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.
Any underage gang member with an Uzi would be quickly neutralized in the society I envision where membership would not bestow priviledges.
I would assume elder members in a gang might want to voluntarily restrict gun possession to those capable of expressing the greatest amount of self control as opposed to having all h*ll break loose on their heads.
This election cycle will end up all about (OMG!) the dreaded inanimate object called a gun.
Forget the FACT that people kill people, not guns.
Again... what don't they understand about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
gotta go I can't risk the rise in BP level.
To avoid giving them the idea that you may be a member of some right-wing militia. In most states, they can hold you and your vehicle in place while they go and obtain a warrant. Since that warrant would have to based upon probable cause, try to avoid giving them any probable cause by what you say to them.
--Boot Hill
This is my fictional take on the subject of "consent" (sic) searches, from my novel.
*************************************************************************************** The young father in the white Ford Taurus, the second car from the front of the line, said “No sir, I won’t open my trunk without a warrant, and I do not ‘consent’ to be searched.”
The Virginia National Guard corporal standing outside his driver’s side window looked around, confused. This situation had not come up before. Could this guy just refuse? Was that allowed?
The holdout’s young blond wife said “Martin, just do like he says. Don’t make trouble; the girls are frightened.”
“Honey, it’s the point of it. This is still America, and there’s still a Constitution.”
“Daddy, why are there soldiers here? Is there a war?” asked seven year old Danielle from the back seat. Her four year old sister Ashley next to her in her booster seat sucked her thumb, afraid without knowing why.
“No sweetie, there’s no war. The soldiers are helping the police to look for some bad men.”
“Criminals daddy?”
“That’s right sugar plum, criminals.”
Another man walked up to their window. Martin Palmer could not tell if he was from the military or the police: he was dressed in black from his helmet to his boots, with no badge or insignia in sight. The man in black rapped on his driver’s side window with the steel muzzle tip of his black submachine gun. “Open up! Get out! Now!”
“Officer, do you have a warrant? What’s your ‘probable cause’ to search our car?” Martin Palmer was trying very hard not to show the fear he felt, holding onto the wheel to keep his hands from visibly shaking. He hoped he did not sound as afraid as he felt, he remembered the Eagle Scout in Maryland who had had his face shot off point blank by an FBI undercover agent with an M-16 rifle after a mistaken traffic stop.
“My ‘probable cause’ is you’re an asshole who refuses to give consent for a search, that’s what! Now get out! Out! Out!”
(Read the rest of this chapter called "The Checkpoint" by clicking HERE.)
I do not understand how you can characterize "...shall not be infringed" as a failure of comprehension.
Let's analyze your arbitrary "qualifications" for firearm ownership for their consistency to the presumption of liberty.
--"sanity": what is the definition of sanity? I can make a case of an insanity judgement to be labeled on all of the citizens that encouraged our government to unconstitutionally prohibit the private property owners of the airlines from encouraging their customers to carry their firearm on the aircraft as a deterrent to potential hijackers.
--"of age": We drive autos at 16, at 18 we can be drafted to die for our country plus leave our parents homes, but cannot consume alcohol until we are 21. What arbitrary age are you going to pick to exert a constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
--"clean": Clean from what? Are you talking about ingested chemicals? Which chemicals? Just illegal chemicals or illegal plus some legal chemicals? What about prescripted chemicals? What about food additives? When did the 9th amendment get repealed?
--"non-felony record": A divorced man, with children and thus saddled with court ordered child support payments, loses his job in the telecommunications industry (11,900 furloughs in that industry in April '03 alone) and begins to fall behind on the child support payments.
After six months of non-payment or $5,000 of missed payments, which ever comes first, that man will be charged and probably be convicted of a felony.
Now, after that conviction, he cannot exert "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." by your reasoning.
In all of your examples, all you have accomplished is disparaging and denying liberties and lining the pockets of the lawyers with the money of average citizens caught in the web of your arbitrary qualifications for firearm ownership.
As a brilliant attorney with the CATO institute has so clearly stated in the second amendment lawsuit in DC, "Arguments on the “reasonableness” of the law would reduce the litigation to a mere policy debate, rather than the indispensable debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban."
If you say "No." to a consensual search, then you must have something to hide, right?
Which means that they now have probable cause to search your vehicle.
Tell us, sir, have you quit beating your wife yet? Yes or No.
Another man walked up to their window. Martin Palmer could not tell if he was from the military or the police: he was dressed in black from his helmet to his boots, with no badge or insignia in sight. The man in black rapped on his driver’s side window with the steel muzzle tip of his black submachine gun. “Open up! Get out! Now!”
I posted a link to that chapter back around 47.
I wonder what the silent K-9 command is for "I know you don't smell any drugs Fido, but sit by the door and bark anyway."
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.