't encourage them to work. Why lift a finger and kill yourself beside
Asked by: Anonymous
Part two:
that he told me if I didn’t make something of myself he was going to beat me white.
I’m very sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, many factors, including the so-called “war on drugs” and the pervasiveness of racial profiling among law-enforcement officials, mean that people of color — and African Americans in particular — tend to be overrepresented in the prison system. Like you mentioned, this can become part of one’s heritage and in some communities the mentality is that jail time is almost inevitable. I agree that there is a cultural and social dimension to this problem, but, of course, it is also a failure of policy, and there are concrete steps that could be taken to undermine this trend along with the poverty which mars these communities, including investment in jobs that pay a living wage, the implementation of a single-payer health-care system, adequate funding for schools, the provision of decent housing, access to sexual and reproductive health information and resources, expansion of the franchise to prisoners, public-works projects to beautify and clean up neighborhoods, and the reinstatement of cash benefits to those receiving federal assistance. Although all of these things would help reduce poverty and give people of color a greater opportunity to advance, I suspect that you may disagree with the last one, and so I’ll explain.
While it is certainly ideal in some regards that job creation in the inner cities and other communities of color be prioritized, I must respectfully disagree over the issue of federal assistance. The current trend in the U.S. is to give “food stamps” (SNAP) to those who cannot find adequate employment for themselves. Clinton’s famous welfare “reforms” effectively eliminated cash benefits for those in poverty. The problem is that SNAP only pays a third of the poverty line. If we want to talk about giving young children of color real prospects (rather than merely preparing them for jail), then we have to do better. And given the crisis of underemployment and unemployment facing these communities, cash benefits are necessary in giving parents and children a stable economic footing. Now, you may ask how productive that is, but even if a parent can’t find work (and ideally he or she would be able to if real investment in job creation was happening), at least he or she will be able to provide for himself or herself and his or her child’s future. Moreover, I’m very skeptical of the idea that only “work” as it has traditionally been conceived is socially productive. If a mother or father wanted to, say, be a full-time, stay-at-home parent, who’s to say that is any less productive than a mother or father working multiple jobs and barely seeing his or her child? I think a good case could be made for salaried housework, and, along with the other proposals I made, it would certainly do a great deal in transforming the culture of many of these communities as well.
more and if i don't stand up for my rights shame on me. The media has us thinking that i'm mistreated, I have the advantage of my color that my fellow white student doesn't have and if I don't take advantage of that shame on me, that I have no one else to blame but myself. The media and others make it difficult for those like me because of my color. I get doors opened to me and others have to struggle. I've received apps that others can't qualify for yet their scores and grades are better
Asked by: Anonymous
First part:
Why does everyone obsess with race? I wish they would elimate the race box on applications. My uncle has told me that if I want to be a stupid N, thats my choice, and he doesn’t want to associate with me, he’s been very successful. He has an outstanding job in Minnesota and highly respected. He’s been able to get his degree like anyone else. I shouldn’t go and blame anyone as now I have so many opportunities open to me that other races don’t have. He told me that we’re not in the 60 &70’s any
While there are many people who share your uncle’s views, I find them limited in certain regards. Of course it’s true that progress has been made in some areas, but that does not mean that structural racism does not still exist or that the history of racial oppression in the U.S. doesn’t continue to affect people of color in America today. Take wages, for instance, where the average black household only earns 56 percent of what the average non-Hispanic white household earns (for the record, this is about the same discrepancy that did exist in the ’60s), while Latin@ households earn only 60 percent of what non-Hispanic white households earn. For minorities generally — including African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians — the figure is as low as 19 percent relative to their white counterparts.
The historical legacy of slavery, discrimination, and housing segregation has left many communities of color with poorer living standards, inferior educational resources, and fewer job opportunities compared to their more affluent white peers. Even those people of color who have struck it rich in the U.S. are not as rich as their white counterparts. For instance, only 19 percent of African-American families and 18 percent of Latin@ families earn an income above $75,000, compared with 40 percent of non-Hispanic white families. And even those who did pass the threshold were more likely to do so using multiple sources of income than whites were.
This isn’t entirely surprising. Studies have found that, even where credentials are equal, black applicants are less likely to be hired for jobs than white applicants. But even finding work can be difficult for those living in the inner cities, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color. But, of course, that is no accident. White flight, after all, was facilitated not just by the disproportionate gains of white Americans during the beginning and middle of the twentieth century, but in many cases white-biased zoning (where residents in a predominantly white part of town would be given lower interest rates on home loans) and federal withholding of maintenance capital mortgages to non-white communities played a direct part in facilitating the urban decay and residential segregation that we see today.
That being the case, I think it’s wonderful when individuals can sometimes — through a good deal of hard work and good luck — obtain the decent standard of living to which they’re entitled. But, of course, there are countless others who work hard and cannot do so, and the factors I’ve already mentioned certainly play into that for a great many of them. That is why programs like affirmative action are so important. It is not that they give preferential treatment to people of color who are on equal economic and social footing with their white counterparts. Rather, these programs merely acknowledge the inherently unfair historical and institutional privileges which whites enjoy and seek to level the playing field by giving priority to students of color who continue to be underrepresented in universities across the country (to say nothing of their absence in the political sphere) through no fault of their own.
In short, while I sympathize with the sentiments which you’ve expressed, it’s important to note that “color blindness” does nothing in the way of rectifying injustices. Oftentimes, such attitudes merely justify the status quo. After all, if one does not account for the rôle of discrimination and structural racism in assessing the current social and economic climate, then one would be forced to conclude that people of color are simply less intelligent and less hardworking than their white peers. That, of course, is possibly the most racist (and historically absurd) position that one could assume. The problems that one sees in these communities — chronic underemployment, lower life expectancies, and substandard test scores — are not because they are inherently inferior to whites, but because the ideology of white supremacy is still very much operative in American society and institutions today.
Israeli settlers from the illegal settlement of Yitzhar set fire to Palestinian fields in the village of Ufir. Settlers opened fire to Palestinians villagers, some of which were wounded and taken to hospitals, according to eyewitnesses. - May 26, 2012
(Source: frompalestinewithlove, via fuckyeahmarxismleninism)
Victory: Activist Sue Obama, Judge Rules NDAA Unconstitutional
In a stunning turnaround for an act of Congress, a judge ruled Wednesday that a counterterrorism provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual defense appropriations bill, is unconstitutional. Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued an injunction against use of the provision on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who had filed suit in March, claiming it would chill free speech.
In her decision published Wednesday, Forrest, in the Southern District of New York, ruled that Section 1021 of NDAA was facially unconstitutional — a rare finding — because of the potential that it could violate the 1st Amendment.
“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment,” she wrote, addressing the constitutional challenge.
Seven individuals, including Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg, had sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and a host of other government officials, stating they were forced to curtail some of their reporting and activist activities for fear of violating Section 1021. That section prohibits providing substantial support for terrorist groups, but gives little definition of what that means. Environmental activists were also poised to join the suit if it expanded.
The suit demands that Congress cut or reform this section of the law, which allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain without charges anyone — including U.S. citizens — who may have “substantially supported” terrorists or their “associated forces,” without defining what those terms mean. President Obama signed the bill on Dec 31, 2011, with a signing statement saying that the law was redundant of powers already provided to the government under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (passed after 9/11), and that these powers would not be used against U.S. citizens. The next administration may decide differently, however.
(via pieceinthepuzzlehumanity)
If we adopt international standards, not U.S. [or] American standards — say, the UN definition of human rights: economic, social, cultural, political, civil rights — if we use that criteria, it’s interesting. You will see the Iraq War is a violation of human rights. Fifty million people without insurance is a violation of human rights. China has its share of problems, but it’s always necessary to remember that when we discuss human rights, we have to first of all ask the Chinese, not Washington, not Brussels, not Paris, not London. You ask ordinary ordinary Chinese [people], whether in China, Beijing, Shanghai, or elsewhere […], “What do you think of China’s human rights? Are they better now than before?” I think, by conservative estimates, most Chinese think that their human rights are better than any time before.
China hits back on U.S. human rights
China criticized a “woeful” human rights record in the United States on Friday, a day after a U.S. report said Beijing’s own record is getting worse, with harsh crackdowns on dissidents.
“The United States’ tarnished human rights record has left it in no state — whether on a moral, political or legal basis — to act as the world’s ‘human rights justice,’ ” China said in an annual report on U.S. human rights.
The report cited the arrests of protesters participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States. Many protesters, it said, accused police of brutality.
It also said the United States has “fairly strict restrictions” on the Internet, saying the U.S. Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act both have clauses about monitoring the Internet, giving the government or law enforcement organizations power to monitor and block any Internet content “harmful to national security.”
Successful eviction defense of the Cruz family home in South Minneapolis. May 23rd, 2012.
For almost a month, the local Occupy Homes movement has maintained a presence in a foreclosed home in South Minneapolis. The house belongs to the Cruz family who are staying elsewhere since receiving their eviction notice. With the consent of the Cruz family, Occupy Homes has been using the house as a local social center while occupying the home and protesting an impending eviction.
On May 23rd, 5-6 sheriff’s deputies arrived at the house to carry out the eviction of the home. The deputies knocked down the back door and entered the home to find 5 people. Three of the people left peacefully, but two of them locked themselves together while straddling a window that led to a second story porch. While the deputies attempted to remove the remaining protesters, Occupy Homes alerted their network of supporters and soon there were over 50 people at the home. Some protesters blocked the street in both directions to raise awareness of the eviction, while others encircled the home, holding hands and banners to show support.
The deputies eventually gave up trying to remove the remaining protesters inside the home and left. Even more people locked themselves to the home in case more police officers were on their way. Eventually the Minneapolis Police Department came to deal with the blocked traffic, but then made an agreement with the protesters. The police officers stated that they were not there for the eviction and that they would leave if the protesters stopped blocking traffic.
With all law enforcement gone, Occupy Homes declared the defense a success and continued on with the occupation of the home.
(via amodernmanifesto)
In Venezuela Chavez has made the co-ops a top political priority, giving them first refusal on government contracts and offering them economic incentives to trade with one another. By 2006, there were roughly 100,000 co-operatives in the country, employing more than 700,000 workers. Many are pieces of state infrastructure – toll booths, highway maintenance, health clinics – handed over to the communities to run. It’s a reverse of the logic of government outsourcing – rather than auctioning off pieces of the state to large corporations and losing democratic control, the people who use the resources are given the power to manage them, creating, at least in theory, both jobs and more responsive public services. Chavez’s many critics have derided these initiatives as handouts and unfair subsidies, of course. Yet in an era when Halliburton treats the U.S. government as its personal ATM for six years, withdraws upward of $20 billion in Iraq contracts alone, refuses to hire local workers either on the Gulf coast or in Iraq, then expresses its gratitude to U.S. taxpayers by moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai (with all the attendant tax and legal benefits), Chavez’s direct subsidies to regular people look significantly less radical.
