Modern Police Tactics & Militarization

Caucus Materials: 1.3.12

Alright... 2012 it is. The esteemed Chris Casillas will be moderating the next Caucus, which is set for the first Tuesday of January: 1.3.12 from 7:30pm to 9:00pm @ Jade Garden.

The discussion topic: Modern Police Tactics & Militarization

Chris explains:

"I'd like to break the conversation into two interrelated pieces. I thought I'd pose a few questions associated with each topic to help facilitate the thinking in preparation for our meeting and to guide the start of our discussion.

Topic #1: Police Militarization:

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html?pagewanted=1&emc=eta1

2) http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/02/our-militarized-police-departm

In the past decade, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, it is undoubtedly the case that military-style tactics have become a more common feature of policing, particularly in large cities.

Some have argued that this is a necessary response to modern day threats that exist, which were all the more poignant in the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11. Others have argued that while these threats may exist, this approach is undermining the historical community-oriented policing approach that many law enforcement agencies in this country have at least ostensibly tried to follow (with varying degrees of success).

Is this enhancement of military style tactics a reasonable response to these new threats, or do they go too far resulting in police agencies that view citizens as "enemies" and cause serious ruptures in the relationship between citizens and law enforcement in communities across this country?

Topic #2: Modern Police Tactics:

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html?emc=eta1
2) http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-jones/

U.S. v. Jones is a fascinating case now under consideration in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves the police using secret GPS trackers attached to vehicles to closely monitor the movements of criminal suspects without first obtaining a warrant.

The 4th Amendment only enshrines the right of persons to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, the government doesn't need a warrant (and probable cause for the warrant) for searches that are inherently reasonable.

So, in this case, the Court is essentially asked to determine whether people should have a reasonable expectation in privacy that when they move about in their car that they are not being closely monitored by the government. In the last major case on this issue from about a decade ago, the Court determined that the use of a thermal imaging device to monitor the inside of a home went too far, in part because that type of technology was so unusual that most people wouldn't expect the inside of their homes could be viewed in some way by police out on the street. In this situation though, the use of GPS devices in cars and on our phones is far more common today, and I think many people would not be shocked to know that a lot of data on your travels throughout the day are stored and tracked in various ways.

So, does that fact destroy any expectation of privacy we may have such that police can put a tracking device on our cars without a warrant? Is this leading us down a slippery slope to the point that the 4th Amendment largely becomes irrelevant because of modern-day technology?"