Dear Editor,
In the modern era, in both Europe and the USA, resort to random vehicle searches without warrant or cause by the police really started during the second world war. However, in more recent times its use in crime fighting took off with the increase in instances of terrorist attacks in the 1990s and early 2000. Indeed it was the event of 9/11 that provided the occasion for enacting many laws that limit civil liberties to this day in the USA.
This reference to these periods is intended to make readers conscious that usually it is at times when citizens know fear that governments tend to make moves aimed at curtailing individual rights, arguing that the existing conditions make this necessary. Generally, both in Europe and the USA fear of terrorism encouraged citizens to accept a level of curtailment of their freedom that they would not find acceptable in normal times. Citizens even seemingly, accept government’s usual assurance that the curtailment will be temporary.
The exact thing has happened in Guyana. Starting with the crime wave in 2002, a scared public conceded, allowing the police to, with increased frequency, search citizens’ property (vehicle) without warrant or cause. All the while being assured by the authorities that this intrusion is necessary and will be temporary. In recent times it is this assault on law abiding citizens’ right to go about their business unmolested by the police in this way, that is the cause of many citizens’ present discontent with the police.
The Minister of Public Security; in defence of this practice of random search, tells us that we would be surprised to know the high level of success this activity has realized. Supposedly suggesting that this activity has led to the police capturing/detaining persons intending to commit crimes. In response to his claim I make two observations. First, studies in Europe and the USA reflect no substantial amount of success in preventing crimes due to random vehicular searches. Second, if indeed the minister is right and Guyana experiences success with random vehicular search in terms of disturbing and preventing criminal acts, why has the government been silent about this? For a police force that is so severely criticized for its assumed ineffectiveness, to have a significant level of successful searches, and be silent about this success story is strange. There is good reason for being suspicious and reluctant to give the police the right to randomly search vehicles.
First, in both Europe and the USA it has been found that random searches disproportionately target minorities and the poor. Also it was found in these developed countries that the police use this right to even scores – searching vehicles owned by persons with whom they have had bad relations. If these studies are correct, it shows that those in charge of the police, if not taking precautions to negate such misuse of power and authority; are allowing the use of random searches in a rather cavalier manner. Claims of discrimination in the conducting of these searches could be overcome by the police conducting them using a structured, neutral predetermined system. For, example, before leaving the stations the police decide they will stop and search every 10th vehicle.
Secondly, when governments gain that legal right to restrict citizens’ freedom they rarely relinquish same, at least that has been the experience here in the USA. When civil liberty groups demand that these rights be restored governments argue that the peace being experienced is as a result of the deterrent effects of the restricting law, and therefore to remove them will lead to a return to high levels of crime. Here in the USA we see that at work with laws passed after 9/11.
Third, in this age when community involvement in crime fighting is the focus and preferred model, random search of vehicles is not helpful to this approach. Random search is seen as harassment by citizens, and a people who feel harassed will not cooperate with the harasser (police).
There was the time when we were disrespected. When our rights as citizens, even as human beings were denied. In those times it was common practice for us to be beaten, thrown in prison, lose our jobs, simply for demanding basic rights. Now, as an independent people do we have to fight this same battle all over again? This time with our own kind being our tormentors? True, not much has changed, but does our material poverty? Does material poverty have to be coupled with a lack of morality? Are we to be forever doomed to decadence?
For me the answer has to be a resounding ‘no’! We have to do better, we have to be respectful of people’s right to go about their business unmolested. This search without warrant or cause is considered necessary by the police as a tool in crime fighting because they are lazy or because the authorities have not been able (for whatever reason) to enhance the police investigative capacity sufficiently. The late President Hoyte was right, fighting crime must not see us resort to restricting individual rights with such haste. The police, as he noted, must improve/enhance its investigative capacity. The hard work of gathering intelligence must be the main tool in the police armory for preventing and solving crime, not random searches.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
