>Of course, the long-term solution is to eliminate the root causes that
>promote criminal behavior - that is, change land use patterns and promote
>stable and viable communities. But before those policies take an effect
>(it took a generation or two to get where we are now) - short term solution
>must be implemeneted to protect people from the rogue elements. I do not
>think that a zero tolerance policies - provided they are implemented with
>community cooperation and control and with the safeguards against police
>abuses - are not an irrational option to deal with that problem.
The wars on drugs, crime, and terrorism have been designed by the governing elite to erode the "safeguards against police abuses."
From the point of view of the police and other agents of law enforcement, we are all potentially criminals, especially if we happen to have a darker skin. Zero tolerance is about "searching everybody to find the guilty," through the enforcement of previously unenforced or laxly enforced laws & regulations as well as new ones; it is also about segregating the poor from precious urban real estate, to be developed into what Christian Parenti calls a revitalized "FIRE/themepark city." Yoshie
***** Could We Lose the Fourth Amendment Ira Glasser (Executive Director -- ACLU) 12 Apr 00
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects us against searches and seizures when there is "no probable cause." But that fundamental pillar of liberty has been steadily eroded for more than a decade now as a result of the government's "War on Drugs."
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear what could be the most important Fourth Amendment case to come before it in more than a quarter century.
The case, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n022200a.html?s2, was brought as a class action suit by the ACLU on behalf of two individuals and the citizens of Indiana, all of whom are subject to random roadside searches.
We brought this case because the authorities in Indianapolis decided not to bother just searching people they had a good reason to suspect of wrongdoing, as the Fourth Amendment requires. Instead, they decided to set up roadblocks on selected highways to stop all motorists in order to look for drugs, without any reason to believe that any car was carrying drugs.
In short, what the Indianapolis police were doing is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was meant to stop: searching everybody to find the guilty.
And, in a 2 to 1 decision, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with us that the Fourth Amendment requires that criminal investigatory searches and seizures must be based on particular cause, or some good reason to suspect the people to be stopped and searched.
But the city appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As someone who has demonstrated your concern for our civil liberties, you understand that it is essential that the ACLU mount the most compelling defense of the Fourth Amendment possible.
Because if we should lose this case, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Fourth Amendment would cease to exist once you're outside your home.
To find out more about the threats to the Bill of Rights and to all of our traditional values of liberty, fairness and justice, visit our special web-based campaign on Liberties at Risk at http://www.aclu.org/liberties.html?s2l.
P.S. Your support is critical to the ACLU's ability to turn back this and other threats to our rights. If you are not already a member, please considering joining the ACLU today by visiting https://secure20.client-mail.com/aclulink/forms/support_aclu.cfm?EID=8 08241X0X2
Thank you. *****