|
Posted by Robert
Rap News Network
3/15/2004 12:51:12 PM
Tags and topics realted to this article include 2Pac, Notorious B.I.G., Ja Rule, P. Diddy and Various Artists.
Legal scholars debate whether police surveillance of rap stars visiting Miami and Miami Beach violates the U.S. Constitution.
A year ago, the city of Denver settled a free-speech lawsuit that accused police of routinely gathering ''spy files'' on thousands of law-abiding demonstrators from as early as the 1950s.
Hit with an American Civil Liberties Union suit, police agreed to stop compiling data about someone without ''reasonable suspicion'' that the person is involved in criminal activity.
That case mirrors a practice that, according to a Herald investigation, has been happening in Miami Beach and Miami for the past three years: Police have been secretly keeping tabs on dozens of visiting rap artists such as 50 Cent, Ja Rule and P. Diddy.
At issue: Are investigators violating constitutional freedoms by gathering dossiers and taking pictures of artists in public places -- merely because they're part of a hip-hop industry that has been tainted by murderous violence?
GROUNDS FOR A SUIT
Several constitutional scholars and criminal experts contacted by The Herald were divided over whether the police surveillance policy could be grounds for a lawsuit. They agree, though, that such surveillance paints people in the industry collectively as thugs -- and touches on racial profiling.
''Law enforcement agencies historically single out political groups because of their speech,'' said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor. ``Here, their targeting of [rappers] reinforces the stereotype that because you're young, black and male, you're likely to be a criminal. That has a damaging effect on the black community at large.''
Miami Beach and Miami police say they've been quietly watching the movements of top hip-hop entertainers and their entourages because they want to protect the public and the celebrities alike.
Local investigators, assisted by the New York City Police Department, do background checks on rappers because they say they have a responsibility to monitor rivalries within the industry that have sparked violence in the past.
''We don't profile anybody,'' Miami Beach Assistant Police Chief Chuck Press said in an earlier interview with The Herald. ``What we do is learn about people so that we can protect the people in the city, and that includes [rappers].''
Several music executives and legal scholars say police have used the slayings of high-profile artists such as Tupac Shakur, the Notorious B.I.G. and Run DMC's Jam Master Jay to justify tracking players in the $10 billion industry.
Some legal critics question whether Miami Beach and Miami police have crossed a constitutional line in their surveillance of rappers -- most of whom have no criminal history and are not suspected of committing a crime.
Critics further question whether investigators have infringed on basic constitutional rights by compiling biographical binders on rappers, taking photos of hip-hoppers at airports, monitoring hotel stays and club visits and questioning people who have come into contact with them.
At the heart of the dispute: the right to assemble, free speech, safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, equal protection, due process and personal liberty without government interference.
OUT OF PROPORTION
Bruce Rogow, a constitutional expert who teaches at Nova Southeastern University's law school in Davie, said the magnitude of police surveillance is totally out of proportion to the suspected criminal activity among mostly law-abiding rappers.
''I think if you got off an airplane and there are cops waiting to watch you and take your picture, I think they've crossed the line there,'' he said. ``That is a quintessential example of intimidation.
''It is not an invasion of privacy because it's a public place,'' Rogow said, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. ``But there is a right to be free from unreasonable police surveillance.''
Miami attorney Richard Strafer, a criminal appellate expert, said law enforcement agents have historically been able to target organized crime figures without running afoul of the law.
But Strafer said police surveillance of rappers is akin to what happened in the 1960s and '70s, when J. Edgar Hoover's FBI carried out spy campaigns, infiltrated meetings and disrupted the lawful activities of antiwar and civil rights activists.
He said police must have a reasonable suspicion a crime might be committed or is being committed before using such aggressive tactics.
''[The rappers] are just being targeted for personal affiliations rather than any suspicion of crime,'' he said. ``It definitely crosses the line.''
The legal director for the ACLU in Florida agreed.
''They are gathering information on people who are involved in very public activities,'' ACLU lawyer Randall Marshall said. ``On that level, there is something offensive about the government spying on constitutionally protected behavior, such as travel and entertainment. There comes a point where government is invading privacy to such an extent that it's excessive.''
NO COMPLAINTS FILED
But Marshall conceded the difficulty of bringing a lawsuit if rappers don't come forward with complaints of police invading their privacy or harassing them. So far, no one has filed a surveillance complaint against the police in Miami or Miami Beach.
Other Miami-based ACLU members have indicated a willingness to file a lawsuit, but Marshall said that such action would depend on the nature of any complaint.
A Northwestern University constitutional scholar said police can legally conduct surveillance by taking pictures of people in public places and compiling dossiers on them -- as long as they don't intimidate anyone.
''If you could show it was racially motivated or intimidating, there might be a [First Amendment] claim,'' Professor Ronald Allen said. ``In this case, it's hard to see such a claim, because there hasn't been any intimidation.''
Allen said law enforcement surveillance has evolved into an increasingly contentious issue, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, aided by the U.S.A. Patriot Act, has created a climate that condones more aggressive surveillance -- human and electronic, legal experts say.
''This police effort [in Miami Beach and Miami] fits the pattern,'' Georgetown's Cole said. ``But you tend to see it used more against antiwar protesters and Arab and Muslim groups.''
Cole said there is a basic problem -- other than the risk of violating the Constitution -- when police expand their surveillance of individuals or groups in an effort to prevent crimes: ``No one has been able to figure out how to predict the future.''
Find out more about 2Pac. Other items you may find on 2Pac include updates, news, multimedia, chat, links and more. Click here... Find out more about Notorious B.I.G.. Other items you may find on Notorious B.I.G. include updates, news, multimedia, chat, links and more. Click here... Find out more about Ja Rule. Other items you may find on Ja Rule include updates, news, multimedia, chat, links and more. Click here... Find out more about P. Diddy. Other items you may find on P. Diddy include updates, news, multimedia, chat, links and more. Click here... Find out more about Various Artists. Other items you may find on Various Artists include updates, news, multimedia, chat, links and more. Click here...
|
