I did some searching myself, thinking along the same lines - aclu.org has nothing I can find. However, several people here have posted links to delawareonline's article, (Inlcuding many slashdotters who are posting links to it with no other information, as if they were the first to mention it - c'mon folks - read the posts at least a little before you go "adding" to the discussion with a web link listed over and over above you. Or add a thought or opinion of your own so at least you're worth reading!
The other link (which is more independant, and critical of the program) I've seen listed numerous times in the discussion so I won't repost it here.
IMO - This looks very much like a perfectly legal manauver being misrepresented because)
1) the police are using it in a manner other than the situations they depict, which seem legal, or
2) the public doesn't like it and is spinning the story in the worst light.
Let me highlight the following points, with the caveat that I understand it's possible police are misusing this tool. (And as such, are breaking the law - but if you don't like that "reasonable suspicion" is too ambigous to trust the police with, then find another place to live - our entire legal system is based on interpreting ambigous statements, right down to the constitution.
"The corner deployment units have the authority under the law, if there is 'reasonable suspicion', to detain, search, request information of, and photograph those individuals who are detained during one of these stops "
"Once detained under the law, police have the right to take a photograph of the person being detained."
To illustrate - if the police can already detain a suspect based on "reasonable suspicion", and are already allowed to photograph any detainee (just like they have the right to record your name, and anything else they discover about you during that process), then there's no justification that the police can't do this.
Slashdot Mirror
I did some searching myself, thinking along the same lines - aclu.org has nothing I can find. However, several people here have posted links to delawareonline's article, (Inlcuding many slashdotters who are posting links to it with no other information, as if they were the first to mention it - c'mon folks - read the posts at least a little before you go "adding" to the discussion with a web link listed over and over above you. Or add a thought or opinion of your own so at least you're worth reading!
The city's website has a link explaining their position.
The other link (which is more independant, and critical of the program) I've seen listed numerous times in the discussion so I won't repost it here.
IMO - This looks very much like a perfectly legal manauver being misrepresented because) 1) the police are using it in a manner other than the situations they depict, which seem legal, or 2) the public doesn't like it and is spinning the story in the worst light.
Let me highlight the following points, with the caveat that I understand it's possible police are misusing this tool. (And as such, are breaking the law - but if you don't like that "reasonable suspicion" is too ambigous to trust the police with, then find another place to live - our entire legal system is based on interpreting ambigous statements, right down to the constitution.
"The corner deployment units have the authority under the law, if there is 'reasonable suspicion', to detain, search, request information of, and photograph those individuals who are detained during one of these stops "
"Once detained under the law, police have the right to take a photograph of the person being detained."
To illustrate - if the police can already detain a suspect based on "reasonable suspicion", and are already allowed to photograph any detainee (just like they have the right to record your name, and anything else they discover about you during that process), then there's no justification that the police can't do this.