Posted on 05/07/2003 5:51:01 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. announced Tuesday he has established a gun crime task force that will rely on so-called consent searches of cars in the city, a practice that has been restricted among Milwaukee police.
Police Chief Arthur Jones was conspicuously absent from Clarke's news conference, attended by Mayor John O. Norquist, County Executive Scott Walker, U.S. Attorney Steven M. Biskupic and others. Clarke said Jones was "not invited, for no particular reason."
The chief said later that he didn't respond to Clarke's earlier effort to involve him because "it wasn't necessary," and that he hoped deputies' searches don't violate the rights of innocent citizens.
Consent searches, in which police get drivers' permission to search vehicles stopped for minor infractions, can turn up evidence of more serious crimes. Proponents say the tactic helps police find drugs and guns.
But critics say the practice invites abuse. In 1999, as concerns about racial profiling heated up nationwide, Jones changed Police Department policy to require that officers be able to demonstrate a "reasonable and articulable suspicion of evidence of contraband contained within the vehicle" if they seek consent to search.
Both Clarke and Jones have been mentioned as possible candidates for the 2004 mayor's race, but Clarke said Tuesday's announcement had nothing to do with politics. He said he has been planning the gun initiative for six months because he wanted to give deputies "every resource at our disposal" to combat gun violence.
"Our officers aren't going to need 17 stamps of approval to get things done," he said. "They're going to be able to make decisions themselves."
Clarke calls the new task force the Gun Reduction Interdiction Program, or GRIP. Sixteen deputies, who have taken an extra 40 hours of constitutional rights training, with work in pairs from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. and wear special black uniforms, rather than the standard brown.
Clarke said new scanners will allow GRIP deputies to monitor Police Department radio frequencies to better determine where illegal gun activity is taking place. Deputies and police officers cannot communicate with their standard radios - and still won't be able to.
"It's very silly, but we can overcome these things," Clarke said of the communication barrier.
Jones' absence 'telling' Robert "Woody" Welch, the chairman of the Fire and Police Commission, called Jones' absence from the task force "telling."
"One of the primary duties of a chief of police is to work cooperatively with other forms of government," Welch said.
In a March 18 letter to Jones, Clarke invited the Police Department to join the gun program, which he launched April 1.
"Our agencies working together in a cooperative effort by sharing intelligence and manpower would be a very positive step toward the prevention, control and reduction of crime in the city of Milwaukee," Clarke wrote. He said Jones has yet to respond to the letter.
"I don't want to read into the fact that I haven't heard from him," Clarke said. "But what do I have to do?"
Jones said he spoke with Clarke last week about an unrelated matter. "He never mentioned this to me," Jones said.
He expressed concerns about aspects of GRIP.
"Allowing officers to stop and search people, I don't think that that's in the best interest of the citizens of the city of Milwaukee," Jones said.
At the news conference, Norquist said the sheriff's initiative will help deter violent criminals.
"The main reason criminals commit crime is they think they can get away with it," Norquist said.
Some aldermen later expressed general support, though at least one shared Jones' concerns.
Ald. Tom Nardelli, chairman of the council's Public Safety Committee, said everyone can support reducing the number of illegal guns on city streets.
"It really doesn't make a difference who's doing it," he said. "If the sheriff has the kind of resources in his department, and the backing of Scott Walker and the County Board to do it, that's great."
Ald. Willie Hines agreed, with one caveat: "I would hope, however, that innocent individuals aren't harassed and their rights aren't violated in the process."
In December, the Fire and Police Commission directed Jones to develop a plan to fight violent crime. In response, Jones placed up to 300 officers per day on overtime, later reducing that to a maximum of 186 officers. Last week, he cut the extra patrols back to between 4 p.m. and 4 a.m.
Under the sheriff's initiative, deputies are exclusively assigned to gun crime.
"This will be their sole focus," he said. "I can't have them tied up for two or three hours investigating a traffic accident."
Clarke said Milwaukeeans are "not safe in our own homes. We're hostages behind security systems and locked doors.
But police department statistics show violent crime in the city is down 17% compared with last year, with shootings down 26%, the number of people shot down 19% and the number of gun-related incidents down 21%. As of Tuesday afternoon, there have been 33 homicides in Milwaukee, vs. 34 at this point in 2002.
"David Clarke's assertions are not true," Jones said. "The Milwaukee Police Department is effective in reducing crime in city of Milwaukee," Jones said. "The numbers speak for themselves."
Greg J. Borowski of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.
No. Taking responsibility for my own safety coupled with the courage to stand up to criminals... that makes a person "brave". Also a valuable asset to his/her community.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The "jackbooted thugs" as you are wont to call them aren't violating anybodys' rights, 2nd Amendment or otherwise. They are going into high crime areas using shifty yet legal tactics to attempt to pull weapons out of the hands of fools, criminals and gangster wanabes. Question my bravery for thinking that isn't such a bad idea . . .
It has been a while since I have reffered to any LEO as a JBT. Normally, I try to figure out the facts of a particular incident before making up my own opinion on government enforcer thuggery. "Stop and Search" has no place in our legal history. "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". If 5-10% of the population are engaged in criminal activity, why the hell aren't the other 90% of you packing? Afraid that the superiority of numbers will be overcome by sheer criminal chutzpah? Shifty? Legal? No. Just plain illegal. Or haven't you heard about the whole "warrant process" thing?
Perhaps you should pose the same question to the parents of children no longer with us because they were caught in the crossfire at the playground.
Playgrounds are currently off limits to CCW permit holders. As are school grounds. (sarcasm)I know! Why don't you pass a law making it DOUBLE ILLEGAL for people to have firearms in those victim disarmament zones. (/sarcasm) Moron.
Tough Guy. Pfffft . . .
Obviously not only "tougher", but smarter than some limp-wristed liberal spamming a conservative forum.
Yes, but instead of doing something effective to get rid of crime, he has his officers out sh!tting on the Constitutional Rights of every law abiding citizen they come across as well.
An armed populace is a MUCH greater deterrent and has the added benefit of not being extra-Constitutional.
This is important, so pay close attention. In no state are field sobriety tests a requirement, implied or otherwise. In no state are does a refusal to take a field sobriety test result in negative legal consequences. Field sobriety tests include such "performing monkey" tests as the Finger to Nose, Counting, Alphabet, Walking a Line, Horizontal Gaze One-Leg Stand, etc.
Do not confuse the totally voluntary field sobriety tests with the "implied consent" chemical tests (such as the breathalyzer, blood or urine tests) that are a condition of your driver's license. But before an officer can demand you submit to a chemical test, he must have an objective suspicion that your driving is impaired. That is the purpose of having you submit to a field sobriety test. Only a sucker will freely give the officer evidence that may be used against him in a court of law.
When stopped on suspicion of DUI, the officer may request that you submit to a field sobriety test. If you refuse, officers will often lie and tell you that both the field sobriety test as well as the chemical tests are a requirement under the "implied consent" law. Don't believe him. He is feeding you a line of BS. Only the chemical test is a requirement.
If the officer asks why you are "refusing a reasonable request to cooperate with law enforcement", simply tell them that, on advice of counsel, you decline performing any field sobriety test. (You might add that you are fully prepared to submit to any chemical tests, but only if they become legally necessary.) Don't argue the law with the officer. (They reeeeally hate that and it is a bad idea to antagonize them.) Don't quote the 4th or 5th Amendment. And don't become belligerent. Just stay relaxed and politely stand your ground.
--Boot Hill
No argument there. I don't relish the thought of the trouble I'm buying myself should I ever be required to use my weapon. Nor do I like the idea of being branded a criminal when I feel the need to carry. I'd really like to be "above board" so to speak . . .
All we can do is keep after the politicos . . .
Gestapo is Gestapo, in their 'hood or yours.
Which is a search in its own right. This is bullcrap.
Sure hope they bring plenty of MRE's and tents, because they will have GRANDCHILDREN before I allow them in.
By that time, my 6 o'clocks will have arrived with an assortment of powders and boat-tails.
The primary reason the cops receive so-called consent for such searches is that people perceive that the cop will make their life miserable if they don't consent. There are enough cops who behave in such behavior that such a belief on the part of citizens is emminently reasonable.
So-called "consent searches" should be forbidden for the same reason that even consensual sexual relationships are forbidden at most companies and universities between people who are in a boss-subordinate or teacher-student relationship. There is a clear imbalance of power, and there is no way to tell whether the subordinate person is freely consenting to the other person's behavior or whether they are going along with it because they feel intimidated.
There is nobody who is more pro-2nd Amendment than me. That’s why your posts disturb me. They are little different from posts claiming we have no real free speech not because we can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, but because an usher might throw a felon out of the cineplex for yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. It was like reading a DU parody of FR, especially when budwiesest told us we can assume that “elder members in a gang” can be counted on to keep the other felons in line. Wow, that would make me feel safer, giving the protection of the Constitution over to the folks who oversee crack sales. Is that what the farmers at Lexington were dying for?
If we’re going to use the word “Gestapo” to describe officers asking you to do a search (ever heard of the Gestapo asking permission to do anything?) then why not apply the word to warrant searches? If we’re going to reject their use of a Constitutional tool because some nasty cop might abuse it, then why not take the guns away from the police? After all, I’m sure there are rogue cops who misuse their pistols.
Sure I would like it if every law-abiding citizen in Milwaukee bought a gun and knew how to use it, because more guns(owned by citizens and not criminals)=less crime. Sure, I agree that you should feel free to refuse a search of your vehicle. But the way we will protect the 2nd Amendment is by winning the argument by showing the bankruptcy and un-Constitutionality of gun control, not by hamstringing law enforcement. If the text of this thread indicates the sort of arguments you folks are using outside this forum, you might as well start sending donations to Jim and Sarah Brady and make it a complete package. You don’t sound like defenders of the Constitution, you sound like you work for the ACLU but momentarily forgot that they don’t like guns.
Actually, you should get on mhking's "hold muh beer" ping list if you aren't already. The supply of "dumb criminals" news items makes it one of the highest volume ping lists on FR. Most of these people choose crime because they are too stupid/undisciplned to excel at real work or get into gangs before they are finished with school, and are severely undereducated. A surprising number of people consent to searches knowing that there are weapons or drugs hidden in the car.
And of course, jerks work in every profession...sorry you ran into one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.