Police Misconduct And The Federal Government | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Jon Guze, who is the Director of Legal Studies for the John Locke Foundation.

    In March, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing released an interim report that recommends expanding the federal government's already considerable role in the affairs of local police forces. Last week, in response to a question about the Baltimore riots, the President touted that report and reiterated his belief that expanded federal involvement is an appropriate and effective solution to the problem of police misconduct. In fact, however, expanding the federal government's role in local policing is a terrible idea, as several commentators have pointed out.

    At Reason.com, Ed Krayewski notes that, "Federal grants have helped militarize the police, expand the practice of asset forfeiture, and fuel the drug war." In view of this, he asks, "Why does the left still support federal control of local policing?"

    In a column at USA Today, Glenn Reynolds observes that federal law enforcement agencies have, themselves, been prone to misconduct, and he suggests that:


    I like Glenn's suggestions, but I would add one more. When he appoints federal judges, the President should choose people who recognize, and are willing to enforce, existing Constitutional protections against police misconduct — people like Pamela Harris and Janice Rogers Brown.


    In a previous newsletter I mentioned the case of Kane v. Lewis, in which the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned a jury's award of damages to the father of a young man who was killed by the police in the course of a 4:30 am, "no-knock," SWAT raid. I neglected to mention, however, Judge Pamela Harris's forceful dissent. Judge Harris not only explains why, as a matter of law, the jury's decision should have been upheld; she also summarizes the facts of the case in a way that vividly illustrates why the current practice of using SWAT raids to serve low-level drug warrants so often ends in violence and death:



    A post by Jonathan Banks at the Cato at Liberty blog includes an excerpt from a concurrence written by Judge Janice Rogers Brown in United States v. Gross. At issue in the case was the constitutionality of the DC police's use of a roving Gun Recovery Unit to find and confiscate illegal firearms in high-crime neighborhoods. After regretfully acknowledging her duty to abide by Supreme Court precedent, Judge Brown goes on to say:


    If the President really wants to find ways of discouraging police misconduct and improving relations between the police and the public, maybe he should stop convening task forces, and, instead, have a chat with Judge Harris and Judge Brown about reviving the Fourth Amendment.