Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r8  >  r7  >  r6  >  r5  >  r4  >  r3  ...
ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 8 - 01 Oct 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 10 to 10
  In March of this year, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York announced that she would deploy hundreds of National Guard members, state police, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority officers into the City's busiest subways. This move was merely step one of Hochul's "five-point plan" for "deterring crime" and making New Yorkers feel more safe on the subway. However, in a nation deeply affected by instances of police brutality and a pervasive sense of distrust towards law enforcement, it is unsurprising that many individuals do not perceive this legally questionable decision by the governor as a means of increasing safety.

How can she do this (legally)?

Changed:
<
<
One of the main questions surrounding Hochul's deployment of the National Guard in the subways pertains to its legality. Does she have the authority to call in the National Guard? Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect against these kinds of unprompted searches? As with many other legal issues, the answer to these questions depends on several factors.
>
>
The National Guard is a US military branch that serves both federal and state governments. The Insurrection Act (Title 10, U.S. Code) allows the federal government to use the National Guard during times of civil disorder, as happened during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. At the state level, governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to "civil unrest," such as during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or following the 2020 protests against systematic racism and polic brutality when several governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.
 
Changed:
<
<
The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both federal and state governments. The federal government can utilize the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, Title 10 of the US Code, as happened during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.
>
>
While the governor’s authority to deploy the National Guard in these situations is well established, concerns remain regarding the legality of bag checks in the subway system under the Fourth Amendment. Past case law has outlined some exceptions to 4th amendment protections, particularly in cases involving what the court deems a special need. In New Jersey v. TLO (1985), school officials were accused of violating the Fourth Amendment after searching a high schooler’s bag without a warrant. However, the US Supreme Court ruled that while students have Fourth Amendment protections, school officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to search students’ belongings because of the government’s need to ensure safety in these circumstances. This case established that a compelling interest such as school safety could justify reduced Fourth Amendment protections.
 
Changed:
<
<
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoint searches are not inherently unconstitutional. More specifically, in Michigan v. Sitz, the Court held that police sobriety checkpoints aimed at combating drunk driving do not violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
>
>
However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edwards, SCOTUS clarified that these checkpoint searches cannot be used for general crime control. The Court struck down narcotics roadblocks, stating that they were unconstitutional because their purpose—general law enforcement—was too far removed from public safety concerns. This case reinforced that checkpoints and searches must directly relate to public safety rather than broader crime deterrence.
 
Changed:
<
<
Butt these aren't checkpoint searches, and you haven't explained what the actual orders to the Guard are.
>
>
Notably, this is not the first time bag checks have been used in the subway system. In 2005, Mayor Michael Bloomberg instituted the practice in response to the terrorist attacks in London and Madrid. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) challenged the constitutionality of these searches, arguing they violated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections. The District Court confirmed the legality of the bag searches, ruling that they were not “impermissibly intrusive.” In MacWade v. Kelly (2006), the Second Circuit affirmed this decision, stating that NYC’s use of “random, suspicionless” bag checks in the subway system was justified by the city’s compelling interest in preventing terrorist attacks. The Court viewed this as a “special need” that was “narrowly tailored and sufficiently effective” to address a legitimate public safety threat.
 
Changed:
<
<
The Court reasoned that the state's interest in preventing drunk driving was substantial and that the effectiveness of the checkpoints in achieving this goal justified the intrusion on an individual's privacy. After employing a balancing test weighing the state's interest and effectiveness of the checkpoints against the degree of intrusion, the Court ultimately found that the checkpoints were constitutional.

However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edwards, SCOTUS clarified that these checkpoint searches cannot be used for general crime control. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that roadblocks established for the sole purpose of detecting illegal narcotics were unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. The Court explained that the relationship between these roadblocks and public safety concerns was too attenuated to be constitutionally permissible. This case emphasized that any kind of checkpoint searches must be closely tied to immediate public safety concerns rather than general law enforcement crime deterrence objectives.

>
>
The bag check procedures in NYC subways were challenged again in Sultan v. Kelly et. al (2009), when a man was stopped 21 times between July 2005 and June 2008. The NYCLU argued that the NYPD had violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Given the NYPD’s system of checking every 25th bag, the NYCLU calculated that there was a one in 165th million chance that Sultan should have been stopped this many times, pointing to racial profiling and evidence that these bag checks were unconstitutional. A federal judge approved a monetary settlement after Sultan twice offered to forgo it, provided the NYPD agreed to monitor their bag check system for racial profiling—an offer the NYPD refused.
 

Potential Challenges

Changed:
<
<
1. Stated purpose of the checkpoints is unconstitutional.

The lack of clarity surrounding the subway checkpoints' stated purpose raises serious doubts about the constitutionality of this decision. While Hochul has stated that the checkpoints are for New Yorkers' safety, she has also suggested that they will help deter crime. Although seemingly connected, these justifications raise distinct legal implications. Removing "criminals" from the subway does not inherently correlate with the safety of other subway riders. For example, if someone were carrying illegal drugs through the subway, although classified as a criminal, their actions may not directly harm other passengers. Given the discrepancies in Governor Hochul’s stated reasons for the subway checkpoints, there could be potential legal challenges through this route. Someone stopped and searched by the National Guard and charged with a crime could raise a legitimate claim against the checkpoints for violating their 4th Amendment rights.

2. Procedure at checkpoints is unconstitutional.

>
>
1. Unclear Purpose of Searches
 
Changed:
<
<
While the checkpoints have only been in operation for a relatively short period, data regarding who is being stopped, what is being ceased from the bag searches, and the overall adherence to checkpoint protocols would raise further legal questions. The collection and analysis of such data are essential for evaluating the constitutionality and effectiveness of the deployment, ensuring that it remains within the bounds of the law while addressing legitimate safety concerns. Without citing any evidence, Hochul stated that additional security has been a success, pointing to NYPD data showing a 5% decrease in transit crimes compared to last April and announcing plans to reveal further statistics "very shortly."
>
>
The stated purpose of the subway bag checks—ensuring safety and deterring crime—raises legal concerns. Although seemingly connected, these justifications raise distinct legal implications. Hochul’s claim that these bag checks will help "deter crime" could be problematic, as City of Indianapolis v. Edmond has already stated that checkpoints aimed at general crime control are unconstitutional. Removing "criminals" from the subway does not inherently correlate with the safety of other subway riders. For example, if someone were carrying illegal drugs through the subway, although classified as a criminal, their actions may not directly harm other passengers. Someone stopped and charged with a crime after being searched may challenge the system for violating their Fourth Amendment rights, particularly if the search wasn’t tied directly to a pressing public safety concern.
 
Changed:
<
<
Additionally, transparency regarding the criteria for stopping individuals and the procedures followed during bag searches is crucial for maintaining accountability in law enforcement activities and identifying other potential claims. Any discrepancies or patterns of disproportionate targeting could prompt legal challenges based on principles of equal protection and Fourth Amendment rights.
>
>
2. Lack of Transparency
 
Changed:
<
<
3. Use of the National Guard violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

Lastly, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States except when specifically authorized by the Constitution or Congress. While the National Guard operates under the authority of state governors when not federalized, concerns may arise if their role in law enforcement blurs the lines set by this act. The deployment of the National Guard in civilian contexts is subject to scrutiny to ensure it does not overstep into areas traditionally managed by local law enforcement. While state activation of the National Guard for disaster relief and emergency response is well-established, using them in routine law enforcement roles, such as subway bag checks, could be legally contentious if perceived as an overreach.

This is where clear statutory analysis was required. Why no reference to statements by relevant civil liberties groups in NY? What's the history of such uses of the Guard in NYC?
>
>
Another potential legal challenge arises from the NYPD’s refusal to collect data regarding the demographics of those being stopped, the frequency of the stops, what is being ceased from bag searches, and overall adherence to checkpoint protocols. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess whether racial profiling or other constitutional violations are occurring. The NYPD’s policies against collecting demographic data from who they are stopping and refusal to disclose how individuals are being selected for bag checks make this issue harder to address. Even though the collection and analysis of such data are essential for evaluating the constitutionality and effectiveness of the deployment, the city has argued that releasing such information makes it easier to know how to avoid the search.
 

Conclusion

Changed:
<
<
While ostensibly aimed at enhancing public safety, Hochul's deployment of the National Guard raises serious concerns regarding its legality and potential for unintended consequences. The intersection of state emergency powers, constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment, and federal statutes like the Posse Comitatus Act create a unique legal landscape that has the potential for scrutiny and 4th Amendment challenges. The deployment must be clearly justified as necessary for immediate public safety, with strict adherence to protocols and transparency to prevent abuses of power and ensure compliance with the law.

What's the conclusion here, really?

A good first draft. There's way more that you can do in unearthing the law, and perhaps even in explicating the legal history.

>
>
Despite claims that the subway now seems like a “warzone,” Hochul has stated that the additional security measures have been successful, citing NYPD data that indicates a 5% decrease in transit crimes compared to last April. While ostensibly aimed at enhancing public safety, Hochul's deployment of the National Guard raises serious concerns regarding its legality and potential for unintended consequences. I see a need to reevaluate the constitutionality of "special needs" carveouts under the Fourth Amendment entirely, particularly in light of a climate where the police make so many feel less safe. However, putting pressure on the City to be transparent about its system for deciding whose bag to search and begin collecting data regarding the demographics of people searched seems like a reasonable place to start.
 

ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 7 - 01 Oct 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 12 to 12
 

How can she do this (legally)?

One of the main questions surrounding Hochul's deployment of the National Guard in the subways pertains to its legality. Does she have the authority to call in the National Guard? Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect against these kinds of unprompted searches? As with many other legal issues, the answer to these questions depends on several factors.
Changed:
<
<
The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both state and federal governments. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.

You should have shown the statutory authorities involved, both federal and state,
>
>
The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both federal and state governments. The federal government can utilize the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, Title 10 of the US Code, as happened during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.
  Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoint searches are not inherently unconstitutional. More specifically, in Michigan v. Sitz, the Court held that police sobriety checkpoints aimed at combating drunk driving do not violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.


ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 6 - 08 Jun 2024 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 14 to 14
  The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both state and federal governments. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.
Changed:
<
<
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoint searches are not inherently unconstitutional. More specifically, in Michigan v. Sitz, the Court held that police sobriety checkpoints aimed at combating drunk driving do not violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court reasoned that the state's interest in preventing drunk driving was substantial and that the effectiveness of the checkpoints in achieving this goal justified the intrusion on an individual's privacy. After employing a balancing test weighing the state's interest and effectiveness of the checkpoints against the degree of intrusion, the Court ultimately found that the checkpoints were constitutional.
>
>
You should have shown the statutory authorities involved, both federal and state,

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoint searches are not inherently unconstitutional. More specifically, in Michigan v. Sitz, the Court held that police sobriety checkpoints aimed at combating drunk driving do not violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Butt these aren't checkpoint searches, and you haven't explained what the actual orders to the Guard are.

The Court reasoned that the state's interest in preventing drunk driving was substantial and that the effectiveness of the checkpoints in achieving this goal justified the intrusion on an individual's privacy. After employing a balancing test weighing the state's interest and effectiveness of the checkpoints against the degree of intrusion, the Court ultimately found that the checkpoints were constitutional.

  However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edwards, SCOTUS clarified that these checkpoint searches cannot be used for general crime control. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that roadblocks established for the sole purpose of detecting illegal narcotics were unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. The Court explained that the relationship between these roadblocks and public safety concerns was too attenuated to be constitutionally permissible. This case emphasized that any kind of checkpoint searches must be closely tied to immediate public safety concerns rather than general law enforcement crime deterrence objectives.
Line: 33 to 44
 Lastly, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States except when specifically authorized by the Constitution or Congress. While the National Guard operates under the authority of state governors when not federalized, concerns may arise if their role in law enforcement blurs the lines set by this act. The deployment of the National Guard in civilian contexts is subject to scrutiny to ensure it does not overstep into areas traditionally managed by local law enforcement. While state activation of the National Guard for disaster relief and emergency response is well-established, using them in routine law enforcement roles, such as subway bag checks, could be legally contentious if perceived as an overreach.
Added:
>
>
This is where clear statutory analysis was required. Why no reference to statements by relevant civil liberties groups in NY? What's the history of such uses of the Guard in NYC?

 

Conclusion

While ostensibly aimed at enhancing public safety, Hochul's deployment of the National Guard raises serious concerns regarding its legality and potential for unintended consequences. The intersection of state emergency powers, constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment, and federal statutes like the Posse Comitatus Act create a unique legal landscape that has the potential for scrutiny and 4th Amendment challenges. The deployment must be clearly justified as necessary for immediate public safety, with strict adherence to protocols and transparency to prevent abuses of power and ensure compliance with the law.
Added:
>
>
What's the conclusion here, really?

A good first draft. There's way more that you can do in unearthing the law, and perhaps even in explicating the legal history.

 

META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="960x0.webp" attr="" comment="" date="1715289389" name="960x0.webp" path="960x0.webp" size="93846" stream="960x0.webp" user="Main.ShianneWilliams" version="1"

ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 5 - 04 Jun 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Changed:
<
<

Why tf is the National Guard Occupying NYC Subways?

>
>

Why is the National Guard Occupying NYC Subways?

 -- By ShianneWilliams
Changed:
<
<

Intro

>
>

Introduction

  In March of this year, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York announced that she would deploy hundreds of National Guard members, state police, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority officers into the City's busiest subways. This move was merely step one of Hochul's "five-point plan" for "deterring crime" and making New Yorkers feel more safe on the subway. However, in a nation deeply affected by instances of police brutality and a pervasive sense of distrust towards law enforcement, it is unsurprising that many individuals do not perceive this legally questionable decision by the governor as a means of increasing safety.

How can she do this (legally)?

Added:
>
>
One of the main questions surrounding Hochul's deployment of the National Guard in the subways pertains to its legality. Does she have the authority to call in the National Guard? Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect against these kinds of unprompted searches? As with many other legal issues, the answer to these questions depends on several factors.

The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both state and federal governments. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoint searches are not inherently unconstitutional. More specifically, in Michigan v. Sitz, the Court held that police sobriety checkpoints aimed at combating drunk driving do not violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court reasoned that the state's interest in preventing drunk driving was substantial and that the effectiveness of the checkpoints in achieving this goal justified the intrusion on an individual's privacy. After employing a balancing test weighing the state's interest and effectiveness of the checkpoints against the degree of intrusion, the Court ultimately found that the checkpoints were constitutional.

However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edwards, SCOTUS clarified that these checkpoint searches cannot be used for general crime control. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that roadblocks established for the sole purpose of detecting illegal narcotics were unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. The Court explained that the relationship between these roadblocks and public safety concerns was too attenuated to be constitutionally permissible. This case emphasized that any kind of checkpoint searches must be closely tied to immediate public safety concerns rather than general law enforcement crime deterrence objectives.

 

Potential Challenges

Added:
>
>
1. Stated purpose of the checkpoints is unconstitutional.

The lack of clarity surrounding the subway checkpoints' stated purpose raises serious doubts about the constitutionality of this decision. While Hochul has stated that the checkpoints are for New Yorkers' safety, she has also suggested that they will help deter crime. Although seemingly connected, these justifications raise distinct legal implications. Removing "criminals" from the subway does not inherently correlate with the safety of other subway riders. For example, if someone were carrying illegal drugs through the subway, although classified as a criminal, their actions may not directly harm other passengers. Given the discrepancies in Governor Hochul’s stated reasons for the subway checkpoints, there could be potential legal challenges through this route. Someone stopped and searched by the National Guard and charged with a crime could raise a legitimate claim against the checkpoints for violating their 4th Amendment rights.

2. Procedure at checkpoints is unconstitutional.

While the checkpoints have only been in operation for a relatively short period, data regarding who is being stopped, what is being ceased from the bag searches, and the overall adherence to checkpoint protocols would raise further legal questions. The collection and analysis of such data are essential for evaluating the constitutionality and effectiveness of the deployment, ensuring that it remains within the bounds of the law while addressing legitimate safety concerns. Without citing any evidence, Hochul stated that additional security has been a success, pointing to NYPD data showing a 5% decrease in transit crimes compared to last April and announcing plans to reveal further statistics "very shortly."

Additionally, transparency regarding the criteria for stopping individuals and the procedures followed during bag searches is crucial for maintaining accountability in law enforcement activities and identifying other potential claims. Any discrepancies or patterns of disproportionate targeting could prompt legal challenges based on principles of equal protection and Fourth Amendment rights.

3. Use of the National Guard violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

Lastly, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States except when specifically authorized by the Constitution or Congress. While the National Guard operates under the authority of state governors when not federalized, concerns may arise if their role in law enforcement blurs the lines set by this act. The deployment of the National Guard in civilian contexts is subject to scrutiny to ensure it does not overstep into areas traditionally managed by local law enforcement. While state activation of the National Guard for disaster relief and emergency response is well-established, using them in routine law enforcement roles, such as subway bag checks, could be legally contentious if perceived as an overreach.

 

Conclusion

Added:
>
>
While ostensibly aimed at enhancing public safety, Hochul's deployment of the National Guard raises serious concerns regarding its legality and potential for unintended consequences. The intersection of state emergency powers, constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment, and federal statutes like the Posse Comitatus Act create a unique legal landscape that has the potential for scrutiny and 4th Amendment challenges. The deployment must be clearly justified as necessary for immediate public safety, with strict adherence to protocols and transparency to prevent abuses of power and ensure compliance with the law.
 

ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 4 - 10 May 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 7 to 7
 -- By ShianneWilliams

Intro

Added:
>
>
In March of this year, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York announced that she would deploy hundreds of National Guard members, state police, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority officers into the City's busiest subways. This move was merely step one of Hochul's "five-point plan" for "deterring crime" and making New Yorkers feel more safe on the subway. However, in a nation deeply affected by instances of police brutality and a pervasive sense of distrust towards law enforcement, it is unsurprising that many individuals do not perceive this legally questionable decision by the governor as a means of increasing safety.
 
Changed:
<
<

Legal Authority

>
>

How can she do this (legally)?

 

Potential Challenges

Changed:
<
<
I'm not sure that Marshall would have been a dissenting vote in Terry. The view that it is reasonable for officers to search and seize on the street in order to protect their own safety is supported by a consensus of which he certainly was a part. The admissibility of evidence acquired in such a search is then the constitutional question, and again I am not certain that he would have disagreed. No one who is at all racially realistic will deny that this means that street stops can and will be used in a uniformly racially unfair manner. You are undoubtedly right in your summary of the consequences. It is still possible, however, to believe that those elements of policing have to be made racially non-discriminatory by means other than changing the underlying constitutional law. Marshall at any rate seems to adhere to that point of view throughout most of his time on the Court.

Which leaves us asking something like the same question, though half a century further along and therefore even more aware of the outcome. We may reasonably enquire, given what we see around us, whether there are any changes in constitutional doctrine that would actually remedy the problems? The older view may turn out to have power precisely because what we have learned in the meantime puts the attainment of racially-just policing on a different level of difficulty altogether, as is expressed in the rise of efforts to change the public order system more fundamentally.

>
>

Conclusion

 
Deleted:
<
<
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.

 
META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="960x0.webp" attr="" comment="" date="1715289389" name="960x0.webp" path="960x0.webp" size="93846" stream="960x0.webp" user="Main.ShianneWilliams" version="1"

ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 3 - 09 May 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Changed:
<
<

The 4th Amendment & Black Hyper-Surveillance

>
>

Why tf is the National Guard Occupying NYC Subways?

 
Changed:
<
<
-- By ShianneWilliams - 22 Mar 2024
>
>
-- By ShianneWilliams
 

Intro

Deleted:
<
<
In application, the Fourth Amendment merely serves as an alternative vehicle for keeping black communities under constant surveillance. From slave patrols in the antebellum South to the surveillance of civil rights activists during the mid-20th century, black people have consistently and purposefully been subjected to heightened scrutiny and hypersurveillance. Hypersurveillance refers to the disproportionate monitoring, scrutiny, and policing of black people and communities, a phenomenon rooted in historical injustices such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and systematic racism. The Fourth Amendment, far from rectifying these injustices, has often served to legitimize and perpetuate them under the guise of constitutional authority.
 
Deleted:
<
<
The Fourth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
 
Changed:
<
<
While ostensibly designed to balance individual privacy and law enforcement involvement, this language has often been interpreted in a manner that shields police actions against black communities from scrutiny. Rather than serving as a safeguard against abuses of power, the Fourt Amendment has been weilded as a justification for over-policing and the disproportionate incarceration of black people. Despite any legal advancements from the Reconstruction amendments or the Civil Rights Era, racial profiling and discriminatory practices persist in the face of a constitutional amendment that could have been interpreted differently.
>
>

Legal Authority

 
Changed:
<
<

SCOTUS Jurisprudence

Supreme Court rulings have further entrenched the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and Black hyper-surveillance. As detailed by Devon Carbado in his book "Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment," the Fourth Amendment effectively allows police to approach, question, and search individuals without significant restraint, assuming individuals are aware of their rights and can assert them. However, in reality, law enforcement frequently targets Black individuals for arbitrary stops, searches, and interrogations, often without sufficient justification. This disparity underscores the disconnect between legal principles and lived experiences, perpetuating systemic discrimination within the criminal justice system.
>
>

Potential Challenges

 
Deleted:
<
<
For example, in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court effectively granted law enforcement officers extensive discretion in determining what constitutes suspicious behavior. The Court explained that when a police officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous, they may conduct a pat-down search for weapons, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest. Law enforcement has used these “Terry Stops” to disproportionately target minority communities, perpetuating a cycle of harassment, mistrust, and resentment towards law enforcement. Another significant Supreme Court decision that has impacted policing practices is Whren v. United States. In this case, the Court held that the legality of a traffic stop is determined by the objective circumstances of the stop, rather than the subjective intentions of the officer. This ruling effectively legitimized pretextual stops, wherein law enforcement officers use minor traffic violations as a pretext to investigate more serious offenses.

There is no question that racially motivated traffic stops are antithetical to the principles of our Constitution. However, when faced with an opportunity to repair this hole, the highest court of the land chose to ignore it, leaving black people without a remedy for law enforcement’s discriminatory treatment. The cumulative impact of these Supreme Court decisions has reinforced a system of hyper-surveillance and discriminatory policing practices that disproportionately target Black communities into today.

Final Thoughts

It is impossible to reconcile the premise that “all men are created equal” with the fact that the incarceration rate of black individuals is significantly higher than that of any other racial group in this country. Today, the AI facial recognition lurking in the subway system makes it even easier to target poor black and brown people. Why are we not asking more questions about the unreasonableness of our current incarceration statistics and realizing that we have a flawed amendment? And if it isn’t the words of the amendment, why aren’t we questioning the human-made decisions that allow these practices to continue? Only by interrogating both the language of the Fourth Amendment and the societal structures that uphold it can we truly understand what has allowed such blantant discrimination to continue.

I’m curious whether the words are indeed the issue or the fact that only a year before Terry when Thurgood Marshall joined the Supreme Court, all the justices had been white, from an middle to upper class background, armed with a flurry of white law clerks to help author their opinions. If it’s true that ones worldview helps shape the view of the law, then is the problem that none of our justices have lived experiences to draw on when making decisions like Terry and Whren?

 
I'm not sure that Marshall would have been a dissenting vote in Terry. The view that it is reasonable for officers to search and seize on the street in order to protect their own safety is supported by a consensus of which he certainly was a part. The admissibility of evidence acquired in such a search is then the constitutional question, and again I am not certain that he would have disagreed. No one who is at all racially realistic will deny that this means that street stops can and will be used in a uniformly racially unfair manner. You are undoubtedly right in your summary of the consequences. It is still possible, however, to believe that those elements of policing have to be made racially non-discriminatory by means other than changing the underlying constitutional law. Marshall at any rate seems to adhere to that point of view throughout most of his time on the Court.
Line: 40 to 28
 

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. \ No newline at end of file

Added:
>
>
META FILEATTACHMENT attachment="960x0.webp" attr="" comment="" date="1715289389" name="960x0.webp" path="960x0.webp" size="93846" stream="960x0.webp" user="Main.ShianneWilliams" version="1"

ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 2 - 26 Apr 2024 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Deleted:
<
<
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
 

The 4th Amendment & Black Hyper-Surveillance

Line: 27 to 26
 I’m curious whether the words are indeed the issue or the fact that only a year before Terry when Thurgood Marshall joined the Supreme Court, all the justices had been white, from an middle to upper class background, armed with a flurry of white law clerks to help author their opinions. If it’s true that ones worldview helps shape the view of the law, then is the problem that none of our justices have lived experiences to draw on when making decisions like Terry and Whren?
Added:
>
>
I'm not sure that Marshall would have been a dissenting vote in Terry. The view that it is reasonable for officers to search and seize on the street in order to protect their own safety is supported by a consensus of which he certainly was a part. The admissibility of evidence acquired in such a search is then the constitutional question, and again I am not certain that he would have disagreed. No one who is at all racially realistic will deny that this means that street stops can and will be used in a uniformly racially unfair manner. You are undoubtedly right in your summary of the consequences. It is still possible, however, to believe that those elements of policing have to be made racially non-discriminatory by means other than changing the underlying constitutional law. Marshall at any rate seems to adhere to that point of view throughout most of his time on the Court.

Which leaves us asking something like the same question, though half a century further along and therefore even more aware of the outcome. We may reasonably enquire, given what we see around us, whether there are any changes in constitutional doctrine that would actually remedy the problems? The older view may turn out to have power precisely because what we have learned in the meantime puts the attainment of racially-just policing on a different level of difficulty altogether, as is expressed in the rise of efforts to change the public order system more fundamentally.

 
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 1 - 22 Mar 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

The 4th Amendment & Black Hyper-Surveillance

-- By ShianneWilliams - 22 Mar 2024

Intro

In application, the Fourth Amendment merely serves as an alternative vehicle for keeping black communities under constant surveillance. From slave patrols in the antebellum South to the surveillance of civil rights activists during the mid-20th century, black people have consistently and purposefully been subjected to heightened scrutiny and hypersurveillance. Hypersurveillance refers to the disproportionate monitoring, scrutiny, and policing of black people and communities, a phenomenon rooted in historical injustices such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and systematic racism. The Fourth Amendment, far from rectifying these injustices, has often served to legitimize and perpetuate them under the guise of constitutional authority.

The Fourth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

While ostensibly designed to balance individual privacy and law enforcement involvement, this language has often been interpreted in a manner that shields police actions against black communities from scrutiny. Rather than serving as a safeguard against abuses of power, the Fourt Amendment has been weilded as a justification for over-policing and the disproportionate incarceration of black people. Despite any legal advancements from the Reconstruction amendments or the Civil Rights Era, racial profiling and discriminatory practices persist in the face of a constitutional amendment that could have been interpreted differently.

SCOTUS Jurisprudence

Supreme Court rulings have further entrenched the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and Black hyper-surveillance. As detailed by Devon Carbado in his book "Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment," the Fourth Amendment effectively allows police to approach, question, and search individuals without significant restraint, assuming individuals are aware of their rights and can assert them. However, in reality, law enforcement frequently targets Black individuals for arbitrary stops, searches, and interrogations, often without sufficient justification. This disparity underscores the disconnect between legal principles and lived experiences, perpetuating systemic discrimination within the criminal justice system.

For example, in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court effectively granted law enforcement officers extensive discretion in determining what constitutes suspicious behavior. The Court explained that when a police officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous, they may conduct a pat-down search for weapons, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest. Law enforcement has used these “Terry Stops” to disproportionately target minority communities, perpetuating a cycle of harassment, mistrust, and resentment towards law enforcement. Another significant Supreme Court decision that has impacted policing practices is Whren v. United States. In this case, the Court held that the legality of a traffic stop is determined by the objective circumstances of the stop, rather than the subjective intentions of the officer. This ruling effectively legitimized pretextual stops, wherein law enforcement officers use minor traffic violations as a pretext to investigate more serious offenses.

There is no question that racially motivated traffic stops are antithetical to the principles of our Constitution. However, when faced with an opportunity to repair this hole, the highest court of the land chose to ignore it, leaving black people without a remedy for law enforcement’s discriminatory treatment. The cumulative impact of these Supreme Court decisions has reinforced a system of hyper-surveillance and discriminatory policing practices that disproportionately target Black communities into today.

Final Thoughts

It is impossible to reconcile the premise that “all men are created equal” with the fact that the incarceration rate of black individuals is significantly higher than that of any other racial group in this country. Today, the AI facial recognition lurking in the subway system makes it even easier to target poor black and brown people. Why are we not asking more questions about the unreasonableness of our current incarceration statistics and realizing that we have a flawed amendment? And if it isn’t the words of the amendment, why aren’t we questioning the human-made decisions that allow these practices to continue? Only by interrogating both the language of the Fourth Amendment and the societal structures that uphold it can we truly understand what has allowed such blantant discrimination to continue.

I’m curious whether the words are indeed the issue or the fact that only a year before Terry when Thurgood Marshall joined the Supreme Court, all the justices had been white, from an middle to upper class background, armed with a flurry of white law clerks to help author their opinions. If it’s true that ones worldview helps shape the view of the law, then is the problem that none of our justices have lived experiences to draw on when making decisions like Terry and Whren?


You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.


Revision 8r8 - 01 Oct 2024 - 21:48:16 - ShianneWilliams
Revision 7r7 - 01 Oct 2024 - 19:43:07 - ShianneWilliams
Revision 6r6 - 08 Jun 2024 - 17:24:43 - EbenMoglen
Revision 5r5 - 04 Jun 2024 - 04:25:55 - ShianneWilliams
Revision 4r4 - 10 May 2024 - 16:37:32 - ShianneWilliams
Revision 3r3 - 09 May 2024 - 21:17:26 - ShianneWilliams
Revision 2r2 - 26 Apr 2024 - 18:37:35 - EbenMoglen
Revision 1r1 - 22 Mar 2024 - 12:47:26 - ShianneWilliams
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM