Drug WarRant

Adam Isaacson’s got the data:

• Total U.S. aid to Colombia over the seven years between 2000 and 2006: $4.72 billion
• Square miles of Colombia sprayed with “Round-Up Ultra” herbicide, 2000-2005: 2,550
• Land area of Delaware, square miles: 1,954
• Square miles planted in Colombia with coca, the plant used to make cocaine, in 2000, the year Plan Colombia began: 526
• Approximate cost of fumigating one square mile, conservative estimate: $162,000
• Reduction in Colombian coca-growing from 2003 to 2004, in acres: 0
• Percentage of coca plots detected by the United Nations in 2004 that did not exist the year before: 62
• Amount per month, according to the United Nations, that a Colombian farmer nets from a hectare (2.5 acres) of coca: $199
• Percentage of Colombia’s rural population living below the poverty line: 82
• “Arbitrary arrests” documented by Colombian human-rights groups between August 2002 and August 2004: 6,332
• Percentage of murders in Colombia that end in a sentencing: 4%
• Colombians forcibly displaced from their homes by violence, January 2000-September 2005: 1.8 million

Go read

This could be huge. Former NY state criminal justice official Scott Christianson takes a different look at crime statistics in today’s Christian Science Monitor.
Christianson first notes that violent crime has been falling, particularly in the past 10 years, and in some cases has reached its lowest point in 40 years.
And yet…

But discussions of police performance often fail to note another important but overlooked trend, apparently unrelated to the falling crime rate: Federal statistics reveal that the nation’s “clearance rate” – the percentage of cases for which police arrest or identify a suspect – has fallen dramatically. And this shift is fraught with implications.
The arrest clearance rate for reported homicides recently dropped to about 60 percent compared with about 90 percent 50 years ago. This means that a murderer today has about a 40 percent chance of avoiding arrest compared with less than 10 percent in 1950. The record for other FBI Index Crimes is even more dismal: The clearance rates have sunk to 42 percent for forcible rape, 26 percent for robbery, and 13 percent for burglary and motor vehicle theft, all way down from earlier eras.

If the crimes aren’t being cleared, is this due to a lack of police resources? Apparently not.

It’s not that America’s cops haven’t been making arrests – in fact, their total annual arrests jumped from 3.3 million in the nation in 1960 to 14 million in 2004, a staggering number that helps to explain why the United States imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world.
So, if reported crime has been going down and arrests have gone up, what accounts for the plummeting arrest clearance rates for murder, robbery, rape, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft?
Part of the answer must involve drug law enforcement – victimless offenses that aren’t reported to the police or included as FBI Index Crimes. Instead of arresting suspects for burglaries and other serious reported crimes, cops today spend much of their energy going after illegal drugs. Their arrest rate for drug possession ( especially marijuana ) has shot up more than 500 times from what it was in 1965.

Interesting.
Now, the causality is far from certain — there certainly are other factors involved, and more research is needed. But it makes a lot of sense, and there’s plenty of evidence to support the notion that the drug war has interfered with, or distracted, police from doing their job in other areas. Partly due to the additional work load of dealing with the drug war, but also through focusing on the drug war to the expense of other crimes. Not every police officer or department is seduced by the glamor (or profit) of the drug bust, but many are.
And this goes right up the line. For example, after 911…

While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of the FBI’s financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs….
In Phoenix, where the now infamous Ken Williams memo originated, counterterrorism agents complained bitterly about their efforts being given “the lowest investigative priority” by a supervisor who preferred glamorous drug-fighting investigations.

Christianson speculates that the drug war could affect police performance in other ways, such as emboldening violent criminals who assume a lower likelihood of being caught, or decreasing community cooperation with police.
So is the drug war making up less safe from murderers, thieves and rapists? At the very least, this whole issue demands further investigation.

Asked why the arrest clearance rate has dropped so much, one leading police scholar, Professor David Bayley of the State University of New York at Albany, said, “I haven’t a clue. I’ve been involved in the field for 40 years and best as I can tell, nobody has even raised this stuff. Hearing about it now is like being hit by a bus.”

Wow.

SCOTUSblog previews today’s Supreme Court arguments in United States v. Grubbs.
While this is a pornography case, it has a lot of potential connection to the drug war.
The case involves Anticipatory Search Warrants. These are warrants that are issued in advance to be triggered by a certain event, such as after the package pornography is delivered, or after the informant goes into your house to sell you drugs. Then they search your house and find what they sent there and arrest you for possessing it. These anticipatory warrants are used a lot in drug stings.
In Grubbs, there was a technicality issue in the warrant (the triggering event had been left off the actual warrant). The government says that doesn’t matter because the 4th Amendment only requires the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Interestingly, the defense will be taking that on and actually attempting to get the Supreme Court to rule that anticipatory warrants themselves are unconstitutional. Here’s the idea:

In response, Mr. Grubbs seeks not only to refute the government’s arguments, but also to challenge the constitutionality of anticipatory warrants generally. He relies on the text of the Fourth Amendment, which requires that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” This language, Mr. Grubbs contends, means that the probable cause must exist at the time of issuance; under an anticipatory warrant, there is only probable cause once the future contingency is satisfied. Further, the conferral of discretion on executive officers to determine when probable cause exists at a future time is inconsistent with the constraining purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Grubbs denies that there is any compelling law enforcement need for anticipatory warrants given the other options available to police to seek warrants quickly.

The language seems clear to me… “No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” How could a warrant be issued prior to probable cause existing?
Should be interesting.

Scott over at Flex Your Rights Blog writes about a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that’s a slap at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled last week that police may not automatically search vehicles following an arrest of the driver. This finding contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York v. Belton, which holds that police may search any vehicle following the lawful arrest of its driver. The Belton rule is supposed to prevent suspects from destroying evidence or reaching for weapons, but in practice it’s just another excuse to search people […]

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who lies awake at night cursing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York v. Belton. In a unanimous ruling, the NJ Supreme Court concluded that Belton‰s logic “simply does not pass muster.” The article also notes that MA, NV, OR, NM, WY, and PA have similarly rejected the Supreme Court’s outrageous effort to strip arrestees of their 4th Amendment protections.

Fascinating issue. The article referenced points out how New Jersey (and the other states) can ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent:

“The United States Supreme Court interpretations of the Federal Constitution establish not the ceiling but only the floor of minimal constitutional protection,” the justices wrote.
The ruling, in essence, gives people in New Jersey greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the state constitution than the U.S. Supreme Court has provided under its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

Scott hopes the New Jersey decision will embolden other states to follow suit.

Not much time to post right now, so I may comment more later.
Link

The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that federal authority to regulate doctors does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people.[…]
The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said.
“Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

And who was on the side of the Federal government against the states (in fact, in this case, it was simply the executive branch of the federal government against the states)?

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

Update: As discussed in comments, it seems likely that Thomas voted this way, at least in part, so he could write his own dissent.
This Supreme Court decision is causing a lot of talk around the blogosphere. Certainly, at first glance, many are shocked at the comparison of Raich and Oregon.
Professor Bainbridge‘s reaction is common:

According to our Supreme Legislature Court, federal drug law does not preempt state law when it comes to doctors prescribing drugs so their patients can kill themselves, despite the long-standing moral and legal traditions against suicide. But federal drug law does preempt a state law that would allow doctors to alleviate suffering by prescribing a simple joint.

What many are noting with this decision is the whole notion that in complex cases (and when are they not at the Supreme Court level), it isn’t simply a matter of interpreting the text of the constitution as it was written, but it requires filling in gaps — making judgements — and those judgements inevitably involve Justices using their own views of the subject matter.
Armando at Daily Kos

Federal power vs. state power – whither federalism? So the lineup of the Justices in this decision makes it startlingly clear that EACH AND EVERY JUSTICE was a results-oriented legal realist in this case. As they are in EVERY case with such ambiguity and import.

John Cole at Balloon Juice:

Were Alito on the court, I have seen nothing that would persuade me that he would not join the other ‘federalists’ in trying to strike down the ban.
All together now, conservatives– “States Rights!”

All Justices are activist judges. They have no choice.
Now this case is also, to some extent, even more complex. It involves the interpretation of the CSA by the Executive Branch. The CSA specifically forbids marijuana. It does not specifically forbid assisted suicide — that idea was Ashcroft’s. Some have opined that the same Court would uphold a ban against assisted suicide if Congress passed it.
Interestingly, in fact, one could interpret this decision to be, in part, a reaction to recent Executive Branch power grabs.

The Drug Czar is taking his Pee-in-a-Cup circus on the road to convince educators to spend taxpayer money on drug testing kids (and the first event is Thursday!) If he isn’t countered, his message may seem logical to school districts that don’t know the facts.
However, there’s no reason why we can’t attend these same public events and find ways to tell the truth.
The fabulous Students for Sensible Drug Policy have been on top of this issue for some time, and have done a great job in the past of countering the Drug Czar by showing up to events like these, passing out some real facts, and giving the press someone to interview on the other side (ONDCP doesn’t like this, but the press eats it up).
Here’s the info from DARE Generation Diary

Full Schedule:
Orlando, FL, January 19, 2006
(Rosen Centre Hotel, 9840 International Drive)
San Diego, CA, February 22, 2006
(Hilton San Diego Mission Valley, 901 Camino del Rio South)
Falls Church, VA, March 15, 2006
(Fairview Park Marriott, 3111 Fairview Park Drive)
Milwaukee, WI, April 25, 2006
(Hyatt Regency Milwaukee, 333 West Kilbourn Avenue)
If you live in or around any of these cities, please get in touch with SSDP as soon as possible by calling our world headquarters at (202) 293-4414 to find out how you can counteract the Drug Czar’s propaganda machine when it comes to town. Students, parents, and activists had a great time raining on the Drug Czar’s parade last year. Let’s make sure he and his cronies know that we’ll continue to be there providing the truth wherever and whenever they proliferate lies.
If you’re planning on going, be sure to take a look at the student drug testing section of SSDP’s website, where you’ll find talking points and other materials.
Make sure to sign up with ONDCP if you’re planning on attending one of the summits.

NORML is also working on countering the summit. The University of Central Florida chapter of NORML has already gotten some coverage in the college paper

Members of the UCF chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws are taking a stand at the Rosen Centre Hotel Thursday while the site hosts a regional student drug-testing summit.
The event, held by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, takes place at 8:30 a.m. and is intended to convince local educators that drug testing high school students will better serve the environment in public schools. NORML will argue, however, that national statistics have shown that this process does nothing to deter drug use and is nothing more than a waste of money.

[Updated to new edition] If you’d like a nice printable piece to counter drug testing advocates, the ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance has one that’s excellent. Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why Educators Are Saying No (pdf) [2nd Edition].
At the very least, we shouldn’t let the Drug Czar off easy. With any luck, we’ll have educators coming to these events interested in drug testing, but leaving turned off by it.

All the Maine news outlets are covering the fact that, while final facts are not yet available, 2005 will be the year to see drug deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths. Politicians were quick to explode with wrath:
Link

Gov. John Baldacci took aim at the Bush White House, saying it continued to turn its back on the suffering of Maine families. He noted that federal funding to the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency has been cut by 40 percent. […]
Public Safety Commissioner Michael Cantara also blamed the federal government for “walking away” from its responsibility, citing that the drugs killing Mainers were federally regulated narcotics and were being trafficked across state lines, a federal offense. […]
Maine Attorney General Steve Rowe called Washington’s response to the drug problem “shameful.”

So what do we actually know? There are projected to be 178 drug-related deaths. 140 of them were accidental overdoses. The majority of those were methadone, and the majority of those were from the pill form, prescribed by physicians for pain.
And if we look further…

Physicians have become cautious when prescribing OxyContin because of its potential for abuse, and have switched to drugs such as methadone and morphine for pain, Kim Johnson, director of the Office of Substance Abuse, said.
“The drug of choice is still OxyContin, but it’s not available,” Johnson said.
Hence, methadone and morphine deaths are on the rise.

Oops.
It looks like what they don’t need is more federal government assistance.

… for Actress in a Leading Role – Musical or Comedy Series, for her role as a suburban housewive making ends meet by dealing pot, in Showtime’s ‘Weeds‘, which has been picked up for a second season.
Not a huge surprise to me. She really is outstanding (and so is the show).

I was strolling through the blogosphere looking at drug war-related posts and I stumbled across a blog by Ron Gainey (WRONGAINEY) and yesterday’s post about Risk, Reward, and Paternalism. In it, he quotes an unlinked statement from his friend Daniel Charles regarding the drug war and the paternalistic justification for prohibition that I found interesting.

For any given thing that has no demonstrably irreplaceable good value and which does have demonstrable negative effects to a significant portion of a population of people, there can be no moral justification for permitting it.

Now Gailey describes himself as a quasi-libertarian and does a fairly good job in the rest of the post in refuting this statement through analysis of relative risks, etc., (which is a good trick, since the words “demonstrably,” “irreplaceable,” “good,” “value,” “demonstrable,” “negative,” “effects,” and “significant” are undefined, and who gets to define them is unassigned) but I kept going back to Charles’ statement with a growing sense of outgraged astonishment.

For any given thing that has no demonstrably irreplaceable good value and which does have demonstrable negative effects to a significant portion of a population of people, there can be no moral justification for permitting it.

And quite frankly, I find the notion of even looking at comparative risk analysis to be… odd. My gut reactions were as follows:

1. Such a political philosophy is one of the few justifications I can imagine for actually invading and overthrowing a radical theocracy (assuming that philosophy was held by their government).
2. As a patriotic American, I would fight to the death to prevent the overthrow of our constitution and our system of freedom to such a political philosophy.

Problem is, I can’t just dismiss this, because it appears to me that this kind of thinking is influencing those who have hijacked much of the conservative “movement” in the U.S., including public figures like William Bennett, Mark Souder, John Walters, and others.
Focus on that last section: “there can be no moral justification for permitting it.” This is, in context, saying that there is a moral imperative to use government power to outlaw the action, and even leads to the notion that punishing others is a moral value. Sound familiar?
This is an extremely perverse definition of morality that is nevertheless seductive to many. It’s nice to think that if we pass a law, we’re being moral, but in fact that is not a moral act.
Take the obvious: Murder. If you choose not to commit murder, that is a moral act. If you teach someone else that murder is wrong so that they choose not to commit murder, then both you and they have committed a moral act. If you murder someone, you have committed an immoral act. The act of making murder illegal, on the other hand, may well be an appropriate element of a legal system and may be based on moral principles, but is not itself moral or immoral.
Many people are confused about this and somehow think that making something illegal can, itself, be a moral act, under the assumption that the illegality will reduce the incidence of a supposed immoral action (far from certain), or are confused by the fact that law may sometimes get its inspiration from moral values.
Attempting to legislate morality is not only incorrect, it is potentially dangerous. Those who believe that drug prohibition laws are moral acts will strongly resist alternatives, despite clear facts showing the lack of efficacy of those laws, or the increased harm caused by those laws.
If someone wants to argue with me that drug use is immoral, fine. I may disagree with you, but I accept your right to your own moral views. But don’t ever try to tell me that passing drug laws is a moral necessity.

Link
A Wyoming man was arrested for selling “drug paraphernalia” in his store, but a jury acquitted him in just 30 minutes of deliberation, something that didn’t set well with the Police Chief.

But Police Chief Rich Adriaens worries that jury members looked more at technicalities than the reasonableness of the charges. Adriaens said there’s enough leeway in the law that Gillette residents serving on the jury could have made an important stand against drugs, but they chose to act differently.

“enough leeway in the law” to convict
What a bizarre legal concept.