From the Manassas News and Messenger:
Published: August 14, 2009
The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday filed a motion to dismiss charges against four Hispanic men arrested for loitering near the Coverstone apartment complex in Manassas earlier this year.
In the papers, filed in Prince William General District Court, the ACLU challenges Prince William County’s loitering ordinance, saying the law is “unconstitutionally vague,” and allows police to target “disfavored groups.”
According to the court documents filed by the ACLU, Alberto Miguel Arias, 35, Juan Canseco-Rodriguez, 51, Jesus Velasquez Lopez, 43, and Isreal Lopez Amador, 36, were arrested for loitering on May 5.
According to the ACLU, the men were part of a larger group of men standing on the sidewalk near a bus stop outside Coverstone Apartments, where they lived, when police officers approached them on May 5.
The police officers asked each of the men for identification. The men who were unable to prove they lived in the apartment complex were charged with trespassing and the men who could prove they were apartment complex residents were charged with loitering, according to the ACLU.
Prince William County police late Friday said they had no information available about the case.
According to online court documents, Arias, Canseco-Rodriguez, Lopez, and Amador were all charged with loitering.
According to the Prince William County code, loitering is a Class1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500.
Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders said the four men charged with loitering contacted the group shortly after their arrests.
Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders said the four men charged with loitering contacted the group shortly after their arrests.
“We don’t understand the reason for the arrests,” she said. “They were standing in a public area.”
Lyall said the group received several complaints of police arresting day laborers in the Coverstone area this spring, but hadn’t heard of any recent arrests under the county’s loitering ordinance.
“We believe these individuals were targeted because of their ethnicity,” stated ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg in a statement.
The four men are due in Prince William General District Court on Sept. 1 for a hearing on the loitering charges.
I decided this one couldn’t be summarized. Was this predictable or what?
Does anyone else wonder who else was involved in this case? I drive in that area frequently. I always see Hispanic men. I never see cops or people being arrested.
Stay tuned. This case should bring out the hounds of Hell and some lively red circles beating the war drums.
Meanwhile, who pays for this? Just askin’. I know who I would like to send the bill to.
@anon reader
Anon, I am also curious why you think that to support the police, we shouldn’t question their decisions, actions or authority.
What I see in your posts are “I support the police”, but then I also see that they have to prove their honesty to you FIRST. See, I just generally find police officers, teachers, etc. to be honest and deserving of my respect unless they’ve done something to undermine that. That doesn’t seem to be your position.
Your default position “appears” to be to doubt the honesty of police. I would suspect that the default position of MOST Americans (perhaps European-Americans) is to believe that police are generally honest. That does not mean they are perfect. That does not mean there are not liars and thieves amongst them.
But they go through a rigorous screening processes and extensive ethics training. I would bet that 95% of a police officer’s interactions with the public are in situations which cannot be “proven”. But, that seems to be the standard you are DEMANDING.
I think that is a very unusual position to take. I can certainly understand why an African American in Mississippi in the 1950s would NOT have the default position of “the police generally act righteously.” What I don’t get is having that attitude and position NOW, in PWC. Regardless of what you think of Corey Stewart and BVBL and the like, they are not the police and they do not represent them. They have NEVER been representative of the police in PWC and only people who are trying to gin up emotions for their own side have EVER portrayed PWC police as less than honorable.
If your standard for interaction by the police with Latinos is 100% PROOF, then you’ve set the bar impossibly high. That simply cannot be met. I would venture to say that 20 or 30% would be impossible. When the cops came and busted up my high school party 30 years ago, they didn’t have PROOF. They heard it with their own ears and saw it with their own eyes. And if I hadn’t complied, I’d have gotten a ticket. And they STILL wouldn’t have had PROOF. For my own integrity, I have to add here that I never invited these people, they were crashers!;)
So, if you demand PROOF with all police/Latino interactions, then it would be biased to expect less than 100% proof with all other races, ethnicities, religions, etc.
So are you really expecting 100% documented proof of EVERYTHING police officers do and say 24/7? Is that REALLY where you’re setting the bar?
@anon reader
“So are you really expecting 100% documented proof of EVERYTHING police officers do and say 24/7? ”
Nothing is ever 100%, Anon. And in general, I have found our police officers to be professional, excellent, service-oriented people. BUT…that doesn’t mean there could not have been an error here, either in protocol or in the law itself. If there was an error in protocol, the solution is easy–dismiss the case and discuss policy. If the problem is the loitering law (which I tend to believe it is, no matter what protocol was practiced), then revise the law so it makes more sense.
There have been instances where cases were dismissed because someone arrested wasn’t read miranda rights. What if that happened to you and you couldn’t prove it happened because it was your word against the cop’s?
Don’t you believe cops can make mistakes? Don’t you believe cops are under tremendous political pressure to “do something” about all those people suspected of being “illegals” whether or not loiterers actually ARE illegally here in the country? Don’t you think cops get calls from people who want ‘those vile Latinos’ out of the way even though the police probably don’t think like that?
“If your standard for interaction by the police with Latinos is 100% PROOF, then you’ve set the bar impossibly high.”
My standard in this case applies to anyone arrested for loitering, for which there seems to be NO real standard. Does there have to be a “no loitering” sign in the area? What if there is a bus stop in the area? What if people have the permission of the property owner to hang around? There are just too many vaugeries with this law.
Most people asked to move along, unless they are in some kind of protest, will do so. It seems odd to me that these guys would not move along. So I immediately ask, “Why?” It would seem stupid on their part not to move along if the cops asked them. So…did the cops indeed ask them to move before arresting them is a natural question.
When I first ranted on this issue, my immediate response was if a cop came up to me and asked for ID because I was standing somewhere, I would be pissed off. If I am not doing anything why would s/he ask for my ID? That’s a violation of my rights, IMO. And I am not Latino.
IMO, this isn’t about ethnicity at all. It’s about a stupid law and what protocol was followed or not followed and how we can fix this without ripping another hole in our county’s reputation.
PAP, I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that you will not change my position which is that police are generally honest and that if they say they did x, then barring evidence to the contrary, they did it. That is clearly NOT your position, IMO. You want EVIDENCE of EVERYTHING – or darn near everything. That’s just not dealing with reality, IMO.
Just a quick example:
“There have been instances where cases were dismissed because someone arrested wasn’t read miranda rights. What if that happened to you and you couldn’t prove it happened because it was your word against the cop’s?”
In these “dismissed” cases, HOW did they get dismissed? Mirandizing is RARELY taped. So, we have take the officer’s word that he did it. Thus there must have been some kind of discrepancy or an admission that the suspect wasn’t read his miranda rights. Something. How do we get around the “proof” factor? Do I walk around with a video camera attached to my head? Shoulder mounted police video cameras? As far as I know, there would be no way to PROVE I wasn’t read my miranda rights, and that sucks, but what are the alternatives? Your alternative is PROOF – how is what I ask? My alternative is training, screening, ethics investigations, and the court system.
These guys were busted on a loitering charge. They should take their case to court and if they weren’t advised to move along, tell their story. And I agree some parts of that law are just downright shady looking. But that has NOTHING to do with the honesty and integrity of our police officers and their ability to enforce the written law.
This is another example of where we come at this from different “default” positions:
“When I first ranted on this issue, my immediate response was if a cop came up to me and asked for ID because I was standing somewhere, I would be pissed off. If I am not doing anything why would s/he ask for my ID? That’s a violation of my rights, IMO.”
See, I don’t think that a police officer would just walk up to me for NO reason at all ask to see my ID. In my experience, that’s just not the way the police conduct themselves. So it wouldn’t piss me off at all. Now, if he asked to see my ID with no explanation, looked at it, and walked off with no explanation, I would indeed be peeved. But since that’s not how I presume a police officer is going to conclude this encounter, then I wouldn’t been irritated from the start.
This may be a lot like that Cambridge/Gates situation where Mr. Gates’ default position seemed to be that the police were not honest or to be trusted (perhaps based upon valid experiences in his youth?) and who were THEY to be questioning HIM, an innocent man in his own house.
My position, on the other hand, would have been oh my goodness, something must be up for them to be here; what can I do to help solve whatever this is.
You, ShellyB and Justin are the only ones who are doing this to our county – you three continually bash the county talking about our “bad reputation”.
Happy, I am sure those three aren’t the only ones who think that county has a bad reputation and they aren’t doing anything to the county. Whether we agree with them or not, they can express their opinion.
Pinko, I don’t think loitering laws are stupid. They are there to protect business owners and municipalities.
One of the nicest cities in the world to visit is Victoria, BC. It is a harbor city where you can walk 24 hours a day without worrying about being robbed, mugged or violated. The cops don’t allow kids/young adults to congregate and scare off the tourists. I am not familiar with their laws but I have seen the no loitering signs. They might not even call them that. But it definitely works.
Nearly everyone supports the shooing away of young rowdies because it is money in the local business’ pockets. The business owners are happy. The tourists are happy. The municipal cops are happy. Viva shooing. No one wants to walk past a crowd of rowdies regardless of ethnicity. (and in Victoria there are many ethnicities)
1969 Census data:
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/pre-1980/PE-11-1969.pdf
White 88.% Black 11.% All Others 1.2%
Leila and Censored, these are facts! If the country was 88% White, then I’m sure my estimate of 99.9% at Woodstock was probably right on! This is the mix I grew up in. It is you two who never got out much.
@Moon-howler
I think the law is stupid insofar as it is vague. I see the need for such laws.
Anon, I do believe if we had cameras in our police vehicles, we would all be better protected.
It is unclear why the officer asked these loitering gentlemen for their ID’s before asking them to leave if indeed they WERE asked to leave. If the guys were doing something suspicious, I could understand. But if they were just standing around? There’s something missing in this story.
@anon reader
“But that has NOTHING to do with the honesty and integrity of our police officers and their ability to enforce the written law.”
Anon, I never said this episode had anything to do with the honesty of the officers or their abilities. I did say it was possible the officer on duty made a mistake, but that is always a possibility. We are all human.
If a mistake was made, it’s not like it can’t be undone. We are talking about a loitering charge here, not a murder. I hope the whole case gets dropped and the ACLU backs off after that.
Yes, there is a lot missing to the story. That is the reason most people are waiting to find out the facts.
All I have seen so far is one side…the ACLU side. The police dept. has declined comment, which they should do considering they are in litigation.
SA, I believe you. The performers were more diverse than the crowd at Woodstock if my eyes are any indication.
If the case goes to court and the police win, then they or the county should sue the ACLU for defamation.
That’s like suing a snake for biting you. Or a scorpion for stinging.
SA, 99.9% isn’t exactly 88%, though close. I’ll quibble with the census data since it breaks race down to three categories. Many mixed race or ethnic groups may have chosen a different category then from what is available now. The “white” race may have been shown as a larger percentage then than it would be using current options.
I got out plenty – I’ve lived in the north, mid-west, and deep south, in suburbs and urban areas.
For God sakes Censored, I mean come on, the nation was by far white in 1969 as shown and yet you still want to deny that. Are people so racist against whites that they try and change past reality to fit the 2009 mold? As much as you’d like to deny it the nation was basically formed, built, and defended by whites long before minorities made it to the double digits! If not, then who else?
SA, given the three choices in 1969 – black, white, other – where do you think most Hispanics fit? Native Americans? Asians? Mixed race? Do you think they all chose “other” ? Given that we were coming out of a segregated era, don’t you suppose that many people “passed” as the race least likely to be discriminated against? Although the culture may have been predominately white, I don’t think the “white” category in the census data is as pristine as you think.
Here’s some info about “protected groups” – as a white guy, you can be a member of a protected group too. A landlord can’t discriminate against you under most circumstances. (I seem to remember exceptions for landlords with fewer than 4 or 5 residential units who don’t advertize in the public media. Don’t know if this info is outdated or if the number is correct.) You’re protected too!
Yes, white guys founded this country. Things changed. Blacks and women got to vote. People moved here from other countries. It’s not the same rural country it was in the 1700s. It’ll change even more in the next few decades. It’s not going to go back to its origins racially. Personally, who cares what the race of most of the citizens or residents happens to be. Really, who cares?
“As much as you’d like to deny it the nation was basically formed, built, and defended by whites”
The nation was majority white. But the other ethnicities did their share to build and defend it.
And while the nation was majority white, the media (TV, movies) were disproportionately white, making it look even more “white” than it was.
According to this link the US is now about 30% non-white, and in 1790 was 20% non-white – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States#Historical_Trends