City of Atlanta will fight lawsuit from Kathryn Johnston’s family instead of settling. They’re going to argue that these were rogue cops, and not part of some systemic failure. That’s going to be hard to do, given that Chief Pennington dismissed the city’s entire narcotics unit.
Harvard economist Jeff Miron argues for drug legalization at CNN.
Allen County, Indiana cops seize $26,000 from a motorist. No drugs. No criminal charges. They just took his money. The article says, “First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs.” Uh, couldn’t both be true?
Let’s go ahead and stipulate that Rep. Michele Bachmann is an idiot. That said, this Salon criticism of her is off-base. The mere fact that Congress authorized the executive to do something doesn’t mean said authorization was constitutional. And frankly, I’d like to see a lot more members of Congress actually seeking out what part of the Constitution authorizes a given policy. (Note: I’m also aware that Michele Bachmann does not adhere to such constitutional scrutiny on issues where doing so would undermine her own position.)
Grand Rapids newspaper editorializes on the lack of information coming from police in the wake of the Derek Copp shooting. I think I’ve reached the point where I can almost predict the time-line on these stories. Ten days to two weeks after the shooting? Time for the obligatory newspaper editorial expressing disappointment in lack of transparency from the police department.
Artist-cum-med student puts household objects under CT scanner, with pretty fascinating results.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 at 1:59 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Motorist Freedom, Police Militarization, Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Can we just agree now that the SCOTUS case that held civil asset forfeiture legal is among the worst decisions the court has ever come up with?
Bachmann was trying to get him to say that there is independent constitutional authority for the action, not state the the constitutional authority basis that grounds the statutory authority under which the action would be taken. In other words, she didn’t even know what she was asking.
Atlanta fighting the lawsuit is a good thing, since they will be forced to divulge a LOT of information that they like to keep hidden.
… which is, of course, systemic of the Republican mantra of the Bush administration’s reliance on inherent executive authority under the Constitution that we’ve had the past eight years.
I love how cops are now the arbiters of how much money a “normal” person can have. Is it normal to $1000 in cash on a Friday night but not a Tuesday afternoon? What if they stopped and questioned a bum on the street and the bum had two 20s on him? Would that be considered “above normal” for someone like a bum to have on his person?
You would think these cases migh start popping up more as people will probably start carrying more cash on them due to mistrust of financial institutions.
“Let’s go ahead and stipulate that Rep. Michele Bachmann is an idiot.”
I live in her district. Shes gone after the next redistricting. There is no way after redraw that she could ever be elected. They had to carve out a strange looking area to come up with a geographic area that would elect something like her to begin with.
Did you know her husband runs a christian counseling center where they try to turn gay people straight? I kid you not.
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2007/08/marcus-bachmanns-clinics-make.html
“City of Atlanta will fight lawsuit from Kathryn Johnston’s family”
That will keep this incident and this issue in the publics eye for a long time, fostering continued discussion. This is a good thing from that perspective, but it does suck for the family.
I agree with #3 Z.
It won’t be better for the family, but Atlanta fighting in court means they can’t sweep this under the rug with a check written out of court.
That Allen County seizure article is pretty lacking in definitives, isn’t it? Count how many times the words “usually, probably, and likely” are used throughout the piece.
Now if I happened to question these agencies as to the exact origins of their bloated budget windfall and got nothing but vague ballparks and generalities, then per their own modus operandi I’d be perfectly entitled to just take the cash and drive away, right?
Ginger Dan-”I love how cops are now the arbiters of how much money a “normal” person can have. Is it normal to $1000 in cash on a Friday night but not a Tuesday afternoon? What if they stopped and questioned a bum on the street and the bum had two 20s on him? Would that be considered “above normal” for someone like a bum to have on his person?”
I am a commercial fisherman and in the next week or so will be hauling the boat out at drydock for repairs. I had about $7000 cash in two coffee cans in my house and my sister had some guys over to do some work and they stole about $2500 out of them. There’s no way in hell I was calling the cops to report a theft though because then the police would have stolen the rest of the money. THAT”S the kin of America we live in today.
#5 Ginger Dan
I agree. LEOs presume that this amount of cash must be “ill-gotten.” Fits perfectly with their presumption of guilt.
This is along the same line as determining the amount of cannibus that is “too much” for personal use and “must be” for distribution.
Re: Bachman
Really good point, Radley. This line from Salon “Perhaps this is unkind, but Bachmann didn’t seem to appreciate that Congress’ power to legislate is in the Constitution.” Is lazy at best and very misleading at worst.
The author of that post seems to think that the Constitution says congress “can pass some laws when it wants.” Which it obviously does not say. And yes, it would be earth-shatteringly wonderful if Congresspersons would just once in a while have a thought process resembling “hmm, I like this law. Now let me make sure the constitution authorizes it, both in letter and in spirit.”
While of course Congress can and has passed unconstitutional laws, and so a law is not per se Constitutuonal, there is also a doctrine that says Congress can not delegate or hand over *any* power IT may possess to another body willy-nilly. For example, Congress couldn’t have the Supreme Court write a law (see the line-item veto issue for such an example as applied to the executive.) So there is also that concern.
All that said, Geithner’s reply is appropriate and sufficeint given that he is a government officer looking to do a job and is under orders from the President and Congress to do that job a certain way. It’s not a good answer from a politician or a Constitutional scholar, but it’s fine for a beauracrat, since such matters are and probably should be over his head.
“All that said, Geithner’s reply is appropriate and sufficeint given that he is a government officer looking to do a job and is under orders from the President and Congress to do that job a certain way. It’s not a good answer from a politician or a Constitutional scholar, but it’s fine for a beauracrat, since such matters are and probably should be over his head.”
Despite the fact that the courts and lawyers insist on turning the Constitution into a Gnostic document which only they can understand, it is pretty simply written. If it is over Geithner’s head, how is it that he is expected to have the ability to “run” something much more complicated, the economy?
I’m fine with her questioning the constitutionality of Congress’ actions in the law. But why is she questioning Geithner about it? Is he supposed to question Congress’s ability to empower him after they’ve provided him the power?
The time to raise this is during the passing of the bill. Or, if she thinks that he’s doing something beyond the powers provided him by Congress, that’s fine, too. But she’s obviously just grandstanding here.
It’s stunning how the cops talk about just taking money from people without any justification. They’re so used to it that they take it for granted that there is no need to justify it. It never occurs to them that they have taken over the role once played by the guys they’re paid to lock up.
And the public sits idly by, content in the knowledge that it must be ok because the cops, after all, are the good guys, kind of like the Stockholm Syndrome on a national scale or like the wife who doesn’t leave the man who repeatedly beats her.
Jerri Lynn,
I meant that it is over Geithner’s head in terms of his job description, not his cognitive abilities.
I’m not saying a beauracrat should never examine the constitutionality of their actions or raise those questions, and likewise I’m not saying Geithner’s answer was a great one. But I do not have a problem with a beauracrat putting their head down and following the laws, and the instructions of their superiors. I would tend to hold the law-writers and the superiors responsible for failing to follow the constitution, in nearly every case (insert excpetions here for criminal behavior or such things).
Bachmann’s questioning is pretty silly, but anything that makes a politician or bureaucrat uncomfortable is great by me. In fact, I think the safest course for this country would be for Bachmann and Geithner to discuss this for the next year before any action is taken.
It’s always shocking to me how little outrage is expressed over the obscene asset forfeiture practices in this country. I find it difficult to think of a process that would do more to invite corruption than the current asset forfeiture rules.
“I think I’ve reached the point where I can almost predict the time-line on these stories.”
Sad days. The scary part is there’s no foreseeable end to it.
“Those factors allowed police to take the money.”
NO …. The fact that they were armed is what allowed them to take the money. Same as any other thief.
I used to keep my cash, gold coins, and other valuables in my gun box, which is small and hidden but easily accessible in case of emergency. Then I realized that if police/thieves took my guns/money, both guns and money would be lost forever. That’s just me — afraid that forced gun confiscation will also turn into forced money confiscation.
JS — that sucks man. Maybe you should bury those cans because god help you if you get pulled over doing 43 in 40 and you had cash on you.
MacGregory — great point.
Ginger Dan-yea it was my bad, but it just illustrates that we fear our government more than any criminals. I predict its only going to get worse.
$26,000 is probably 6 months salary for some of those cops and they just casually stole it. There’s no way I could get past, and keep my house and my truck.
These seizures never cease to amaze me.
WRT Bachmann
I’ll bet most on this blog also do not hold to strict constitutional standards. Most writers/journalists want to believe the SC’s interpretation of the First Amendment and it’s application against the States under the 14th Amendment rather than recognize that the First was singled out to apply to Congress only. People believe what they want to believe regardless of reality.
And most people do not understand the concept of Creator/created as applied to the Constitution and to the government. The SC cannot interpret/translate/read between the lines of the Constitution because the SC is subordinate to the Constitution. If you ain’t the boss, you don’t make the rules.
Something from a better, more constitutional time:
Tiochfaidh ar la!
FWB — “Our Day Will Come!”
Nice to see some Irish on this blog.
Re: City of Atlanta will fight lawsuit from Kathryn Johnston’s family instead of settling. They’re going to argue that these were rogue cops, and not part of some systemic failure. That’s going to be hard to do, given that Chief Pennington dismissed the city’s entire narcotics unit.
Radley, you do realize you just proved why there are usually no meaningful changes after an incident like Johnston’s: Cities won’t make changes because they are afraid the change will be used against them in court, and aren’t smart enough to realize that (1) a bunch of little judgments will add up to the same amount as one massive judgment and (2) the rules of evidence prevent admission of steps taken by the defendant to fix the problem after it has occurred.
“But I do not have a problem with a beauracrat putting their head down and following the laws, and the instructions of their superiors. I would tend to hold the law-writers and the superiors responsible for failing to follow the constitution, in nearly every case (insert excpetions here for criminal behavior or such things).”
Nick, I would certainly agree that the law-writers and superiors have greater culpability for allowing violations of the Constitution, but the Treasury Secretary does take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/treasury/officials.shtml#q5
I expect all government officials in any branch to take their oaths seriously. I’m a big fan of the doctrine of interposition.
I would further add that any citizen called to serve on a jury has a duty to see that the Constitution is upheld in the particular case before them. They should generally go along with the way other courts have decided in similar cases, but since the facts in every case will be slightly different, they need to examine for themselves the particulars of the case before him in reaching a decision.
For example, the Constitution says that “unreasonable” searches are illegitimate. Courts have issued a number of decisions over the years regarding what is reasonable and what is not. Nonetheless, in cases involving searches, a jury should examine the facts of the particular searches pertaining to the case before them, since it’s likely that no court has ever examined a case precisely like theirs. So many factors affect what’s “reasonable” that such issues must be decided in individual cases.
The mere fact that Congress authorized the executive to do something doesn’t mean said authorization was constitutional. And frankly, I’d like to see a lot more members of Congress actually seeking out what part of the Constitution authorizes a given policy.
I agree with both of these statements, but she’s still a major idiot and Salon was right. It’s like asking the exterminator what in the condo charter allows him to spray for termites; he’s going to stare at you blankly because that’s YOUR job to know, not his, and you should have thought of that before you hired him.
Does anyone know if there is any movement afoot to get the Johnstons some pro bono legal representation? Or a fund that can be donated to for this purpose?
And if a Mister Private Citizen were to get hold of a pack of dye such as tellers hide in hold-up loot, and the dye-pack exploded and marked with a bright indelible purple stain the cops who stole it, you can be sure there would be quickly new legislation prohibiting private possession of such dye-packs.
Re: Asset forfeiture
They were speeding, why did they step out of the car? Why were they patted down? Why was the car searched? None of the above are even relevant to the part where you are given the speeding ticket.
“… the dye-pack exploded and marked with a bright indelible purple stain the cops who stole it…”
That would probably get you a “battery on a police officer” charge.