You just gotta shake your head at the irony of Sharon Heath's letter today (my emphasis):
My 20-year-old son parked along a side street in our neighborhood, having driven his brother to the bus stop. Unfortunately, they had parked on the wrong side of the road.Two New Castle County Police officers noticed this and stopped to inquire. As my son explained, the bus arrived and his younger brother boarded it. Next, the officers requested my son's license, proof of insurance and registration, which he provided and which checked out. Seeing that his explanation was truthful, the officers did not give him a ticket, nor did they let the matter drop.
The officers began interrogating him about whether he had anything in his car they "should know about." My son answered truthfully, "no." An officer asked if he were to bring a K-9 to the car, would the dog find anything. My son answered "no." This dialogue continued until out of exasperation my son said, "Why don't you just look for yourselves?"
The officers had him step out of the car, thoroughly searched it, then patted him down including between his legs. They found nothing.
The neighborhood is Collins Park, which has a bad reputation. I am tired of that sort of harassment. There are good families here and the police are supposed to protect us, not harass us beyond what is required to determine whether someone poses a threat or danger.
I would be willing to bet that in a better neighborhood, officers would have ignored the car or questioned the driver and moved on.
My house has been broken into four times and my car was demolished by a hit-and-run driver right in my own driveway. The police have never solved those crimes.
Until that day I never had anything but the utmost respect for the New Castle County Police and their efforts to do a very hard job. That day my feelings changed.
OK, let's see -- we have an admitted lousy neighborhood where Sharon's son admittedly violated a traffic ordinance (parking on the wrong side of the road). Sharon herself states why this neighborhood is lousy (house broken into FOUR times, car demolished), yet she is irate about police going about their business of trying to make the neighborhood better, i.e. checking traffic violators for any sort of contraband, weapons, etc. Why? Because it was her son. (Keep in mind that the police did not arbitrarily stop her son -- in other words, for no reason. He had committed a traffic violation.)
I bet if it were someone else, Ms. Heath would have a different perspective on the matter.
I gotta disagree here, Hube. The letter isn't dopey at all. I, for one, lament the fact that over the years "reasonable search and seizure" led to "probable cause" which led to "You parked on the wrong side of the road, so I get to search your car". Do you really think a parking violation is "probable cause"?
The crime rate of the neighborhood is irrelevant. Using that kind of utilitarian logic, we can justify raiding house-to-house on a fishing expedition. Yet somehow society is more aghast at home raids than they are at car raids. I tend to think they're both pretty abhorrent.
This has partially come from the DUI exception to the Constitution. Yes, DUI is a crime, and very well should be, but when murder suspects have more constitutional protections than DUI suspects, something is very wrong.
Most of the rest of the erosion has come from the War On Drugs. On the bright side, the more victims the War On Drugs claims, the more people will fight against it.
/libertarian rant
Posted by: The Unabrewer at June 8, 2007 09:43 PMAlthough I Tend to agree with Unabrewer, I wonder whether her son was totally cooperative with the police when approached. He may have given them reason to believe he had something to hide. His attitude and actions may have resulted in his being treated the way he was. I don't know whether mom was in the car so she really doesn't know whether the police response was justified. I'm somewhat familiar with this neighborhood and the police presence there. She is right that there are many good people there and the police certainly know that. They're there to protect her, her family and friends. You really need to let them do their job.
Posted by: Al at June 9, 2007 08:37 AMAgreed, Al, and that was pretty much my point. You cannot complain about the shitty conditions of a neighborhood, and then bitch when the police do their [legal] job just b/c it affects your son. It's analogous to airport screening in a way.
While I surely appreciate UB's libertarian analysis, I did say that the police had cause to pursue further investigation (although UB disagrees) and as you say, Al, I also tended to wonder if the demeanor and attitude of the son didn't cause the police to be more suspicious.
Posted by: Hube at June 9, 2007 09:11 AMActually, I'd argue that the "consent" to the search of the car was clearly coerced and involuntarily given. They were told they could not search the car, and continued to badger the young man until he responded to them in frustration. As such, I'd argue the letter is not dopey at all -- and is actually pointing out a practice of violating the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at June 9, 2007 09:33 AMYou're missing the point of the post, RwR. That's not what the mom is arguing and I see no "badgering" other than (according to mom) the cops asking if sniff-dogs were brought out that they'd find the son's initial statement truthful. Son could have simply said "no" as he did, and then leave it at that. If the cops were still insistent, son could have stood his ground not consenting to a further search and he'd clearly be in the right -- as is his right.
Posted by: Hube at June 9, 2007 09:40 AMI will grant that perhaps the young man's demeanor was not as innocent as the letter portrayed. However, I just can't see a minor parking violation as probable cause. It's not like he led the police on a high speed chase for 10 miles. It would be analogous to the police wanting to search your house because you failed to clear the snow from your sidewalk in a timely manner.
Posted by: The Unabrewer at June 9, 2007 07:01 PMGranted, a minor parking violation may not be probable cause. His interaction with the officer is what is in question here. We don't know what the young man said or did. He may have told them to go f**k themselves for all we know. He may have been drinking or using drugs, we don't really know. Taking everything into consideration I have to believe they acted as they thought appropriate for the situation.
Posted by: Al at June 9, 2007 10:22 PM