« Law - "For now, progress is constrained by the limited capacities of mortgage servicing companies" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending July 10, 2009 »

Friday, July 10, 2009

Courts - DC Police Use of Vehicle Checkipoints enjoined by DC Circuit

A panel of the DC Circuit today, in the case of Mills v. D.C., granted a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the "neighborhood safety zone" system of police roadblocks recently instituted in the District of Columbia, finding that there was strong likelihood of success on the merits - the constitutional challenge:

SENTELLE, Chief Judge: Four District of Columbia citizens (appellants) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin further implementation of a police checkpoint program in the District of Columbia. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellants failed to show either irreparable harm or a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Because we hold that the appellants’ showing of irreparable harm is sufficient, and conclude that appellants have shown a substantial likelihood of success, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.* * *

In short, we conclude that appellants have established the requisites for the granting of a preliminary injunction. They have made a particularly strong showing of the substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The district court did not address the other two elements of the preliminary injunction test. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.

The Court relied heavily on a case out of Indianapolis:
Most plainly controlling of the case before us is the Supreme Court decision in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). In Edmond, the Court considered a checkpoint program conducted by the City of Indianapolis in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Under the stipulated facts of the case, officers operating pursuant to directions issued by the chief of police would for a limited period of time stop all vehicles without particularized suspicion, look for signs of impairment, conduct an open view examination of the vehicle from the outside, and have a narcotics-detection dog walk around the outside of each stopped vehicle. After observing that “[a] search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing,” the Court observed that “we have recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply.” Edmond, 531 U.S. at 37. The Court recognized that it had in the past upheld the constitutionality of a checkpoint stop for border protection, see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and “a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road,” id. (citing Sitz, 496 U.S. 444). But the Court stressed that “[w]e have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Edmond, 531 U.S. at 41. The Court then concluded that “[b]ecause the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 48. It is this rule which governs the present case, and as the purpose of the NSZ checkpoint program is not immediately distinguishable from the general interest in crime control, appellants’ argument that the seizures were unconstitutional appears headed for ultimate victory.
[More] The Washington Post now has posted a story on the opinion. Maria Glod reports in a story that begins:
A federal appellate court has ruled today that checkpoints run by D.C. police in neighborhoods beset by crime violate the constitutional rights of residents.

In a strongly worded opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit condemned the crime-fighting tactic, which was used by police last summer in the city's Trinidad area. The checkpoints followed a spate of shootings, including a triple homicide.

"It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access," Chief Judge David Bryan Sentelle wrote for a three-judge panel. "It is apparent that appellants' constitutional rights are violated."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 10, 2009 01:51 PM
Posted to Courts in general