Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Plan Colombia By The Numbers 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 10:41:34 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Plummeting Arrest Clearance Rates -- a victim of the drug war? 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. 7:52:54 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

4th Amendment Glimmer of Hope #2 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. 12:45:20 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

4th Amendment Glimmer of Hope #1 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. 12:30:31 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []