DC asking citizens to VOLUNTEER to a search


PDA






Shovelhead
March 12, 2008, 05:11 PM
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0308/503244.html

D.C. Officials Asking for Residents to Volunteer Their Homes for Searches
posted 2:43 pm Wed March 12, 2008 -

D.C. officials plan to ask residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if illegal guns or drugs are found.



More on the link

If you enjoyed reading about "DC asking citizens to VOLUNTEER to a search" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
41magsnub
March 12, 2008, 05:13 PM
The Article:
D.C. officials plan to ask residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if illegal guns or drugs are found.

The "Safe Homes Initiative" will begin March 24th in the Washington Highlands area of southeast Washington and will later expand to other neighborhoods. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier says the the program is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

The program is among several the District has aimed at combatting gun crimes.

Officers will go door-to-door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

takhtakaal
March 12, 2008, 05:16 PM
Maybe they should lump in the 4th along with the 2nd when Heller v. DC gets heard by SCOTUS.

DC seems to think that they're running a plantation or something.

Sapanther
March 12, 2008, 05:17 PM
and if ya say no ... what will happen ... placed on another list

Noxx
March 12, 2008, 05:20 PM
....

I have nothing to say about this suitable for this site. We are really not in Kansas anymore.

Nobody's_Hero
March 12, 2008, 05:20 PM
I think they're trying to get rid of all the guns before the Heller decision. I guess the mentality of the DC police department is that if everyone gets rid of their guns and then the ban is overturned, people won't think it is worth the hassle to go out and buy new guns.

That's just my theory, but I think they're sweating in the kingdom of columbia.

Patrick_Henry
March 12, 2008, 05:22 PM
And so liberty dies with but a whimper...

takhtakaal
March 12, 2008, 05:23 PM
I imagine that saying no will constitute probable cause, huh?

Maybe they'll get away with it in the spring on a rainy day when the Potomac starts to rise a little. Wouldn't want to have a Katrina situation in DC, now would we?

highlander 5
March 12, 2008, 05:33 PM
They are doing the same Boston Ma. Bunch of commies

Cougfan2
March 12, 2008, 05:38 PM
Just give up your rights. It's for the Children! :barf:

Nomad101bc
March 12, 2008, 05:38 PM
Next they are going to require citizens to "voluntarily" house police officers in their homes. After all its for the children...

publius
March 12, 2008, 05:42 PM
Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier says the the program is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

Are residents supposed to hang up a sign indicating whether or not they want to cooperate with the police? Sounds to me like a good way to identify those who don't want to cooperate with the police state. The excuse given is weak to say the least. If parents suspect guns are illegally in the home, they can already call the police and ask them to come search for them, so why do we need a program to accomplish what we already have?

Rokyudai
March 12, 2008, 05:43 PM
No, but you can kiss steve before you go....

Wineoceros
March 12, 2008, 05:48 PM
Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier says the the program is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.
What? The DCPD doesn't have a phone that people can call when they want their kids' rooms searched?

Ratzinger_p38
March 12, 2008, 05:49 PM
Next they are going to require citizens to "voluntarily" house police officers in their homes. After all its for the children...

Hey it would be a chance to make a rare 3A dispute before SCOTUS :P

Standing Wolf
March 12, 2008, 05:51 PM
We are really not in Kansas anymore.

Retired East German Stasi officers are laughing themselves silly.

bakert
March 12, 2008, 05:54 PM
I imagine that saying no will constitute probable cause, huh?

takhtakaal, My thought exactly. If you say no will they just bull their way in or come back with a warrant??:cuss:

Wineoceros
March 12, 2008, 05:57 PM
If you say no will they just bull their way in or come back with a warrant??
Not unless they can find a judge who doesn't want to keep being a judge.

LSCurrier
March 12, 2008, 05:58 PM
I wonder what will happen when a minor answers the door and is asked for permission for the house / apartment to be searched?

What if the wife / girlfriend says "Yes", but the husband / boyfriend says "No"?

This is a case of the police overstepping their bonds in an attempt to keep the people enslaved!!

Luke

Sistema1927
March 12, 2008, 06:26 PM
Didn't we discuss this at length about three years ago?

TallPine
March 12, 2008, 06:33 PM
Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

:uhoh:

:fire:

:cuss:

revjen45
March 12, 2008, 06:56 PM
My answer would involve a physical impossibility, the description of which would not be suitable for family reading.

Well Regulated
March 12, 2008, 07:00 PM
An informant told me that Cathy Lanier has unlawful NFA and destructive devices in her house and kiddie porn on her home computer. I say that she volunteer's her house for all the citizens of the District of Columbia to inspect.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 07:17 PM
you guys might wanna chill and if you live near by follow along when the go through the highlands. it should be a hoot. thats my old neighborhood and they are laughing as hard as you guys are worrying. the cops aren't popular down there.... at all

Shovelhead
March 12, 2008, 08:04 PM
I have no doubt that won't be many (if any) takers.......

It amazes me that they have the audacity to even suggest this as an avenue they plan to persue.

I work in SW DC and live in Arlington, Va. (but not for too much longer)

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 08:08 PM
its a real sign of how outa touch the chief is. and shes been here a while. i woulda loved to see video of the cops faces when they announce that lil brainstorm at roll call. they would be thinking its a joke at first then the awful realization would set in.

Pilgrim
March 12, 2008, 08:36 PM
If they are busy searching homes they won't have to bust DUI congresscritters.

Pilgrim

CliffH
March 12, 2008, 11:06 PM
This is just so wrong!

How many people are going to consent because of fear? A few uniforms show up on an old lady's doorstep & ask to search her house, is she really going to say "NO"?

Why should anyone in the US have to live with the fear that would cause them to consent to such an outrageous search to begin with?

And, as has been already said, if you refuse what would be the repercussions? Your name on a "list", another "request" - this time with a warrant, or something else???

RP88
March 12, 2008, 11:27 PM
pretty simple to avoid this: say 'not without a warrant'

if a minor answers the door and says yes, and they search, then the police will have quite a legal case on their hands considering that they didnt have consent from the home OWNER. They'll also need joint consent from a couple that owns the house, or simply the consent of the one whose name is in the deed in order to do the search.

coming back with a warrant without evidence of criminal activity other than 'he/she said no' is also asking for alot of hefty suits that the police wont have much chance in winning, especially if it turns up nothing. If they execute it with a no-knock, then you can definitely expect to have your balls close to the band-saw if you had any part of the warrant.

pretty stupid, and pretty funny.

thorn726
March 12, 2008, 11:39 PM
if a minor answers the door and says yes, and they search, then the police will have quite a legal case on their hands considering that they didn't have consent from the home OWNER.

except - OOPs they're already offering amnesty. This is a really horrible scary way of going in and stealing stuff from people, and worse, finding reasons to tail them later. Sure, Amnesty now. handcuffs later.
in theory saying no can't be considered probable cause, not that i'd trust that. People can be watched for no reason at all, and worse maybe they find things in your house that are legal but they don't like them - like rifles- maybe now you get pulled over every time you drive around the block, there are many possibilities, all of them bad.

Nobody's_Hero I think they're trying to get rid of all the guns before the Heller decision. I guess the mentality of the DC police department is that if everyone gets rid of their guns and then the ban is overturned, people won't think it is worth the hassle to go out and buy new guns.

i agree. really frightening way to go at it.
this is one or two scared parents who thought this would be a good way to get the guns away from junior without seeing him go to jail, but wow, holy misguided approach

alan
March 13, 2008, 01:41 AM
Re Boston, mentioned in this discussion, did anyone ever hear of the polite but firm NO?

I would think that the same applies in D.C. Come back with a proper court order or warrant, as in Search Warrant. Till then, please leave, or the householder can skip the "please".

rklessdriver
March 13, 2008, 08:33 AM
Maybe this means there is going to be un-announced searches later...

romma
March 13, 2008, 08:37 AM
I mean, Come on guys! It's for the common good of society... :barf:

mnw42
March 13, 2008, 11:32 AM
"THOSE WHO SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR A SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER!" -Benjamin Franklin

Sorry, I tend to yell and curse a lot when see something like this.

Variations shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin):

* Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
o This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
o Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
+ "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."


Regardless, of who said it, or put it to paper, truer words have rarely been said. Emphasis added.

rdhood
March 13, 2008, 01:43 PM
Enough said. I think that if a PD has a policy whereby a citizen can ask the police in (with no charges on stuff they find, etc), that is one thing.

But when police go door-to-door, that crosses the line into coercion, and should be strictly disallowed.

Mr. James
March 13, 2008, 02:20 PM
All you folks harrumphing, "well, if they do this they'll have a crushing law suit on their hands," let's remember who is being targeted here. Let's just say the po-po won't be going door-to-door in the upper reaches of Ward 3.

The families/residents targeted are not likely to have the means or inclination to file lawsuits against the Metropolitan Police Department. They may say no, perhaps preceded by the infinitive (or is it the imperative?) form of a certain Germanic verb, but they will not otherwise resist or bring suit to stop this. Which is, of course, no accident.

Oh, and Rokyudai (post 13) and revjen45 (22), y'all can split the cost of my new monitor. :D

Houdini
March 13, 2008, 02:39 PM
"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."

So DC violates the second and then after realizing they may loose the case the proceed to violate the fourth amendment...WAIT! It Is Voluntary...Thus not a "VIOLATION".....:cuss: When will people wake up and see the dire straits we are heading down as a country...:banghead:

GuyWithQuestions
March 13, 2008, 02:47 PM
I think the D.C. situation sounds weird. However, didn't the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the an exception to search warrants and/or probable cause is if a person who has the authority to consent to a search gives law enforcement their consent? http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/mar2003/mar03leb.htm#page_27 from the FBI says The Fourth Amendment preserves the “right of the people to be secure their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”1 It is well settled that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” 2 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a search conducted pursuant to lawfully given consent is an exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.3

Wikipedia says that police officers aren't required to tell the civilian that they can refuse the search in voluntary search situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches

However, don't you need reasonable suspicion to stop and question someone in the first place? But then in some jurisdictions, isn't it legal to stop random vehicles and ask them questions?

MarcusWendt
March 13, 2008, 02:50 PM
I'm writing a letter offering an exchange. If I can search all of their houses, they can search mine.

BridgeWalker
March 13, 2008, 02:53 PM
However, don't you need reasonable suspicion to stop and question someone in the first place? But then in some jurisdictions, isn't it legal to stop random vehicles and ask them questions?

You need reasonable suspicion to *detain* someone. These people are not being detained.

The bigger worry is spouses. Any resident can give consent to search his residence. Courts have upheld police searching when one spouse consents and one objects.

also, IANAL.

Kacerdias
March 13, 2008, 04:09 PM
Sounds like we need some Oleg style billboards in strategic locations of DC letting residents know they can (and should) say no. Then again if most folks up there don't care if their 4th amendment rights are decayed into a 4th amendment priviledge...

Ugh, I'm being sent up there for meetings next week. :(

Titan6
March 13, 2008, 04:26 PM
You guys are knocking a good idea. As always it is about execution. I am sure if we start going through everyone's homes you will find all sorts of illegal stuff. We go through every house in DC, remove all prohibited items and then we will have a new utopia.

- To get the ball rolling and to serve as an example the city council and all city government leaders should open their homes up first. Send in TV cameras and let everyone see what they have in their homes. Conduct thourough searches from top to bottom with drug sniffing dogs and maybe even bring in some Federales for oversight. After all if the mayor has been known to be on crack no one should be exempt.

- Next conduct random searches of the houses of all of the leaders in the Federal Government that reside in DC. (If any still live there at all).

- Next the DC police and all the Federal agents. DC police have been known to have up to a 25% drug usage rate so this would be an excellent place to look.

- Then move through the city at random. I would think starting in NW around the Gerorgetown University Campus would be a great place to find drugs. But that is just if you believe that college students use drugs. I know some of you are thinking that embassys and Ambassador residences might be a problem but I assure you they will cooperate fully or we can send them to one of those secret foreign prisons that they are always wanting to "inspect" and visit for a more "personal" tour.

- Once North West has been polished off completely and every nook and cranny has been searched move on to Capitol Hill. Seems like a month doesn't go by when one of our congressional leaders is not in trouble for something or other and getting packed off to the pen so this is also a great place to look.

- So you see, this is not such a bad idea at after all... it is just the execution that has to be handled properly....

romma
March 13, 2008, 04:30 PM
Titan6 excellent!

MechAg94
March 13, 2008, 04:58 PM
I am sure if they find any legal guns they will still have to take them in to "check" them. They will bring them back when they feel like it.

zoom6zoom
March 13, 2008, 05:05 PM
ACLU is on our side on this one!

mbt2001
March 13, 2008, 05:24 PM
This is a great idea... Let's tie up police man power doing stupid crap and quit looking for killers, rapists and drug dealers... Who wants to do that anyway?

I think next, police should go to the parks and pick up the dog crap so that the "children" don't step in it and suffer self esteem issues.

Don't forget, we need to put cameras in all of the young girls bathrooms and bedrooms, because, errrrrr, if they behave, errrr, the boys will be more likely to, errrrrr, behave. You know...

takhtakaal
March 13, 2008, 05:43 PM
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2293/dcshinoku7.th.png (http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcshinoku7.png)

Whatcha think?

tinygnat219
March 13, 2008, 05:54 PM
I think you need to diversify the skin color on just about all of those cops. DC is a majority Black city and so is their Police Department. Otherwise, it looks like a White on Black issue when that is NOWHERE near the case. I think the image would be best if the cops' skin color wasn't all white.

I live outside DC in Alexandria, VA I work in DC at the Washington Navy Yard in one of the most wretched hives of scum and villainy, although that is changing as the ballpark is going up.

Zundfolge
March 13, 2008, 05:55 PM
Get rid of the widow in the first paragraph (either bring "Safe Homes Initiative" down to the next line, or if you can adjust the kerning to get the "-tive." back up on the previous line.


So do you suspect that this "Safe Homes Initiative" is a response to Heller? They want to catch everyone with an "illegal" gun before they're not illegal anymore?

takhtakaal
March 13, 2008, 05:55 PM
Yeah, well, it was tough finding a DCMPD raiding party photo, but I hear you.

jdc1244
March 13, 2008, 05:55 PM
What exactly will they be searching for?

tmajors
March 13, 2008, 06:00 PM
What exactly will they be searching for?

Illegal guns and drugs. Supposedly from early news articles they will offer "amnesty" to anyone who cooperates and they find illegal stuff.

Not the point though. Point is they are going door to door looking to search houses. Chances are they are not going to tell people they can just say "no". If the house says "yes" they just gave permission so bypass the need for a warrant. They are skirting the illegal search and seizure thing in that they expect people to not realize they can just say "no" and the search teams have to go to the next house.

takhtakaal
March 13, 2008, 06:01 PM
It's an amnesty program. You give up your 4th Amendment rights and they won't charge you for anything that they find that you shouldn't have, like drugs and guns.

Basically, it's their way of trying to pull an end-around pre-Heller and seizing as many firearms as they can.

Zundfolge
March 13, 2008, 06:03 PM
I certainly hope the DC chapter of the ACLU is going ape-stuff right now. But I don't see anything here http://www.aclu-nca.org/

What exactly will they be searching for?
Illegal guns and drugs.
I don't think they care about the drugs.

According to this press release (http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1228&mon=200803) it looks like just guns.

So that explains the ACLUs silence (hypocrites :mad: )

CliffH
March 13, 2008, 06:08 PM
Two thoughts occured to me today:

What's to keep the BG's from adopting this tactic? Especially if the police are using plain-clothed officers for the "inspections".

How thorough are the "inspections" going to be? How much of a mess will the officers leave after searching the residence? Will they be looking behind the wallboard? I had a cousin who kept his legally owned guns inside the wall, in case of a home burglary.

takhtakaal
March 13, 2008, 06:10 PM
Get rid of the widow in the first paragraph (either bring "Safe Homes Initiative" down to the next line, or if you can adjust the kerning to get the "-tive." back up on the previous line.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/153/dcshino2vw0.th.png (http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcshino2vw0.png)

I'm considering doing some work on saturation and lightness for the guy, front left, carrying the sledge, but it seems dishonest.

Zundfolge
March 13, 2008, 06:13 PM
That looks better.

I wouldn't worry about trying to alter the race of any of the cops.
1) it would look hokey/dishonest
2) DC is predominantly black ... blacks are more likely to be frightened by a bunch of white cops (yeah, that sounds evil, but its true)

Zundfolge
March 13, 2008, 06:18 PM
ACLU is on our side on this one!
Where? I can't find anything on the local ACLU chapter's site that says anything about this http://www.aclu-nca.org/

(now that could be that their site is put together horribly and without a search function)

edit
Don't find anything about it here either (and the main ACLU site is better built ... with a search function) http://www.aclu.org

takhtakaal
March 13, 2008, 06:20 PM
Better yet, I'll make him Romulan!

rainbowbob
March 13, 2008, 06:26 PM
From the press release linked in a previous post:

As part of Chief Lanier’s ongoing community policing strategy, the Metropolitan Police Department will launch the Safe Homes Initiative on March 24, 2008. Parents or guardians will be encouraged to voluntarily allow their neighborhood foot beat officers to enter their homes to search for weapons without risk of arrest. Beginning during this year’s spring break, officers will go door-to-door in the Focused Improvement Areas (FIA) of the Seventh Police District to ask residents if they will allow officers to do security checks of their homes. If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if the weapons are not found to be linked to any other crimes.

If I didn't know better - I'd think this was a spoof! Is this what the rest of the country has to look forward to when these kind of folks are allowed to have their way with the 2nd Amendment? Armed patrols going house-to-house to destroy law-abiding citizens defensive weapons in order to make their houses "safe"? Wow...just wow!

You'll have to excuse me, I'm kind of new to all this having recently awakened from a 40-year slumber (Rip Van Winkle's got nothin' on me!). I finally joined the NRA yesterday and, as a recent convert would urge you all to do the same if you haven't already. For a limited time, you can go the website of "America's First Freedom" magazine and purchase a $35 annual membership for $25.

Crunker1337
March 13, 2008, 06:29 PM
Erm, I really don't think race is an issue. When I see a police officer, I see the uniform first.

sacp81170a
March 13, 2008, 07:16 PM
The thing about warrantless searches is that you then don't have to specify where and for what you're searching. I wonder if they get a yes and get past the front door will they be stopping when asked? I would say don't risk it, just on principle. The more people get used to this sort of thing, the easier it will be next time, which may be the point.

Not wishing bad things for DCMPD, but I hope they don't find anything at all and the city has to pay overtime. Good idea on the poster. If we don't stand up for our rights, we don't have any.

tinygnat219
March 13, 2008, 07:19 PM
Crunker1337,

Normally I agree. However, this is DCwhere Black on White racism is alive and well. I simply feel this picture won't get the right message across.

Aguila Blanca
March 13, 2008, 07:46 PM
They are doing the same Boston Ma. Bunch of commies
Yeah, they stole the idea from Boston. And the Boston PD has a lot of nicey-nicey sounding words about how completely voluntary the program is, and how it's not a violation of anyone's Constitutional rights, and ...

It's all clap-trap. Once the program has been operating for awhile, I think we can rest assured that we'll be hearing horror stories about how the program is being abused. Once they get their foot in the door WITH THE OWNER'S PERMISSION, anything and everything will be fair game.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2008, 09:05 PM
how'd it work in boston?

big44
March 13, 2008, 10:20 PM
Seems to me this has happened once before in about 1776. The British had to learn the hard way. Maybe those DC thugs need the same lesson. In this case the police are nothing more than thugs!

Deavis
March 13, 2008, 11:03 PM
It is because the parents can't control their kids. Funny, why don't they press charges against the parents for negligence? They are responsible for thier kids so hold them responsible. It never ceases to amaze me that we condone bad parenting over and over and over.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 14, 2008, 12:11 AM
The Fourth is quite specific about searches. In order to be secure from unreasonable searches, it is necessary to have probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and etc., and no warrant shall issue without such. No warrant; no search. Government does not have nor has it ever been given power to even ask to search sans a warrant. I don't see it in the Constitution anywhere.

Even an arrest post Miranda with the "reading of your rights", government doesn't have power to ask you if you will forgo your right to remain silent. The reading just says if you do speak, what you say can be used against you. Say "No" and then keep your mouth shut.

Not to worry. If there is something against you, you will be arrested, searched with a warrant, or whatever, without you having to utter one word.

Woody

GuyWithQuestions
March 14, 2008, 01:18 AM
The Fourth is quite specific about searches. In order to be secure from unreasonable searches, it is necessary to have probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and etc., and no warrant shall issue without such. No warrant; no search. Government does not have nor has it ever been given power to even ask to search sans a warrant. I don't see it in the Constitution anywhere.

Not true. The Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution and the law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that probable cause and warrants applies if someone doesn't give their consent to being searched, but if a police officer asks to search a home and the resident gives their voluntary consent, then no warrant is needed. One time my uncle in California was scared because someone kept on saying he was going to kill him. So he started carrying a gun with him. One time he was pulled over and a police officer saw a holster laying on the passenger seat and asked him what that was and where the gun was located. My uncle said that it was in the glove department. The police officer asked if he could look inside, my uncle said yes. When he saw the gun in glove department, he then arrested my uncle and he went to jail :mad:

The FBI on their website point out that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that voluntary consent searches don't violate the 4th Ammendment.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/mar2003/mar03leb.htm#page_27 from the FBI says

The Fourth Amendment preserves the “right of the people to be secure their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”1 It is well settled that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” 2 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a search conducted pursuant to lawfully given consent is an exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.3
Wikipedia says that police officers aren't legally required to tell the civilian that they can legally refuse the search in voluntary search situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches

XD_fan
March 14, 2008, 01:33 AM
Never ever, ever invite law enforcement into your house. Once their in, its a free for all. They don't even have to stop if you change your mind. And anything and everything can and will be used against you. Kind of like posting your picture on the internet.

I've always thought the police going from door to door searching, unless their hoofing it right behind 'em, is and always has been a heinous activity. It smacks of Royal Troops searching homes without cause.

Titan6
March 14, 2008, 04:10 AM
I am willing to bet money that the majority of the people of DC don't care about their rights to be secure in their person and their dwelling. That they will cooperate with the government fully. This is how a social democracy operates. They have the government they voted for.

sacp81170a
March 14, 2008, 05:45 AM
Never ever, ever invite law enforcement into your house. Once their in, its a free for all. They don't even have to stop if you change your mind.

Wrong! You have a perfect right to withdraw consent at any time and tell them to leave. Your failure to do so allows them to keep searching, but when you withdraw consent do so clearly in front of neutral witnesses. That's the key. (How does this myth keep going?)

If you don't stand up for your rights, you don't have any.

Harvster
March 14, 2008, 06:58 AM
If you had some extra time and money and nothing better to do, wouldn't it be fun to live in DC with a hundred or so legal guns and ammo for all of them. Then, stash them all over the house (trigger locks in place) and call them up and say you think there may be some guns in your house. Please come take a look.

Nobody's_Hero
March 14, 2008, 07:03 AM
Mom: "Who's at the door, sweety?"

Daughter: "I'll go check."

Mom: "I hope it isn't those Jehovah's witnesses"

Daughter: "Nope, it's the police. They want permission to search the house."

Mom: "Oh, why couldn't it have been the Jehovah's witnesses?"

ctdonath
March 14, 2008, 08:52 AM
when you withdraw consent do so clearly in front of neutral witnesses. That's the key. (How does this myth keep going?)
Maybe the myth keeps going because the neutral witnesses don't.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 14, 2008, 09:09 AM
Not true. The Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution and the law. ...

Oh, good! Maybe YOU can show it to me in the Constitution. Many claim this is true, but no one has ever been able to show me where the Constitution gives the Court power to interpret the Constitution.

Show me.

I don't want a ruling from the Court, I want to see it in the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a search conducted pursuant to lawfully given consent is an exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

I don't see this anywhere in the Constitution, either.

Woody

The lack of this knowledge makes me feel like a lamb being led to the slaughter and the only choice I have is which butcher to select. B.E. Wood

Wineoceros
March 14, 2008, 11:06 AM
The Fourth is quite specific about searches. In order to be secure from unreasonable searches, it is necessary to have probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and etc., and no warrant shall issue without such. No warrant; no search.
Your "No warrant; no search" conclusion does not follow from your previous statement, nor is it supported by the text of Amendment IV. Let's try breaking it down:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

OK. So no "unreasonable" searches (nor seizures). What's an "unreasonable" search? Sounds like a judement call. That's probably one reason that we have courts.

, 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."

OK. Any warrants issued must be the result of probable cause, etc. But where is this "no warrant, no search" prohibition you speak of?

Wineoceros
March 14, 2008, 11:12 AM
Oh, good! Maybe YOU can show it to me in the Constitution. Many claim this is true, but no one has ever been able to show me where the Constitution gives the Court power to interpret the Constitution.

Show me.

I don't want a ruling from the Court, I want to see it in the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

So, the judiciary (including SCOTUS) is charged with adjudicating "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution". Since legal adjudication inherently and unaviodably involves interpreting the law, and since the U.S. Constitution is a legal document (the supreme law of the land, no less), how does one arrive at a judgement on a case involving a constitutional dispute without interpreting the Constitution, just as one would need to interpret any other law (or set of laws)?

ConstitutionCowboy
March 14, 2008, 12:04 PM
What makes a search, or assures that a search is not unreasonable is the issuance of a warrant with probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation.

More on this tonight if the thread doesn't get closed.

Woody

Wineoceros
March 14, 2008, 12:19 PM
What makes a search, or assures that a search is not unreasonable is the issuance of a warrant with probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation.
The amendment's language doesn't say that. So what is your basis for that assertion?

ctdonath
March 14, 2008, 02:09 PM
The language is plain, albeit antiquated. UNREASONABLE searches are prohibited; a warrant expressing probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and detailing who/what/where is being searched, makes/assures it REASONABLE and thus Constitutional.

Wineoceros
March 14, 2008, 02:22 PM
The language is plain, albeit antiquated. UNREASONABLE searches are prohibited; a warrant expressing probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and detailing who/what/where is being searched, makes/assures it REASONABLE and thus Constitutional.
I think you're jumping through some sort of logical wormhole here. Just because a warrant ensures (more specifically, a warrant issued in the manner described) that a search is reasonable, it does not logically follow that the lack of a warrant makes a search inherently unreasonable.

Your claim that the phrase describing the criteria that warrants must satisfy somehow means that a warrant and ONLY a warrant can make a search reasonable simply does not withstand even the most basic linguistic or logical analysis. It's almost as bad as claiming that 2A says that the RKBA is described as a militia duty-dependant right.

Think of it this way. I tell you:

"This is a gasoline-only engine, and any unleaded gasoline used should have an octane rating of 90 or greater."

What can we determine from this? Two things:

1) The only fuel that should be used is gasoline.
2) Unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of at least 90 is acceptable for use as fuel in this engine.

Can we further logically deduce that *only* unleaded gasoline should be used in this engine? No, we cannot.

GuyWithQuestions
March 14, 2008, 04:16 PM
If someone says, "Hey coppers! You can come search through my vehicle for marijuana!" Or "You can come search through my house for illegal drugs and firearms!", how's that unreasonable search? If someone gives their voluntary consent and the police aren't forcing them to do anything? If you say no because they don't have a warrant, they can't use that as probable cause of guilt in getting a warrant. Wikipedia, under consent searches, also says that in most cases once you give your consent for consent searches, you can tell them to stop anytime during the search and they have to stop, although there are a few exceptions. It uses the FBI .gov website as its reference. The two exceptions are airport security screening, it was ruled that once your bag enters the x-ray and you walk through the magnetometer, you can't withdraw your voluntary consent. The other exception is if you're visiting a prison and searching has already begun. Apparently it sounds like they had problems with people smuggling things into airports and prisons seeing if they could get away with it. The courts also ruled that when you say that although you gave your voluntary consent to be searched but then decided to change your mind, you have to explicitly say so, giving hints or acting impatient doesn't count. That's only if you had already given your voluntary consent, but then changed your mind. And if they just found some illegal drugs, then it's too late to tell them to stop, you're screwed. During the search, the officer may develop probable cause to make it so you can't revoke your voluntary consent; however, United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.” So the best thing to do if you live in D.C. is just to say you don't give your consent unless they have a search warrant. Legally, they can't use that as a reason for you to be seen as guilty.

Cuda71
March 14, 2008, 05:10 PM
Does anyone have any information on how the program went in Boston? My understanding is it began in November of last year, so there must be some information. Is it still running or did they abandon it?

Why do I get the feeling that the D.C. searches will end up looking like a buyback program. A few months into the program there will be tables lined up for the media with hundreds of "illegal" guns that supposedly "voluntarily" came out of peoples homes. Of course there must be a Tec-9 in there somewhere. :neener:

Seriously, I see way too many situations where things could go wrong with such a program:

What if officers get a call, then arrive at the property and no one is home? Will they just enter, then state afterwards that they received a tip about "dangerous, illegal weapons that posed a threat" in the home?

What if a child answers the door, or someone too young to give consent? Will the officers simply walk away and "leave a minor alone in a house with firearms"?

What if the person who answers the door consents, but isn't the property owner?

What if the tenant of a rented property consents? Does the landlord also need to consent, or will the police give amnesty to him as well for any of his property or any zoning laws or code violations they might "stumble across".

Hopefully a number of lawsuits brought against the city in the wake of such searches will force them to abandon the plan as ineffective, assuming that it's deemed constitutional in the first place.

GuyWithQuestions
March 14, 2008, 05:18 PM
Seriously, I see way too many situations where things could go wrong with such a program:

Personally, I see the people who consent to being searched in D.C. as being similar to that one Simpsons Episode where those bullies were like, "Wallet Inspector!" The kids handed him their wallets. "Hey, you're not the wallet inspector!" Bully, "I can't believe they fell for that!"

takhtakaal
March 14, 2008, 06:04 PM
Just imagine if the person at the front door says yes, and the person upstairs at their own bedroom door says no.

Lots and lots of headaches and heartaches.

ctdonath
March 14, 2008, 06:19 PM
I think you're jumping through some sort of logical wormhole here. Just because a warrant ensures (more specifically, a warrant issued in the manner described) that a search is reasonable, it does not logically follow that the lack of a warrant makes a search inherently unreasonable.

Given the point of this thread (which should be presumed relevant in discussions thereon), it is UNREASONABLE to walk up to arbitrary homes, knock, and while wearing a uniform & weapon and while operating in teams (i.e.: acting under color of law with implied threat of force for non-compliance) say "hey, we want to search your house for contraband ... oh, don't worry, we won't arrest you, we'll just confiscate it" when there is absolutely no reason to do so in that specific instance.

"Reasonable" has as its root "reason". They're searching homes for contraband, with no reason to believe that specific house has specific contraband or involves any specific crime (and the term "specific" even being applied as loosely as possible).

Nobody, when explaining in more detail than you want to read on a discussion thread, will argue that a warrant MUST, ABSOLUTELY be in-hand for absolutely every search. There are, of course, situations where a search is reasonable and there is insufficient time to get a warrant. We use warrants whenever possible to have documented assurance that there is indeed a good reason for the search. But since you're demanding such nit-picking precision in the discussion, I will observe the obvious: when there is not time to get a formal warrant, and there is reason to search, the search is justified - just expect the target thereof to demand judicial review to confirm that the search was "reasonable".

Wineoceros
March 14, 2008, 06:25 PM
Given the point of this thread (which should be presumed relevant in discussions thereon), it is UNREASONABLE to walk up to arbitrary homes, knock, and while wearing a uniform & weapon and while operating in teams (i.e.: acting under color of law with implied threat of force for non-compliance) say "hey, we want to search your house for contraband ... oh, don't worry, we won't arrest you, we'll just confiscate it" when there is absolutely no reason to do so in that specific instance.

"Reasonable" has as its root "reason". They're searching homes for contraband, with no reason to believe that specific house has specific contraband or involves any specific crime (and the term "specific" even being applied as loosely as possible).
No argument there.

Nobody, when explaining in more detail than you want to read on a discussion thread, will argue that a warrant MUST, ABSOLUTELY be in-hand for absolutely every search.
Then ConstitutionCowboy must be this "nobody" you allude to, as he has most certainly made that very argument multiple times, as he did here, which is what I replied to. Given that, your response to my point can only be interpreted as meaning that a warrant is required for a search to be "reasonable". Either that's always true, or there are exceptions. You can't have it both ways.

ctdonath
March 14, 2008, 06:37 PM
Sigh...here we go again...

What if officers get a call, then arrive at the property and no one is home? Will they just enter, then state afterwards that they received a tip about "dangerous, illegal weapons that posed a threat" in the home?
If there is nobody home, then there is no hurry - is there?
Post a cop or two to watch the place, while another goes to a judge to present the evidence. If the evidence is good enough to convince the judge that the search is "reasonable", then the issue is resolved and they can go search promptly. If it's not good enough for the judge, then it's "unreasonable" and they're not allowed to search.

What if a child answers the door, or someone too young to give consent? Will the officers simply walk away and "leave a minor alone in a house with firearms"?
If the evidence is enough to convince a judge - and an experienced cop should have a good sense of whether it is or not - they can act accordingly to search.
You're also complicating the question with the red herring of whether a child should be left home alone at all. That's a whole different discussion.

What if the person who answers the door consents, but isn't the property owner?
Then perhaps they can invite the person to step out, while a warrant is obtained. So long as there's time to get the issue documented with a judge's signature, do so. What's the rush?

What if the tenant of a rented property consents?
The tenant, for most legal purposes, has the authority to grant permission.

Does the landlord also need to consent,
Only if the search involves an area not otherwise under the authority of a tenant.

or will the police give amnesty to him as well for any of his property or any zoning laws or code violations they might "stumble across".
Well, ya see, that's an under-discussed part of this whole issue: while a verbal "we won't prosecute" is given, courts have broadly given consent to cops to LIE pursuant to their activities, and have also broadly given consent to cops to act on any other illegalities they reasonably stumble across pursuant to their reasonable search (hence the Constitution's insistence that a warrant be to search a particular place for particular things).


THINK about the issue. Don't just make up wild/scary-sounding stuff and go "oh, but what about THIS that I haven't really thought about?" It all revolves around what constitutes a REASONABLE search: why is a search being done? for what? where? when? why now? what's the rush? is there time to convince a judge it's reasonable BEFORE searching?

D94R
March 14, 2008, 07:02 PM
Guns making the house's unsafe? Really? Never thought about that,... I double checked though just to be sure and my guns aren't hopping around just itching to eject bullets at anyone and everyone who enters my house.

That damned toaster on the other hand has been giving me the stink eye lately.

sacp81170a
March 14, 2008, 08:32 PM
Just imagine if the person at the front door says yes, and the person upstairs at their own bedroom door says no.

Actually, if the person upstairs at their own bedroom door isn't a minor, they have the right to say no.

I double checked though just to be sure and my guns aren't hopping around just itching to eject bullets at anyone and everyone who enters my house.

Well, mine are, trust me. No, seriously, no one should ever try to enter my house without my permission. I'm not sure I could control 'em. Really. :p

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2008, 12:09 AM
ctdonath said it in a nutshell. The following is the long version:

Let's see, the Fourth Amendment begins with, "The right of the people to be secure yadda yadda against unreasonable searches..." Hmm, interesting choice of using that word "against", don't you think? Why didn't the Founding Fathers use the word "from" instead? "Against" means in opposition to. (The other definitions don't fit the context.) So, plugging in the definition of "against", we get, "The right of the people to be secure yadda yadda in opposition to unreasonable searches...". If "from" were used, the only closely suitable definition of "from" is out of the possibility or use of and it doesn't work contextually. We'd have, "The right of the people to be secure yadda yadda out of the possibility or use of unreasonable searches..." . It just doesn't flow.

At any rate, I must apologize for using the word "from" in my dissertations.

"Against" is a preposition and the object of the preposition is "searches" which in turn is modified by the adjective "unreasonable". This is an adjective phrase linked to the adjective phrase "to be secure", which in turn specifies which right is being addressed in the Amendment, which is the "Right to be secure in their persons,houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." That is the name of the right. That is what is protected. The amendment goes on to specify how it shall be protected by saying it shall not be violated. It doesn't protect a right to be secure from reasonable searches and seizures, however. Now, we need something to differentiate between what might be a reasonable search and seizure and what is not. The Founding Fathers included what shall determine the difference between what is reasonable and what is not. It's called "probable cause" supported by oath or affirmation, and the Founding Fathers included describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized to make a search and seizure reasonable. That means NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS !! If the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized are not specified, and there is no probable cause(you need all of it), the search is unwarranted, unwarrantable, and otherwise unconstitutional in spite of what the Court has said.

Also note that the Founding Fathers joined what is protected and what determines that which is not protected with the conjunction "and". The amendment is one sentence. It says what is protected and specifies the standard that must be met and the process and procedures that must be followed to pursue that which is not protected. It doesn't include any alternatives such as asking persons if they will consent to a search without an appropriately issued warrant. Don't forget the Tenth Amendment or how the Fourteenth Amendment ties the Fourth to the states(for those who believe the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states before the Fourteenth). There is no power granted to the Union to ask a person to forgo their Fourth Amendment protected right, and the several states are as bound to the procedures in the Fourth as is the Union. There is nothing in the Fourth Amendment excepting the several states from the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The argument that granting permission for a search to be conducted sans a warrant still does not meet the requirements government must adhere to. The Place to be searched must still be specified. The items or persons to be seized must still be specified. Probable cause must still be met and supported by oath or affirmation.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2008, 12:22 AM
So, the judiciary (including SCOTUS) is charged with adjudicating "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution". Since legal adjudication inherently and unaviodably involves interpreting the law, and since the U.S. Constitution is a legal document (the supreme law of the land, no less), how does one arrive at a judgement on a case involving a constitutional dispute without interpreting the Constitution, just as one would need to interpret any other law (or set of laws)?

Note the word "under"? The Constitution is not under itself. It is the top. The Court needn't "interpret" the Constitution to determine whether or not a certain law is constitutional. The interpretation is done on the law to see if it comports to the Constitution. The Court is not above the Constitution. The Court abides the Constitution. How can the Constitution be the Supreme Law of the Land if it can be interpreted or construed by anyone under it? It isn't supreme if it can be interpreted. If the Supreme Court determined the supreme law of the land, we wouldn't need a constitution.

Woody

Wineoceros
March 15, 2008, 01:25 AM
Note the word "under"? The Constitution is not under itself. It is the top.
You have a keen grasp of both the obvious as well as the already stated.

The Court needn't "interpret" the Constitution to determine whether or not a certain law is constitutional. The interpretation is done on the law to see if it comports to the Constitution.
You seem terrible confused. To "interpret" in this context is simply to determine the meaning of. English, like all natural languages, is an imprecise tool. As such its meaning, even as crafted by those most skilled in its use, is more often than not subject to at least some degree of interpretation. This is especially true of something like the U.S. Constitution, which is quite economical with its verbiage, and not chock-full of a lot of detailed definitions, explanations and what not.

Now, when SCOTUS accepts a case consisting of a challenge to a given statute that has been made on constitutional grounds, the court is generally faced with the task of determining if the challenged law is in compliance with the relevant portion(s) of the Constitution. In order to do that the court must quite often figure out the precise meaning of the text contained in said portion(s) within the context of the challenged statute. This is because, owing to the aforementioned economy of verbiage, the text being evaluated may not be completely clear and unambiguous on the matter at hand. In other words, the court "interprets" the meaning of the text for this purpose.

The Court is not above the Constitution. The Court abides the Constitution.
No one has said otherwise.

How can the Constitution be the Supreme Law of the Land if it can be interpreted or construed by anyone under it?
I realize that you think you're making some deep philosophical point here, but in fact you're simply offering a nonsensical argument. The men who authored the Constitution were also "under it" once it was ratified, but no reasonable person would claim that they could not interpret its meaning. The need and ability to perform such interpretation does not mean that the interpreter is somehow "above" the law being interpreted.

It isn't supreme if it can be interpreted. If the Supreme Court determined the supreme law of the land, we wouldn't need a constitution.
Do you really not grasp the absurd nature of your argument? The Constitution, like all man-made law, was written by flawed mortals. As such it is an inherently imperfect expression of the intent of the authors. If the language describing laws was perfectly clear, unambiguous and not subject to any interpretation then we would have no need of any judges at all.

You've taken your rationalization to silly extremes.

And your long-winded diatribe on search and seizure is just as silly, and astoundingly convoluted to boot.

Wineoceros
March 15, 2008, 01:42 AM
The argument that granting permission for a search to be conducted sans a warrant still does not meet the requirements government must adhere to. The Place to be searched must still be specified. The items or persons to be seized must still be specified. Probable cause must still be met and supported by oath or affirmation.
You're jumping through a great many hoops here just to mangle and horribly misinterpret a simple bit of English. The requirements you describe above are, in the language of the 4th, restrictions on *warrants*, not on searches themselves. There are two separate (but related) restrictions described by the 4th:

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.

The conjuction "and" separates these two restrictions on state power with regard to search and seizure, and the verbiage you're going on about applies directly to the latter, and only indirectly to the former...and then only in case in which a warrant is the only "reasonable" path to a search or seizure. Otherwise there would have been no purpose for including the word "unreasonable" in the first part.

paintballdude902
March 15, 2008, 01:45 AM
this is facism!!!

what happens if you say no?

i would bet that they take down ur info and keep a closer watch on u this is outragous

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2008, 02:09 AM
if they were capable of keeping a closer watch in the highlands there wouldn't be stop and cop curb side service on every corner. this is a lame photo op hand job. i hope they get video i bet the cops are real enthused about this one if anyone can post the question on one of the cop boards. i'd love their unexpurgated opinions

GuyWithQuestions
March 15, 2008, 02:10 AM
this is facism!!!

what happens if you say no?

i would bet that they take down ur info and keep a closer watch on u this is outragous

The U.S. Supreme Court said that then they cannot use that as a probable cause for guilt, if you refuse to be searched in a voluntary consent search. That's what you should say if you live in D.C. and they ask if they can go through your home, say no!

jrfoxx
March 15, 2008, 02:11 AM
I don't think they care about the drugs.

And here's what I think is the scam here, and what will get a LOT of people who allow the searches arrested.They say they are looking for illegal guns, and if they find one that WASNT used in a crime, they wont charge you, but, what happens if they DO find some drugs, or other illeagl items during the search? they never said you'd get amnesty for ANYTHING except guns. So, my guess, is if they find something else thats illegal, you get arrested, and the court will allow whatever they found, since you volunteerd for the search.And since a handgun is small enough to be pretty much anywhere, they will be allowed look pretty much anywhere, so the drugs, or whatever they find will be from a legit search, since it was found somelace a gun COULD have been, and they just happened to find it, so it's not like they lied to get the search allowed (not that it would mater anwas, the courts have said cops can lie to you all they want to get you to do what they want).In that vain, whats to stop them from charging you for a gun they find anyway? unless they sign a legally binding contract with you before the search that says they wont charge you, they can easily just go back on thier word, and the courts would 99.9% likely (IMHO), say it was ok that they lied about the amnesty.But again, they dont even need to do that if they find someting else to charge you with that ey didnt proise amnesty for.Enjoy prison folks.

This may sund a little in foil hattish, but I realy, really dont ink they'll just ignore anything else they find and only confiscte it and let you off the hook.I FULLY belive they'll hammer you as hard as they can for it.The part about going back on thier word on the gun amnesty may be a conspiracy theory stretch,but again,without signed contracts, and the courts having said lying to get searches, informaion, etc is ok, there really isnt anything stopping them, except thier integrity, which, I'm sory, but I dont see a lot of evidence there's much of that in D.C., especially when it comes to guns. Wouldnt be surpised at all, thats for sre.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2008, 02:34 AM
they don't have enough jail space to arrest folks in the highlands who have dope. let me give you a hint its like chris rock says martin luther king ave runs through the highlands

ProguninTN
March 15, 2008, 02:39 AM
Sound fishy to me...like "you might as well voluntarily waive your rights because we're going to usurp them anyway". :fire: On a side note, I'm back after not posting/visiting the forum in a while. :)

ruger45
March 15, 2008, 02:44 AM
I seen this earlier today on the local news here and I would not allow them to search my home under any conditions. If they were to come across a stolen gun while doing one of these searches, I doubt they will not arrest that person.

cleardiddion
March 15, 2008, 10:17 AM
...sick....just sickining...

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2008, 10:19 AM
If law enforcement had probable cause, they wouldn't be asking, they'd have a warrant and would be doing.

More tonight.

Woody

Welcome back, ProguninTN!

JohnBT
March 15, 2008, 07:11 PM
I still don't see what's wrong with this voluntary program.

They can ask to search my place until they are blue in the face.

John

ctdonath
March 15, 2008, 07:49 PM
http://www.fivefourteen.net/motivational-posters/fascism.jpg (http://www.fivefourteen.net)

no_problem
March 15, 2008, 08:02 PM
<<I imagine that saying no will constitute probable cause, huh?>>

They are trying to route out the gun owners and singling them out for persecution as a class.

Now, there is a short distance from presumption to guilt!

I understand that this is because the DC Police Chief is trying to combat a crime wave in the District of Columbia.

takhtakaal
March 15, 2008, 08:07 PM
I understand that this is because the DC Police Chief is trying to combat a crime wave in the District of Columbia.

Seems like there might be another crime wave real soon now. I wonder who gets to combat that one? The citizens of DC certainly aren't prepared, and the DC Metro PD certainly doesn't seem capable of enough introspection to ask themselves if they aren't, perhaps, beating 4A to within an inch of its life.

Zundfolge
March 15, 2008, 08:31 PM
I still don't see what's wrong with this voluntary program.

They can ask to search my place until they are blue in the face.
My problem with it is that they are taking advantage of the ignorance of most of the population (and I don't put it past them to intimidate some people into "volunteering").

You know you can refuse, I know I can refuse, but some poor person without much education may not know they can refuse. Taking advantage of such people is just wrong.

I really really hope that a large number of DC citizens set up cameras and record what happens when they refuse the searches.

I'm also sickened and saddened (but not surprised) that the ACLU has been dead silent on this.

GuyWithQuestions
March 15, 2008, 10:08 PM
One thing I was wondering about, what if when a police officer pulls you over for a speeding ticket, he then says, "If you let me search your car, I won't arrest you if I find anything!" You're like, "Sure, in that case, go ahead." Then the officer finds some drugs in your car and then arrests you! He then says that he used a consent search, but used deception to get you to do it.

209
March 15, 2008, 10:33 PM
I'm not overly concerned about any policy my local PD enacts concerning "voluntary" acts on my part. No violation of my rights occur if I voluntarily go along with the program. If the citizens of DC read that policy as something they will have to allow because they are ignorant of their rights, shame on them. Boston announced the same plan several months back. I don't know what the final decision was as to the enactment of that plan.

A main part of the plan is being promoted as a system by which concerned parents can have the police search their kid's room for a gun. If the citizens of DC want to turn over their parental rights to the police, all the more power to them. IMO, it doesn't say much about the parent's ability to be a parent, but that's an indicator of a disease that is developing in America.

I'm reminded of a rape case (I think it was somewhere on Cape Cod) where they asked all of the local males to voluntarily submit to DNA tests in an attempt to ID the suspect. I'm not sure how I'd respond to a request like that, but I'd like to think I'd come up with a valid reason for saying either yea or nay based on some critical thinking involving the request and the impact it may have.

LawBot5000
March 15, 2008, 10:50 PM
The state undoubtedly is allowed to pass this law. Regulatory encroachments on private property are not currently given a very close scrutiny. Rational basis is the order of the day.

I don't think this is a correct view of takings, but mine is a minority view. There are way too many people that want to preserve the government's power to interfere with your property in the name of various and sundry good causes.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2008, 11:23 PM
what law did the state(district) pass?
i think a lotta folks need to buy a pair of tight shoes to worry about. this "plan" is funny. be fenty and the new chiefs first big fubar moment

illspirit
March 15, 2008, 11:33 PM
With regards to the searches being "voluntary," it really kinda depends on how the request is worded..

If, for instance, they simply say "if you let us search for guns, you won't get arrested," it could be construed as a threat of arrest should the homeowner not comply. Such a request coming from a group of armed officials would be downright coercive.

Using the District's logic, would it be legal for a group of armed gangsters to knock on random doors and say "if you give us your TV, you won't get hurt?" I mean, if the TV is relinquished voluntarily, it's not theft, right? Likewise, the gangsters wouldn't be threatening violence, just offering "amnesty" for violence which may or may not happen otherwise.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 16, 2008, 12:32 AM
You seem terrible confused. To "interpret" in this context is simply to determine the meaning of. English, like all natural languages, is an imprecise tool. As such its meaning, even as crafted by those most skilled in its use, is more often than not subject to at least some degree of interpretation. ...

This is a contradiction. "Interpret" has two applicable meanings in this discussion. One is to simply determine the meaning as you stated, and the other is to give one's own conception of or to construe. In what you said here, you've used both definitions. If "some degree of interpretation" is involved, it certainly is not to simply determine the meaning of something, but to add one's own conception. Nothing in the Constitution is so vague that there is any room for that sort of interpretation. The Fourth Amendment is no exception.

Now, when SCOTUS accepts a case consisting of a challenge to a given statute that has been made on constitutional grounds, the court is generally faced with the task of determining if the challenged law is in compliance with the relevant portion(s) of the Constitution. In order to do that the court must quite often figure out the precise meaning of the text contained in said portion(s) within the context of the challenged statute. This is because, owing to the aforementioned economy of verbiage, the text being evaluated may not be completely clear and unambiguous on the matter at hand. In other words, the court "interprets" the meaning of the text for this purpose.

You start out just fine here, but you fall off the wagon when you say the Court must figure out the precise meaning of the text contained in said portion(s) within the context of the challenged statute. It is the statute that is examined to see if it fits within the context of the Constitution! I do believe those on the Court ought to know what the Constitution says by now. It is not to be "examined"(read interpreted) in the context of a challenged statute.

This "economy of verbiage" in the Constitution is what makes it so precise, and far from the lack of clarity you seem to see in it.



I realize that you think you're making some deep philosophical point here, but in fact you're simply offering a nonsensical argument. The men who authored the Constitution were also "under it" once it was ratified, but no reasonable person would claim that they could not interpret its meaning. The need and ability to perform such interpretation does not mean that the interpreter is somehow "above" the law being interpreted.

Here you are talking of the Constitution and of the law and trying to equate the two. Yes, most law does need interpretation. Politicians are writing it, after all, and politicians will put as much ambiguity into the law as they can. The Constitution is not constructed in such a fashion. I think the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they meant and put it in the precise language they did in order that there would be no ambiguity, no opportunity for misconstrual. In some cases they even said there shall be no construing of certain parts that could be construed, such as the Ninth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3.

Do you really not grasp the absurd nature of your argument? ...

... You've taken your rationalization to silly extremes.

And your long-winded diatribe on search and seizure is just as silly, and astoundingly convoluted to boot.

You do yourself a disservice by resorting to abasement sans a logical rebuttal.

... The Constitution, like all man-made law, was written by flawed mortals. As such it is an inherently imperfect expression of the intent of the authors. If the language describing laws was perfectly clear, unambiguous and not subject to any interpretation then we would have no need of any judges at all. ...

Now who is being silly? We need judges because regardless of how clear the law is, people will still break it and must be tried. The system of justice we've chosen for ourselves includes judges. The scenario you present without judges would only be appropriate in a monarchy, oligarchy, ochlocracy, dictatorship, tyranny, or anarchy.

You're jumping through a great many hoops here just to mangle and horribly misinterpret a simple bit of English. The requirements you describe above are, in the language of the 4th, restrictions on *warrants*, not on searches themselves. There are two separate (but related) restrictions described by the 4th:

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.

The conjunction "and" separates these two restrictions on state power with regard to search and seizure, and the verbiage you're going on about applies directly to the latter, and only indirectly to the former...and then only in case in which a warrant is the only "reasonable" path to a search or seizure. Otherwise there would have been no purpose for including the word "unreasonable" in the first part.

I haven't mangled or "misinterpreted" anything. The first part of the Fourth limits government and the second part actually grants power to government. It tells government how to conduct a search and/or seizure. The "and" is a coordinating conjunction, tyeing the two independent clauses, 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 the second clause, 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, together. The "but" acts as a preposition in this case, meaning "except". It can't be considered a conjunction because upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. is not an independent clause. It's an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verbal "shall issue".

It is undeniably clear that the Founding Fathers intended all searches and seizures to be conducted under the authorization of a written warrant. Due Process must take part. It's no different than the construction of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. Ah, but the best is next:

The same construction is used in the Third Amendment, and the Third Amendment HAS a provision in which government may ask a person to forgo the protection of the amendment. There is no such provision in the Fourth. That is precedent. Those who know to take the Amendments in the context of the Constitution can see that the Court is wrong, and so is anyone else who says it is constitutional for government to ask someone to forgo the protections of the Fourth.

I love words almost as much as I love guns.

Woody

I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things. Just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood

alan
March 16, 2008, 12:34 AM
Re this "voluntary home search", my answer is and remains NO. You can, of course come back, when and if you get a proper warrant. In my view, the thing is that simple.

Wineoceros
March 16, 2008, 10:44 AM
love words almost as much as I love guns.
Then more's the pity that you choose to subject them to so much needless torture. Your most recent example of linguistic waterboarding is no exception.

After reviewing your posting history on related subjects I now realize that I should have spotted your particular brand of derangement right up front...alas, I failed to do so.

You're one of those folks who is either so intent on rationalizing his inane preconceived notions that he will go through the most extreme linguistic gymnastics in order to do so, or you know full well that your ramblings are nonsense, and are just engaged in the sport of seeing how many people you can sucker into believing you.

Either way, you're not even remotely interested in honest, informed discussion.

But I must say, I was quite entertained with your try at the "Per the Constitution, there is no 'United States Government'" claim. I suppose you just didn't anticipate someone providing the obvious counter by citing the fact that the Constitution explicitely refers to just such a "Government". I further guess that's why you ran away from the discussion so quickly.

The Big One
March 16, 2008, 02:37 PM
Right up there with pulling people over to commend them for their driving!

ConstitutionCowboy
March 16, 2008, 05:59 PM
Wineoceros

If I'm so deranged, irrational, nonsensical, and tortuous, I must be quite illogical enough for you to actually and easily present your case with your superior intellect and knowledge and put me away for good. 'Course, you may only be projecting.

In any case, since you find my thread on the actual status of the governance of the Union so interesting, I'll bump it up so that you might voice your opinion and destroy me with fact. I'll certainly re-engage since you seem to think I ran from it.

By the way, what did you think of the precedent set in the Third Amendment granting power to government for it to ask if the owner of a house would allow the quartering of troops in time of peace? Pretty cool, eh? There is no such grant of power in the Fourth for government to ask a person to forgo that right. No grant of power, no can do.


what law did the state(district) pass?
i think a lotta folks need to buy a pair of tight shoes to worry about. this "plan" is funny. be fenty and the new chiefs first big fubar moment

Excellent question and I believe it needs a direct answer. Sounds like the "officials" are hanging one out there without a law being passed by the DC City Council. Sound's very statist. There was no such law passed in Boston(or was it Roxbury?) when the police decided to act autonomously.

Woody

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy...the rule of few over many.

cassandrasdaddy
March 16, 2008, 06:49 PM
and what law do you imagine they need to pass? i stress imagine

Wineoceros
March 16, 2008, 07:46 PM
If I'm so deranged, irrational, nonsensical, and tortuous, I must be quite illogical enough for you to actually and easily present your case with your superior intellect and knowledge and put me away for good.
Already done. Try reading it.

'Course, you may only be projecting.
"May" only be? I thought you were enamored of the English language and knew what words meant?

In any case, since you find my thread on the actual status of the governance of the Union so interesting
Another misinterpretation on your part. I said "entertained", not "interested".

I'll bump it up so that you might voice your opinion and destroy me with fact.
Why re-bomb a building that's already rubble?

I'll certainly re-engage since you seem to think I ran from it.
I don't think you ran from it. You did.

By the way, what did you think of the precedent set in the Third Amendment granting power to government for it to ask if the owner of a house would allow the quartering of troops in time of peace? Pretty cool, eh? There is no such grant of power in the Fourth for government to ask a person to forgo that right. No grant of power, no can do.
I think it's absolutely irrelevant to anything I've argued here (I've not argued a power to request a search for no reason), and as such nothing but a diversionary exercise.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 16, 2008, 09:30 PM
Wineoceros,

The Fourth is quite specific about searches. In order to be secure from unreasonable searches, it is necessary to have probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and etc., and no warrant shall issue without such. No warrant; no search. Government does not have nor has it ever been given power to even ask to search sans a warrant. I don't see it in the Constitution anywhere.

I think it's absolutely irrelevant to anything I've argued here (I've not argued a power to request a search for no reason), and as such nothing but a diversionary exercise.

This thread is about police conducting searches to be authorized by asking permission of the owners of the houses in stead of acquiring warrants. I've presented my argument in detail.

Here is your first response:

Your "No warrant; no search" conclusion does not follow from your previous statement, nor is it supported by the text of Amendment IV. Let's try breaking it down:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

OK. So no "unreasonable" searches (nor seizures). What's an "unreasonable" search? Sounds like a judement call. That's probably one reason that we have courts.

, 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."

OK. Any warrants issued must be the result of probable cause, etc. But where is this "no warrant, no search" prohibition you speak of?

The "no warrant, no search" is right in the middle of your response, and I quote:

"OK. So no "unreasonable" searches (nor seizures). What's an "unreasonable" search? Sounds like a judement call. That's probably one reason that we have courts."

It is the court that issues the warrant to make sure the search is not unreasonable. That is what the last half of the amendment covers. You supported my argument.

My "Ace in the Hole" is the precedent set in the Third Amendment that government may ask permission of a person to quarter soldiers in his house in peacetime. The lack of a similar power granted to government in the Fourth amendment shows that asking permission to search sans a warrant is unconstitutional.

Woody

Ballistic308
March 16, 2008, 10:35 PM
Howdy All,

Washington D.C. is the same place that continues to re-elect a known crack smoker to their city council....
They consistently have one of the highest rates of crime/gang membership/drug arrests, etc., of any area in the country. They
continue to blame all those around them (Virginia especially) for their problems.
Now, the police want citizens to "voluntarily" allow their homes to be searched. I have a better idea... it involves building a containment wall around the city. Nobody with a felony record, or history of gang membership leaves.
Just moving the jail where we need it.:cool:

FTA84
March 17, 2008, 02:14 AM
Constitution Cowboy:

Consider the following three statements:
(For picky people, here polygon = convex polygon in classical Euclidean geometry)

a) A square is a rectangle
b) A rectangle is a polygon
c) A 4-sided polygon with 90* angles is a rectangle

a), b) andc) are true statements.

Consider,

d)If a shape is not a rectangle, then it is not a square

Is also true

However,

e)If a shape is not a square, then it is not a rectangle
f)A polygon with 4-sides and 90* angles is not a square

These are false statements.

You say, because the constitution says, in so many words "a search with a warrant is reasonable" that a search without one isn't. False. That is inferring statement e) from a).

You also say because the 3rd makes explicit reference to permission and the 4th doesn't that there must be no permission allowed in the 4th. Again. False.
You are concluding that because there are no statements about squares as they relate to special polygons that f) is true.

Not to mention, this whole business of inferring statements from lack of statements is using the 'interpretation' business you claim is not required.

I agree that you seem to try to hard to make your arguement. Logic should be clear and concise.

In any event, I am not trying to pick on you. I just think that one should be aware of these logical flaws for defending their positions. In an according high road manner, since you seem to take very personal offense at being corrected, I will not be responding/reading this thread.

Best wishes and good luck

ConstitutionCowboy
March 17, 2008, 10:05 AM
FTA84

Excellent line of reasoning. However, there is more involved here than sides and angles.

If you are going to do the math, don't forget the parameters. You cannot take any single part out of the entire context of the Constitution and run with it all by itself. It's like ignoring the Twenty-first Amendment and then reading the Eighteenth Amendment and saying we still have prohibition in the entire Union.

You are forgetting or ignoring the Tenth Amendment. It is not necessary to infer that government may not ask to search a house or person because it isn't specifically prohibited in the Fourth. It is prohibited by the Tenth(and the Fourteenth to the states) because there is no such power granted to government in the first place.


I don't take offense to being corrected or being offered an opposing opinion. I take offense to being belittled and berated. Some here seem to think their ability to do that somehow gives extra weight to their points.

Even though you won't read this, best wishes and good luck to you as well.

Woody

I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things. Just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood

legaleagle_45
March 17, 2008, 06:31 PM
The fourth amendment does not apply to DC. The purpose of the 4th is to insure a secure populace free from federal interference so that they will be loyal state citizens. It naturally follows that such amendment should have no applicability to the citizens of DC who are not bound to any state.

:banghead:

Crunker1337
March 17, 2008, 06:33 PM
"Can we search your home?"
"No."
"...Okay..."

Flex your rights, DC citizens; if you don't want your house to be searched you have the right to say now.

revjen45
March 17, 2008, 08:45 PM
Interesting- as I read about Kriminalpolizei (Kripos) asking for the sheeple of D.C. to "voluntarily" allow them to snoop through their homes, I am hearing on the TV news about the Chicom police asking Tibetan demonstrators to "voluntarily" surrender to authorities.

Any lawyer will tell you the only answer to the police asking you anything is silence. So say nothing,slam the door in their faces, and lock it.

whack-a-doe
March 25, 2008, 09:57 PM
With respect to the ACLU being involved with D.C.'s Safe Home Initiative, they are only mildly involved. There have been reports they are supporting the initiative to get flyers to the residents, but most of the resistance has been from locals/grass roots activists.

The ACLU did not submit an AMICI brief in support of overturning the D.C. Gun Ban, nor have they raised much of an issue in D.C. over the Safe Home Initiative. They are, interestingly enough, being rather quiet about the 2nd Amendment being stomped all over. They are neither involved in the lawsuit, nor are they making much of a stink about the searches. Rather interesting...specifically interesting from the standpoint they are supposed to fight ALL civil liberty infringements, but they are probably distracted trying to protect the civil liberties of all the illegal alliens...you think it a joke? Look it up...they are fighting for the civil liberties of illegal alliens and trying to stop the local and state government from conducting raids on illegal alliens.

I thought the "A" in "ACLU" stood for "American" Civil Liberties...guess not.

whack-a-doe
March 25, 2008, 10:03 PM
What's further troubling about the gun ban - let's just forget for a moment the initiative that is trying to get all the guns before the SCOTUS overturns the ban - is that there is very little mention of the statistical FACT that violent crime increased all but five years since the gun ban went into effect.

What's up with that? When I listened to the arguments offered to the SCOTUS, there was almost no mention of the crime statistics that would debunk the falicy of continuing a failed ban.

What's up with that?

alan
March 26, 2008, 01:05 AM
whack-a-doe:

Interesting that you should call to attention what you so do. Even more interesting, is the fact that the effectiveness of lack thereof of the legal monstrosity that is the law in Washington, D.C. has absolutely nothing to do with the matter before the court. Possibly, just possibly it should, however it doesn't.

JohnBT
March 26, 2008, 08:04 AM
www.nbc4.com/news/15688264/detail.html

Like anybody with a passing knowledge of D.C. didn't see this lack of cooperation coming. A Council member tells folks to tell the cops to get a warrant. The cop says 'Heck, this is the neighborhood where nobody ever saw nothing'.

John

legaleagle_45
March 26, 2008, 10:59 AM
From JohnBT's link:

A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well.

"Chief Lanier has been clear," Traci Hughes said. "Amnesty means amnesty."

So they find a gun which is linked to an unsolved murder, the perp gets amnesty???:banghead:

rdhood
March 26, 2008, 01:53 PM
So they find a gun which is linked to an unsolved murder, the perp gets amnesty???

I think the answer would be that neither Traci Hughes nor Chief Lanier can grant someone amnesty. These two people can promise you the moon, too.

Schleprok62
March 26, 2008, 02:46 PM
If parents suspect guns are illegally in the home, they can already call the police and ask them to come search for them, so why do we need a program to accomplish what we already have?

Uhmm... if I find out my kid has an illegal firearm, I WILL BE THE ONE confiscating it... simple as that. That is what I perceive a parents duty is. To parent and mentor ones children. :fire:

Oh, wait, I keep forgetting, the government wants to take "parent" out of PARENTING... :scrutiny:

My bad...

Steve 48
March 26, 2008, 03:22 PM
I have never allowed a search of my homel or car. I never have anything illegall in there anyway so I just like to hassle them. I usually video them so there is no problem. Yes, I do live in Kansas and it is here too!! Steve48

If you enjoyed reading about "DC asking citizens to VOLUNTEER to a search" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!