GN summer fall09 Digital.indd - National Lawyers Guild

National Workthe 2000 Supreme Court ruling of Cityof Indianapolis v. Edwards, 531 U.S.32 (2000), which held that, generally,checkpoints instituted in the absenceof individualized suspicion and forthe purposes of general crime controlwere unconstitutional. The MPDcountered that Neighborhood SafetyZone checkpoints were not intended toresult in prosecution or arrest and thatthe purpose of protecting the neighborhoodby deterring criminal activity andfencing out potential criminals placedthe checkpoints outside the scope ofEdwards.The PCJF argued in its briefingthat, “If police could use the existenceof crime to justify suspension of constitutionalprotections, there would be noConstitution left to speak of.”Not only was the program unconstitutional,it was also ineffective.Despite D.C. Attorney GeneralNickles’ heated rhetoric and publicrelations campaign trying to justifythe massive civil rights violations,the MPD’s own statistics submitted tothe Court showed that violent crimedoubled during the operation of thecheckpoints.Nonetheless, United States DistrictJudge Richard J. Leon agreedwith the MPD and denied plaintiffs’motion for a preliminary injunction.The PCJF, filed an interlocutory appealand took the fight to the U.S. Court ofAppeals.On July 10, 2009, Chief JudgeDavid B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee,on behalf of a unanimous panelissued a strongly-worded opinionin favor of the plaintiffs. The Courtfound that “the harm to the rights ofappellants is apparent.” The Courtfound the Neighborhood Safety Zoneprogram violated persons’ FourthAmendment rights, and that “citizenshave a right to drive upon the publicstreets of the District of Columbia orany other city absent a constitutionallysound reason for limiting theiraccess.”Checkpoints like this one in Washington, D.C. were ruled unconstitutional in July thanksto the work of the Partnership for Civil Justice. Photo by Roger Scott.The Court of Appeals reversed thelower court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motionfor a preliminary injunction, findingthat “[t]hey have made a particularlystrong showing of the substantiallikelihood of success on the meritsand that they would suffer irreparableinjury if the injunction is not granted.”See Mills v. District of Columbia, No.08-7127 (D.C. Cir., July 10, 2009).The Court added, “It is apparent thatappellants’ constitutional rights areviolated.”The day before the PCJF filedsuit, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanierannounced that she would continueto impose the seizure and interrogationcheckpoint program “until a judgeorders me to stop.” That day has, quitedecisively, come. □CLE at Convention toAddress CheckpointsIssuesSeattle Plus 10: LitigationSkills Training for UniqueIssues in ConstitutionalRights Protest CasesWednesdayOctober 14, 20091-5 pmFor information onenrollment, contact:Mara Verheyden-Hilliardat mvh@justiceonline.orgor visitwww.nlg.org/convention.▪ 7 ▪