Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff's task force to search cars in Milwaukee for guns
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 7 May 03 | Reid J. Epstein

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; privacy; privacylist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-185 next last
To: plusone
When the 2nd refers to 'arms', does it just mean guns or can the definition be broadened to include any weapon?

It includes such objects as could reasonably be used as weapons in the context of a well-functioning militia.

61 posted on 05/07/2003 10:22:23 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Handlers can teach their dog to do anything.......false alerts or hits are a piece of cake for a good handler to teach his pup.

Stay Safe !

62 posted on 05/07/2003 10:25:00 PM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I wonder what the silent K-9 command is

I think it more the order to bring in the other dog. When the real dog didn't alert they brought out Bobby's dog - he barks if a flea bites him.

63 posted on 05/07/2003 10:26:38 PM PDT by Flyer ()()()[-]()()()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
I'm sure the Police would NEVER teach their dogs to alert when there was nothing to alert on, just as a pretext for an illegal search.

< /sarcasm >

64 posted on 05/07/2003 10:28:00 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Flyer
I wonder how many dogs they would have brought out until they found one to "alert" on your car?
65 posted on 05/07/2003 10:29:08 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: plusone
Because of the radioactive debris left by mini nukes they have been practically regulated out of existence by the EPA. The optional shielding package costs only 10 figures. Further, DOT regulations on shipping make a $500 mini nuke just a little too expensive to ship more than 100 feet... (just kidding).

In all seriousness, arms included swords, pikes, knives, battle axes and hatchets, as well as firearms at the time the 2nd was written. I do not know if they meant to include crew served weapons (cannon), but the folks who could afford such were not likely to be other than responsible members of society, at least on land. Blasting powder (the premier explosive of the day)was not regulated, as it was only a different grind of the powder used in the firearms).

At sea, some unsavory types seized entire vessels with cannon, but that is another story, and they flew a different flag (skull and bones.)

While arms are certainly more sophisticated today, the basic thought prevails. A wise, honorable, and noble person will use arms in a wise fashion, even without laws. Criminals will not pay attention to any law.

If there were no criminals, no predators, the rest would not need arms to defend themselves, but that genie will not be put back in the bottle in the world as we know it.

Would I knowingly live next door to someone who had a mini-nuke? If they bought the optional shielding package, but remember, that here in North Dakota, "next door" is often a mile or two away...

66 posted on 05/07/2003 10:30:11 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
What is the story of Wisconsin Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon. Can you get a permit>??
67 posted on 05/07/2003 10:30:19 PM PDT by BooBoo1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I have an Article 15 that proves I taught my pup to act like a WAF (not a pretty picture)....and she did ......in front of a WAF Lt Colonel.... I was so proud........

Acting like it hit on a seek command as I stated is even easier :o)

Stay Safe !

68 posted on 05/07/2003 10:35:57 PM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
This isn't an invasion of privacy. It's a consent search. They ask you if they can search your vehicle. If you consent, they search, hence the name. If you don't, they don't, and you go on your way unless they havecan invent a legal reason to detain you.

What legitimate reason is there for a cop to ask permission to search a vehicle? If probable cause exists, no consent is needed. If probable cause does not exist, what is the basis for asking?

In any traffic stop, the clear implication is that the motorist is at the mercy of the police officer who is in a position to write a ticket or not based upon whether he 'likes' the motorist. This is clearly a coercive position on the part of the police officer, and officers who ask concent for searches are taking advantage of it. What legitimate reason is there to allow them to do so?

69 posted on 05/07/2003 10:36:40 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I did some research on that Task Force as a follow up and it is a known cesspool of fraud and corruption. I travel their multiple jurisdictions regularly - I am sure I will see them again some day. It will be difficult for me to be as polite next time.
70 posted on 05/07/2003 10:37:05 PM PDT by Flyer ()()()[-]()()()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Sixteen deputies, who have taken an extra 40 hours of constitutional rights training

BRAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ! WHY ? If they really took the class they'd know they can't take our guns in any manner or form under constitutional RKBA's as written.

What a bunch of BS......talk about a loose GRIP on reality.....these weenies are the prolem not the cure !

Stay Safe !

71 posted on 05/07/2003 10:41:17 PM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Great chapter in your book.

One of these days, the cops are gonna' search the wrong guy, find nothing and let him go.

Now that he knows where the checkpoint is, he comes back...this time well armed....

72 posted on 05/07/2003 10:44:33 PM PDT by wcbtinman (The first one is expensive, all the rest are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Where exactly is the word 'felon' found in the 2nd Amendment?

I'll hang out for a bit until you find it.

Hey, I'll give you a hint. I bet it's in the same desk drawer that you guys left the Warrant you supposedly had in Waco, just to the left of the one you put Randy Weavers Court Date in.

The only thing wrong with kicking your ass is that it's too easy.

(Insert Musical Interlude Here) Your Time Is Gonna Come.

Regards,

L

73 posted on 05/07/2003 10:51:03 PM PDT by Lurker ("One man of reason and goodwill is worth more, actually and potentially, than a million fools" AR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: supercat
What legitimate reason is there for a cop to ask permission to search a vehicle? If probable cause exists, no consent is needed. If probable cause does not exist, what is the basis for asking?

There is a gap between suspicion and probably cause. If a deputy has a suspicion, but not enough probably cause to stand up to a constitutional test, he can ask for consent. That's part of what they're trained to do - use their experience to detect when something just doesn't seem right. This isn't a roadblock with random searches. This is a situation where you have someone pulled over, and if you feel there is merit, you ask them to consent to a search. If they agree, you search. If they don't, they go on their way. The deputies don't like to waster their time, either. They're not going to go on fishing trips.

It's a valid, constitutionally tested tool for law enforcement. Again, I live in the area. I crossed over in the primary just to vote for David Clarke. He's only allowing deputies to do these searches who have had 40 hours on training as to the constitutionality of their search powers. He will hold any abuses of this accountable.

When he was being interviewed on the air this morning, somone called up and said an employee was asked to consent to a search during a traffic stop. After the stop the deputy gave him his card. That is the professionalism of his deparment and his approach. You are trained to do what you are asked. You are expected to follow your training and the law. And you will be held accountable for your actions as a deputy.

I know fully know and respect the constitution, and this doesn't go against it. It's just a tool available to fight crime, and I don't want to hamstring a trained police officer based on somebody's unfounded fears. I would rather have this available to be used under the discretion of trained officer than to deny it completely because some people see a bogeyman that isn't there.
74 posted on 05/07/2003 10:55:12 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Flyer
What you need are decals of Disneyland, your local PBS affiliate and such on the back window of your car (minivans work great) and you should notice a marked difference in the way you're treated.

Our local sheriff issues a sticker that indicates support (not sure if you get them by making contributions or just by being related) which are used on family cars that could come in handy.

75 posted on 05/07/2003 11:04:42 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
It's just a tool available to fight crime, and I don't want to hamstring a trained police officer based on somebody's unfounded fears.

If someone 'consents' to a search and the cop finds something, that suggests:

  1. the person is a total moron, or
  2. the person believed the cop was either going to search whether or not consent was given, or was otherwise going to punish non-consent, or
  3. the person had no knowledge of the item found, perhaps because it wasn't there when permission was given.
I know most crooks aren't the smartest knives in the drawer, so #1 is certainly plausible in many case, but it seems to me more people are apt to be found because of #2 or #3. We would both agree, I think, that in case #3 the cop shouldn't be stopping the motorist; I would argue the same for case #2.

So tell me, how many crooks are caught because of case #1 who wouldn't be easily caught in short order by other means?

76 posted on 05/07/2003 11:07:18 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I'd add:

4. the person had no knowledge of the item, because the person is driving a used car.

So I say buy cars new and get a CCW permit. Oh, Wisconsin has no CCW law. And if you can't make sense of this understand that I have mixed feelings about this particular story.

77 posted on 05/07/2003 11:12:53 PM PDT by Kryptonite (Free Miguel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
The car I was in was a four door sedan, as plain as it comes. It has a "100 Club of Houston" sticker on the rear window (it was on the car when I bought it). The car was clean inside and out, I am clean cut and was dressed nicely. I was very polite in my conversation. Other than flashing a badge, I don't know what else would have kept me from being on that officer's hit list. He wanted to search my car and was going to do it one way or the other.
78 posted on 05/07/2003 11:16:47 PM PDT by Flyer ()()()[-]()()()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Ever watch cops? Quite a few. A lot of criminals are morons. They get caught for doing stupid things because they are stupid. Some of them think the cops won't find anything. If you're going to allege planting of evidence, that can be alleged during stops WITH probable cause and WITH warrants as well. So you might as well say "why do searches" because evidence could be planted there, too.

So to reverse the question, why would you want to completely deny this constitutionally valid tool from being used by trained officers?
79 posted on 05/07/2003 11:18:22 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
If they don't, they go on their way. The deputies don't like to waster their time, either. They're not going to go on fishing trips.

Not in my case.

80 posted on 05/07/2003 11:20:44 PM PDT by Flyer ()()()[-]()()()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-185 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson