Where it began

TimeWatch Editorial
July 10, 2016

During the past few days we have again been made seriously aware of the vulnerability of citizens to the judgment and execution of the police authority. Many have been concerned by the ease with which this authority is constantly being applied, without any applied consequence, even when evidence declares that lethal errors have been made. How can this be? Where did this begin? In a book entitled “The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness,” the author, Michelle Alexander writes in Chapter two

“Once upon a time, it was generally understood that the police could not stop and search someone without a warrant unless there was probable cause to believe that the individual was engaged in criminal activity. That was a basic Fourth Amendment principle. In Terry v. Ohio, decided in 1968, the Supreme Court modified that understanding, but only modestly, by ruling that if and when a police officer observes unusual conduct by someone the officer reasonably believes to be dangerous and engaged in criminal activity, the officer “is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area” to conduct a limited search “to discover weapons that might be used against the officer.”Known as the stop-and-frisk rule, the Terry decision stands for the proposition that, so long as a police officer has “reasonable articulable suspicion” that someone is engaged in criminal activity and dangerous, it is constitutionally permissible to stop, question, and frisk him or her—even in the absence of probable cause.” Michelle Alexander, “The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness”, page 40.

So the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio is the root of this approach to policing. The decision of the Supreme Court produced a consequence that has simply metastasized. There is no evidence to support the point of view that this consequence was intended, but whether intended or unintended, the result has been the same. Not all of the Supreme Court was in agreement with the decision. Justice Douglas disagreed. According to his Bio, William Orville Douglas was born October 16, 1898, and passed away on January 19, 1980. He was an American jurist and politician who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt; Justice Douglas was confirmed at the age of 40, and was one of the youngest justices appointed to the court. His term, lasting 36 years and 209 days (1939–75), and is the longest term in the history of the Supreme Court.

“Justice Douglas dissented in Terry on the grounds that “granting police greater power than a magistrate [judge] is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.”He objected to the notion that police should be free to conduct warrantless searches whenever they suspect someone is a criminal, believing that dispensing with the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement risked opening the door to the same abuses that gave rise to the American Revolution. His voice was a lonely one. Most commentators at the time agreed that affording police the power and discretion to protect themselves during an encounter with someone they believed to be a dangerous criminal is not “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.” Michelle Alexander, “The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness”, page 40.

Michelle Alexander continues to apply the consequence of the of the 1968 decision of the Supreme Court to the events that play out upon the streets today; listen to this:

“History suggests Justice Douglas had the better of the argument. In the years since Terry, stops, interrogations, and searches of ordinary people driving down the street, walking home from the bus stop, or riding the train, have become commonplace—at least for people of color. As Douglas suspected, the Court in Terry had begun its slide down a very slippery slope. Today it is no longer necessary for the police to have any reason to believe that people are engaged in criminal activity or actually dangerous to stop and search them. As long as you give “consent,” the police can stop, interrogate, and search you for any reason or no reason at all.” Michelle Alexander, “The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness”, page 40.

So here we are. Perhaps we are beyond political or executive solution, but the authority of the God of heaven still rules and his protection always overrules. Let us therefore go forward in faith protected by the Angels of Heaven and led by the Holy Spirit, remembering the promise of Isaiah 54 and verse 17:

“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue [that] shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness [is] of me, saith the LORD.”

Cameron A. Bowen