Asheville's newly-hired police chief told a gathering of the Human Relations Commission that he'd be implementing the "written consent" policy that City Council demanded be adopted last year.
According to the report in the Asheville Citizen-Times, Chief Chris Bailey promised the policy would be enacted - at least when it comes to vehicle searches.
Written consent is a rare requirement among police departments with only one in North Carolina — Durham — using a strict version of the policy, he said.
Constitutional law requires police have a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is being committed before a search. That covers a person, a vehicle, possessions or a home. The only other way police can legally search is if they get verbal consent, a standard law enforcement practice.
Chief Bailey offered no timeline for the implementation, and sought to temper expectations about what the policy can do once it's in place:
...written consent should be viewed as one tool and not a panacea for fixing the disparity problem. He also said he wanted to first talk to officers, residents and others who would be affected. Previous critics, including the Police Benevolent Association, did not tell him they were opposed, Bailey said. Some officers said they feared there would be less pro-active policing, something Bailey said might happen in the short-term, but wouldn't be permanent.
If officers are less "pro-active" (sometimes referred to as "de-policing"), will it lead to an increase in crime? If so, will local residents, business owners, and civic leaders accept that? And how long before that patience runs out? And will there be enough commitment and buy-in from residents, cops, and politicians if the goal is truly to move towards a concept called "Constitutional policing"?
Pete's Prep: Monday, Aug. 19, 2019
- Yes, Western NC, that WAS an earthquake... but you probably didn't feel it.
- Mark Barrett at Carolina Public Press reports how Montreat College is slated to receive $20 million to establish a cybersecurity training center.
- Jennifer Bowman at the Citizen-Times reports on potential layoffs at A-B Tech: "The shortfall comes after commissioners in June voted to give Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College some $6.8 million for its annual contribution, about $750,000 less than what it requested — and after negotiations between the two entities on how to handle long-misspent tax revenue that was intended to fund campus construction."
- From WLOS: "The Henderson County Sheriff’s Office is warning residents about a “spoofing” scam going around... The caller advises the victim that the Sheriff’s Office has an active warrant for their arrest and then demands money to make the warrant go away."
- John Hood at Carolina Journal writes about the state rollback of government regulations: "The legislature has passed several bills that make consequential changes to the conduct and reach of government in North Carolina"
- From Patrick Gleason at Forbes: "[T]he Democratic nominee in the upcoming special election for North Carolina’s ninth congressional district, Dan McCready, is using the Small Business Health Care Act as fodder for new political attacks against his opponent who voted for the bill. McCready in running against state Senator Dan Bishop (R). Senator Bishop co-chairs the North Carolina Senate Health Care Committee and championed the passage of SB 86. McCready is now claiming on Twitter that by voting for SB 86, Senator Bishop and the nearly 30 Democratic legislators who joined him in voting for the Small Business Health Care Act somehow support denying health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately for McCready and his campaign, that claim is even more false than it is salacious."
- Kevin Daley at the Daily Caller reports: "The Supreme Court’s liberal minority forged winning alliances in unexpected rulings throughout the 2018-2019 term, suggesting the newly entrenched conservative majority is hardly a cohesive unit. Each of the conservative justices crossed over to form a 5-4 majority with the liberal bloc at least once. A total of 10 decisions featured a five-justice majority with four liberals and one conservative. By contrast, the conservative justices joined together to form a five-member majority in seven cases."