Consent-To-Search in Oakland, CA


PDA






kamagong
April 12, 2008, 11:46 PM
I don't know what to say.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/alamedacounty/ci_8870744

If you enjoyed reading about "Consent-To-Search in Oakland, CA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kentak
April 12, 2008, 11:51 PM
Say, "No."

Crimp
April 12, 2008, 11:56 PM
Sigh...

Knock, knock. Got guns?
By Kelly Rayburn
Oakland Tribune
Article Launched: 04/09/2008 08:52:22 PM PDT


AT A GLANCE

Under the consent-to-search program, officers would request permission to search homes for guns. Guns would be taken away, but officers would not pursue prosecution unless the weapon was tied to a crime. The City Council is expected to discuss implementing a six-month pilot consent-to-search program when it meets at 6 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.


OAKLAND — A six-month pilot program where Oakland police officers would knock on doors and ask permission to search homes for guns got a green light from the City Council's public safety committee Tuesday night.

It goes to the full council April 15.

The consent-to-search program, as it is called, is based on a similar effort launched in St. Louis in 1994 and ongoing programs in Boston and Washington, D.C. The idea is simple: To ask parents for permission to search their homes for weapons their children may be hiding.

The St. Louis effort fizzled after initial success, but Oakland's Deputy Police Chief David Kozicki said that in Washington, police officers say they cannot keep up with requests from parents to search their homes. Such is the interest in the program, he said.

Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan, who is on the public safety committee, said she was surprised to hear that and hoped Oakland might see the same results.

"I think it's worth trying and seeing what the community reaction is," she said. "If it's embraced as a way to get guns off the street, great. If people don't want to cooperate, then we don't continue the program."

Kernighan and Councilwoman Desley Brooks asked the police department to look into the possibility of a consent-to-search program in February.

The police department is proposing a six-month trial period for the program beginning in June or July, probably in West Oakland.

Lt. Kirt Mullnix said the program, which would be launched during summer break, would largely be operated by Campus Life and School Safety officers, who normally patrol in and around schools.

It also could involve department problem-solving officers. All told, six to 10 officers would be used in the effort, Mullnix said. He didn't anticipate additional overtime being billed to the city.

Consent-to-search programs are not without controversy. Oakland civil-rights attorney John Burris criticized the idea in February, and the American Civil Liberties Union has protested programs in other cities. Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director for the ACLU of Northern California, said the organization would pay close attention to what happens in Oakland.

"There are a whole host of reasons why people might not want police to search their homes," he said. "But people might not know they have a right not to consent."

City and police officials stressed it would be important to educate community members about how the program works before implementing it and said providing education and outreach would be a priority.

Under the program, if guns were found, police would take them away, but not pursue prosecution unless the gun in question was tied to a shooting or homicide.

"The important thing is you're looking at removing guns from the streets to prevent future violence," Mullnix said.

"You're giving up arrest and prosecution for less violence in the future. It's another tool we can use. There's a lot of gun violence in Oakland and that's why we're trying it.''

Nate C.
April 13, 2008, 12:01 AM
Here's a concept, people of Oakland: If YOU are a parent, YOU take responsibility for raising your kid. If YOUR kid is sufficiently lacking in upbriging that he is strapped, YOU remove the gun from your kid's room. Then YOU take appropriate action, as a parent.

Geez.

mekender
April 13, 2008, 12:20 AM
"no sir, you may not search... in fact, there is no need to search... all of my guns are right here... they are all legal... and i love to shoot them... have a nice day"

caltek1911
April 13, 2008, 03:08 PM
Agree with Nate C. Are parents that inept that they cannot check their owns kids rooms that they need the police to do it for them?

Unbelievable.

romma
April 13, 2008, 03:37 PM
No Thank you Officer Friendly. This program you are running seems illegal to me though Officer.

If it isn't, it should be Officer!

rainbowbob
April 13, 2008, 03:43 PM
Maybe parents could grow a set and try something like this:

"Where do you think you're going?...Get over here!... You're not going anywhere in that baggy outfit until you turn out your pockets... And while we're at it, I want to see the contents of your closet, your dresser drawers, coats, sweatshirts, and under the mattress."

Im283
April 13, 2008, 03:57 PM
so how do they decide which neighborhoods to begin this search in? I suspect that they will not be going to upper middle class white suburbia. Sounds like there will be profiling going on.

Why would anyone consent to this crap?

pbearperry
April 13, 2008, 04:10 PM
As soon as you allow your son to walk out of the house with his hat on backwards,his baggy pants below his Johnson,and his Gangsta rap CD's,you have lost the game.KIds will try anything if you don't pay attention to them.Also keep in mind,you can never get a Kentucky Derby winner by breeding two Jackasses.

DRZinn
April 13, 2008, 04:22 PM
"NO. Have a nice day." <closes door>

How hard can it be?

CZ.22
April 13, 2008, 05:03 PM
Hmm- I probably wouldn't even be polite. God gave us middle fingers for a reason.
I bet, in little time, Berkely will adopt a similar program,, but without the "Consent" part.
Nice to see the ACLU doing there part. They may not do much for the 2nd Amendment (that may change after Heller) but they do defend the constitution.

wolf13
April 13, 2008, 05:03 PM
I don't think they will get far with this in Oakland. If they do, it won't be what they want either, with where they do the searches. At least they haven't tried to do this in Richmond.

ColinthePilot
April 13, 2008, 05:15 PM
No Thank you Officer Friendly. This program you are running seems illegal to me though Officer.

If it isn't, it should be Officer!

I don't see how it is illegal. If the resident gives consent to search, even though he's an idiot, it seems legal to me.

I would be polite, because there's no need to be a jerk about someone asking for permission to look around your house. As long as when I politely decline, they walk away.

Blackbeard
April 13, 2008, 05:19 PM
The only reason I could see anyone consenting to this is if they know their kids have guns but don't want the fallout from confronting their kids on their own. Call it linguini-spined parenting, but we all know it exists out there, especially in divorce situations.

Everyone else should tell them to pound sand.

lee n. field
April 13, 2008, 05:19 PM
"no sir, you may not search... in fact, there is no need to search... all of my guns are right here... they are all legal... and i love to shoot them... have a nice day"

That's too complicated.

Try this (http://www.amazon.com/High-Cotton-Come-Warrant-Doormat/dp/B00020O572) instead.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417EFR9B5GL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

DRZinn
April 13, 2008, 06:01 PM
That is currently at the very top of my wish list.

romma
April 13, 2008, 06:05 PM
I would be polite, because there's no need to be a jerk about someone asking for permission to look around your house. As long as when I politely decline, they walk away.


I respectfully disagree.

I think it is high time, at least in certain instances that apalling actions, (at least apalling in my opinion) should be met with some degree of shock and some level of astonishment that a program of this nature would ever be launched...

Besides, I don't think the text of my hypothetical statement to Officer Friendly made me come across as a jerk at all. I was polite, and at the same time expressed my honest opinion to him.

This way he can offer feedback to his superiors about how this program is viewed by some of those randomly selected for participation.

Basically, "No thanks Officer Friendly"... "And you can pass my sentiments along to the top Brass"...

makarovnik
April 13, 2008, 06:08 PM
How come when I call the police about drug activity in my neighborhood or after receiving threats against my life from my wife beating child hating drugged up and drunken neighbor, the cops are nowhere to be found?

Usually the anwer is "We don't have enough man power to respond to every little call". But Oakland has enough man power to go door to door searching for in most cases non-existent guns. I would be rude so they get the message this is a waste of tax payers money and it takes "man power" away from dealing with legitimate crimes that are being commited.

Also they say they will ask the parents permission to search the house. How much do want to bet that sometimes they knock when a parent isn't home and ask a minor if they can search the home. Is the non-parent going to be firm enough with the police to say "no"?

This is a bad idea and is going to cost a lot of money. I would be happy if the police would just try to focus on enforcing the laws already on the books before the go off on another tangent with something new.

I also think it is the parent's jobs to search their own homes and their own kids rooms. This is just another example of the responsibility of raising children being pushed off to someone other than the parents. There is already too much of that going on. Stop the insanity!

Now if the parents REQUEST the police to search their homes, that might be a different matter but I still don't like it.

Old Fuff
April 13, 2008, 07:15 PM
If the program gets talked up in the "hood" as seems to be implied, I suspect that the children will hide their hardware in some other place other then their home. This is another feel-good program designed to make the community think that something is being done, when it really isn't. The real answer would be to go after the gangs, break them up, and jail the members.

But of course that won't happen. :banghead:

Blue .45
April 13, 2008, 07:23 PM
Aren't they trying the same thing in D.C. ?

TAB
April 13, 2008, 07:27 PM
No, have a good day.

No reason to get pissy with the cop, he is just doing what he is told to do. You need to point your disagrement with this crap to the proper place... the guys that came up with the idea.

Jim K
April 13, 2008, 07:34 PM
The DC proposal has run into a lot of flak from the ACLU (with the quiet but powerful support of the NRA), and now the police chief is dancing backward.

The first proposal was that several police officers armed with assault rifles would "demand the right" to search houses. That soon got revised to a couple of officers making a "request". Then to a single officer in civilian clothes who could summon aid if the consent was given. I am not sure where it is now, but some very powerful people are ticked off, especially as it was made clear that "requests" would be targeted at blacks. "We obviously would not be concerned about Northeast [a predominately white area]", a police spokesman said. That got a great reception from the ACLU.

Jim

Guitargod1985
April 13, 2008, 10:33 PM
"Do you consent to a search of your home for weapons?"

"Gee, I don't know officer. Does your chief consent to a cavity search for a stick?"

vynx
April 14, 2008, 12:49 AM
Geez, someone wants the police to search your kids rooms...why not just have the state take them (the children) away for "re-education" my god ********** is getting worse every month!

Robert Hairless
April 14, 2008, 01:21 AM
Sorry, officer, we don't allow solicitors.

But since you have a special interest in firearms, I invite you to join the National Rifle Association right now. For only $35 a year you can join millions of gun owners who support the right of free Americans to keep and bear arms. You are an American, aren't you? And you do share the principles that have kept us a free people since the founding of this country? Then you should welcome this opportunity to demonstrate your belief in freedom. What is your full name and home address?

D94R
April 14, 2008, 01:45 AM
As soon as you allow your son to walk out of the house with his hat on backwards,his baggy pants below his Johnson,and his Gangsta rap CD's,you have lost the game.

Excuse me! That's a little naive and ignorant statement don't you think?

Wearing a hat backwards signifies absolutely nothing. What music someone listens to means absolutely nothing as well. I'll agree with the pants comment, kinda, you still however shouldn't profile someone for that reason though.

For your information, I wear my hat backwards 50% of the time. Am I going to go out and rob a bank and 'shoot up the joint' because so? I also listen to your 'gangsta rap', and Country, and Oldies, and Rock and Roll, and Classical, and.....

But, I guess I'm now going to go out and 'bust a cap' because my parents failed and let me listen to 'gangsta rap'.

I'm 23, graduated college with my BSEE two years ago with a 3.8 GPA. I own my own house. Work for a multi Million dollar company for the semi conductor industry.




Your 'game' is a little off.

springmom
April 14, 2008, 02:04 AM
Odd notion. When I suspected two of my own children of being involved in things I didn't approve, I was perfectly capable of searching their rooms myself. Pretty bad when you have to have the police do it for you. :eek:

Springmom

Black Adder LXX
April 14, 2008, 05:16 AM
God gave us middle fingers for a reason. -lol

Seriously... Karl Marx would love this idea...

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 12:12 PM
Excuse me! That's a little naive and ignorant statement don't you think?

Couldn't agree more. I am an old fart, but I have noticed that among folks under 25, wearing a baseball cap "backwards" is the normal way to wear it.

My son wears his cap that way when he wears a cap, and has listened to rap music.

Guess I lost the battle. Oh he is graduating cum laude next month with a 3.97 in physics with a math minor, and has accepted a full ride in EE from a very good grad school. Guess I really, really screwed up letting him out of the house wearing his hat differently than my friends and I wear our hats! :)

Mike

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 12:21 PM
Seriously... Karl Marx would love this idea...

Why would Karl Marx love this idea?

I am not arguing, just curious - I haven't read a lot of Marx, but I can't fathom a connection between what I read and consent searches.

Mike

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 12:27 PM
Pretty bad when you have to have the police do it for you.

I think the parents who are asking for help would agree that it's not an ideal situation. That's more or less why they're asking for help.

In my situation, we have two parents in the household, with one of us working half time (more or less). We have lots of time/interest for our kids.

But all households are not like mine. A single mom working long hours to support her family with a difficult teen may need some help. Judging her - to my mind - may make me feel good, but it doesn't help solve the problem.

Mike

rainbowbob
April 14, 2008, 01:16 PM
A single mom working long hours to support her family with a difficult teen may need some help. Judging her - to my mind - may make me feel good, but it doesn't help solve the problem.

You make a good counter-point there, Mike. I could see how, under circumstances such as you describe, that a parent might need help disarming a child that is teetering (or maybe already tipped) toward criminal behavior. I don't think roving squads are the answer...but help should be available if asked for.

bnkrazy
April 14, 2008, 01:37 PM
This is happening all over the place and the problem I see with it is most people don't know you can say "no" to a cop. Most people think you must do whatever a cop says. Folks here are generally more knowledgeable of their rights.

It's the potential for abuse that I don't like. It would be easy for a cop to "forget" to mention that the homeowner can decline the search, etc.

Another reason I dislike it is it conditions the public to think that cops going door to door making searches is normal. I don't want that to become normal, although it seems to be an awfully popular program these days.

Sigh.

I do agree that help with an unruly teen should be offered, but door to door search requests? No way.

novaDAK
April 14, 2008, 01:45 PM
"If it's embraced as a way to get guns off the street, great. If people don't want to cooperate, then we don't continue the program."
Yep...because a person's home is considered the street now I guess.

Well, in a socialist society, you don't own private property, and in the Communist Manifesto, the first step towards creating a communist society is the confiscation of private property...

Kentak
April 14, 2008, 01:47 PM
Maybe parents could grow a set and try something like this:

"Where do you think you're going?...Get over here!... You're not going anywhere in that baggy outfit until you turn out your pockets... And while we're at it, I want to see the contents of your closet, your dresser drawers, coats, sweatshirts, and under the mattress."

Surely you've heard the recent story about the young parents in Denver who had a fist fight in Blockbuster as they argued over which street gang their four year old son would join? They'll probably supply the gun, too.

K

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 01:51 PM
God gave us middle fingers for a reason.

Provoking officers when they are on duty seems like a cowardly act to me.

I have felt this way for a long time - going all the way back to anti-war demonstrations in the 60s. This is not a new stance for me.

If you flip the bird during a confrontation with a random person on the street, there's an even chance that they're going to smack you - that's the point of flipping the bird, to provoke a confrontation. Man to man, right?

But when you flip the bird at an on duty officer you are hiding behind the fact that he can't do anything back - not even flip the bird back at you - without having legal trouble and/or losing his job.

Is provoking a man who cannot respond the action of a hero or a coward?

You make the call.

I made it for myself 40 years ago, and my politics have changed a lot since 1968 - but I still believe it's the right call.

Mike

Steve N
April 14, 2008, 01:56 PM
Quote "Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan, ... "If it's embraced as a way to get guns off the street, great..." Quote

The guns are off the street, lady! They are in someone's house, a private residence, their CASTLE! Its up to their parents to have a set big enough to raise their kids right.

RLsnow
April 14, 2008, 02:11 PM
Hey, i wear hats! and pants, and i listen to metal :O

Not hiding any guns though, and i don`t want the local police asking me if i do either!

pbearperry
April 14, 2008, 02:38 PM
As usual,THR missed my point.Little white kids in thr burbs wearing hats backwards and low baggy pants are only tryin to look cool.Kids in the inner cities who dress like that are jail bird wannabees or Gangstas.OK now everyone will say I am a racist.The cops are trying to figure out how to keep inner city kids from killing eachother,not trying to be Nazis.Go back to your safe desk jobs and leave the crime fighting to the cops.Cops aren't trying to tell you how to do your jobs are they?What a bunch of armchair quarterbacks in here.

nothinspecial
April 14, 2008, 02:50 PM
Wow, never seen such an outcry of idiocracy. First, the officers that must do this in Oakland, CA are doing this b/c they are being told to do so, and that is their job. Second, It is a request for a "CONSENT TO SEARCH". A simple ''no'' will suffice. Police catch enough sh*t from the top to the bottom and don't need yours. I'm speaking from experience, I have had to take on tasks that I do not want to do as an officer. Try standing at an intersection and writing seatbelt tickets. ( I hate seatbelts, and I hate tickets) but I have to do it b/c it's the job I signed up for.
In every state in our great country some ********* senator or governor makes up some "crime fighting'' plan and then shoves it down the pipe to local LEOs and we are then obligated to do it. I receive a few pieces of paper every week, which I must go ask someone on two seperate occasions if I can search their house for drugs. These are anonymous complaints called into the crime stopper hotline, which is frequently abused by girl getting back at ex-guy or vice versa, but It still has to be done.
So please get your head outside the bubble and stop thinking so small, and thinking that these ideas occur to a police officer one night and he then decides to become the gestapo. We all know the quote "sh*t rolls downhill". well from experience, the police are at the bottom of the hill with a shovel.

and to one poster in particular, remember most cops (that i know) are NRA members or supporters, we love legally armed citizens.

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 02:53 PM
Go back to your safe desk jobs and leave the crime fighting to the cops.

Are you sworn peace officer? Not arguing, just curious.

Mike

pbearperry
April 14, 2008, 03:26 PM
Retired thankfully.For 32 years everyone wanted to tell me how to do the job.Do it more,do it less,why pick on me,is this all you have to do?WHy haven't you found my car yet?WHy did it take you so long to get here?Oh by the way,you make too much money.

DRZinn
April 14, 2008, 03:30 PM
I have to do it b/c it's the job I signed up forSo as not to invoke Godwin's Law, I'll only say:

That sounds familiar.

DRZinn
April 14, 2008, 03:31 PM
that's the point of flipping the bird, to provoke a confrontationUmmmm, not really, no.

cpttango30
April 14, 2008, 04:01 PM
Maybe if parents would just say "Excuse me but where are you going? Who is going to be there? What are you doing there? And You wil be home in time for dinner at 6 pm right?" Hey son and or daughter how was school today? What classes did you have? Tell me something new you learned?

Simple questions might not get many answers from a teenager. But it is the point you are making that you love them and you are looking out for them. Believe me it works and it works good. Be involved in their life. How hard is that?

I believe that when the family started not sitting down to a family dinner is when the American family unit started falling apart. We always had dinner as a family unless my dad was out of town on work then my step mom and I still had dinner together. Parents are having a hard time setting limits today from what I see. The kids screams I want candy in the store mom shoves candy in the kids mouth to shut him up. Kids are not trophy's they are kids you need to mold them and shape them in to good upstanding adults.

I believe that the Scottish started the flipping the bird to show the English that the archers still could shoot at them. Because IIRC they would cut off the middle finger of an archer if he was ever captured. I may be totally off on this but I think that is kind of how it started.

MarcusWendt
April 14, 2008, 04:12 PM
Where is the ACLU? Why aren't these departments getting their asses sued off?

MarcusWendt
April 14, 2008, 04:17 PM
As usual,THR missed my point.Little white kids in thr burbs wearing hats backwards and low baggy pants are only tryin to look cool.Kids in the inner cities who dress like that are jail bird wannabees or Gangstas.OK now everyone will say I am a racist.The cops are trying to figure out how to keep inner city kids from killing eachother,not trying to be Nazis.Go back to your safe desk jobs and leave the crime fighting to the cops.Cops aren't trying to tell you how to do your jobs are they?What a bunch of armchair quarterbacks in here.

No, not a racist, a realist I would say.

I don't blames the cops, I blame the politicos and I think the average street cop agrees that this is wrong.

jerkface11
April 14, 2008, 04:27 PM
The officers doing this are simply proving that they will follow ANY order given to them. If they get chewed out by a dozen people and have a horrible day every time they get this duty maybe they'll learn something.

jakemccoy
April 14, 2008, 04:29 PM
In Cali, the parents will likely share some legal responsibility for their minor kid having a gun in the house, especially if the minor kid has used the gun in any manner.

To cut a long post short, I just say "no". Disciplining kids is the parent's responsibility.

CountGlockula
April 14, 2008, 04:33 PM
Oakland PD = Geheimes Staatspolizei-Amt or "Gestapo".

Ltlabner
April 14, 2008, 04:35 PM
Holy crap. Parents should discipline their kids themselves and not rely on the state to do it?

What a radical concept.

I have no idea why so many parents are so terrified to discipline their own children. It's all about self-esteem and being good buddies. Makes me want to puke.

Oh yea, "Sorry officer, you can't search my house without a warrent. Good luck, and have a nice day".

Travis Lee
April 14, 2008, 06:07 PM
There is nothing "voluntary" about giving consent to armed police pounding at the door and DEMANDING entry.

Are they going to white neighborhoods doing this?

Are they doing this in middle class neighborhoods?

When they find a California-legal and registered gun, will they simply leave it alone, or will they confiscate it to "make sure it's not stolen"? Good luck to the citizen getting it back.

When police behave like an occupying army don't complain that you get no respect or cooperation from the community.

--Travis--

R127
April 14, 2008, 06:51 PM
I think it's very telling that we've had government employees in this thread tell us we should excuse what the police do because A) they are just following orders, and B) because they find their job stressful. If police find themselves "at the bottom of the hill" then perhaps they should stop being so selective about the laws they enforce... "following orders" without objection over some malum prohibitum offense but absolutely stone cold refusing to enforce the highest law in the land. Sorry, but the police had a chance to defend their credibility by upholding the law. They have flatly refused and in doing so have earned the scrutiny they are now subject to.

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 07:05 PM
Sorry, but the police had a chance to defend their credibility by upholding the law. They have flatly refused and in doing so have earned the scrutiny they are now subject to.

Tell us which law the police are flatly refusing to uphold by asking if residents of a dwelling would object to a weapons search?

Mike

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 07:14 PM
Where is the ACLU? Why aren't these departments getting their asses sued off?

Uh, didn't the article make it pretty clear that the ACLU was nervous about these searches?

My guess is that the ACLU will step in if and when such a search discovers a weapon used in a crime and someone objects that they weren't properly informed or for some other reason couldn't give consent. If all that happens, and if the judge does not exclude the evidence, then the ACLU will step in.

I can't think of any Constitutional objections if a police officer asks to search and I give consent - except the standard ones about my being informed, is it really my property, etc.

Mike

R127
April 14, 2008, 07:20 PM
Tell us which law the police are flatly refusing to uphold by asking if residents of a dwelling would object to a weapons search?

Mike

Oh, you want to play that game? Ok, which law are they enforcing? Golly gee, there is no law that says people need to have armed police go house to house and ask to search the dwelling. They aren't enforcing anything at all then, just harassing people who haven't done anything wrong without probably cause.

Now that we've confirmed that these "law enforcement officers" are not enforcing anything but just harassing people would you like to talk about the laws that they are refusing to enforce?

R127
April 14, 2008, 07:23 PM
I can't think of any Constitutional objections if a police officer asks to search and I give consent - except the standard ones about my being informed, is it really my property, etc.

Mike

It gets even better! So, do you think the police would have any objections if armed citizens show up at individual police officer's homes without any warning or invitiation and asked the cops if they could come inside and do a little searching around?

pbearperry
April 14, 2008, 07:24 PM
Mr R127 are you sober?You make no sense to me.Anyone else out there feel the same?

R127
April 14, 2008, 07:40 PM
I'm not suprised I make no sense to you. I'm talking about law and freedom, you have decades in a profession that works against both those things. It is logical that subjugation of law and individual liberty makes sense for someone who has been a voluntary servant of outlaw politicians. I believe your point of view is tidily summed up with this comment you made just a bit earlier.

Go back to your safe desk jobs and leave the crime fighting to the cops.

No doubt Denise Lee salutes you valiant superheroes for providing us all with this perfectly safe desk job environment.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=356040

pbearperry
April 14, 2008, 07:49 PM
It's a shame that people in this country can be so negative and paranoid,especially when there are medicines out there that can help.
I must have been a lousy cop for 32 years because I never arrested anyone that definitely did not need arresting.I never planted evidence or made a false arrest.I was never sued or ever had criminal charges brought against me.However I was able to save more people than I can remember,except the little girl age 11 that reminds me about saving her every once in a while.Oh I forgot,I never shot anyone either.What was I thinking?It could have been so much fun beating and shooting scum bags left and right like they do in movies and TV.Oh well maybe next time?

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 07:51 PM
It gets even better! So, do you think the police would have any objections if armed citizens show up at individual police officer's homes without any warning or invitiation and asked the cops if they could come inside and do a little searching around?

To answer your question as though it were serious - I can't imagine any Constitutional objection to anyone asking to search my home. Where in the Constitution is that kind of question prevented?

A person could argue that they were intimidated into giving consent just as they can can argue that with most forms of legal consent.

To your more specific question, I think the courts have accepted some limitations to protect the security of judges and law officers.

I do have an example.


A person is probably free to knock on my door, and tell me that they are really, really drunk.

A person is probably not free to knock on the judge's door and tell the judge that they are really, really drunk.


How would I know this unusual fact?

I have friend one time who got a DUI, and was mad the judge didn't release him. This friend got out the next morning, got really drunk, and went to the judge's house. He wanted to demonstrate what "really drunk" was like. He said, in retrospect, that going to a judge's house the day after he arraigns you and knocking on the door and yelling was a really bad idea. :) In fact, it was such a bad idea that he suggests that no one ever do it.

By the way, this friend was sober 20 years when he told me the story.

Mike

Zundfolge
April 14, 2008, 07:53 PM
Ok, how about this hypothetical situation.

You allow the police to search your home and either your adult child or one of your room mates is not home at the time but has a legally owned firearm in their room. Are the police going to confiscate it? When they do are they going to return it when the owner complains?

Hank Zudd
April 14, 2008, 07:58 PM
is Kali has a DOJ list of "certified" gun safes; if they find a legal collection in one that's not on the list, I can see them confiscating them all.
When I lived there you used to have to buy a gun lock or sign a form stating you had a certified safe at home (after waiting 2 weeks for a gun). Don't know if the ever went to check.
Oh well, that another reason I'm glad I moved.

jakemccoy
April 14, 2008, 08:02 PM
Zun wrote,
You allow the police to search your home and either your adult child or one of your room mates is not home at the time but has a legally owned firearm in their room. Are the police going to confiscate it? When they do are they going to return it when the owner complains?


In real life Oakland, California, the respective answers are "yes" and "yes after paperwork hassle".

In theoretical fantasy land, the answers may be different.

R127
April 14, 2008, 08:06 PM
It's a shame that people in this country can be so negative and paranoid,especially when there are medicines out there that can help.
I must have been a lousy cop for 32 years because I never arrested anyone that definitely did not need arresting.I never planted evidence or made a false arrest.I was never sued or ever had criminal charges brought against me.However I was able to save more people than I can remember,except the little girl age 11 that reminds me about saving her every once in a while.Oh I forgot,I never shot anyone either.What was I thinking?It could have been so much fun beating and shooting scum bags left and right like they do in movies and TV.Oh well maybe next time?

Sounds great, I'm glad the medicine helped. If you would like to post some documentation on every arrest you made in 32 years so we can check it for malum prohibitum charges and/or charges that violate the highest law in the land we can award you the many faceted award for meritonious achievement. If not then it's just more internet talk. Personally I wouldn't be committed enough to the discussion to want to divulge personal information so I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't.


To your more specific question, I think the courts have accepted some limitations to protect the security of judges and law officers.


So judges and law enforcement officers are super-citizens deserving of protections and consideration beyond that of mere commoners? That does not bode well for the health of checks and balances, does it?


I do have an example.

A person is probably free to knock on my door, and tell me that they are really, really drunk.

A person is probably not free to knock on the judge's door and tell the judge that they are really, really drunk.

How would I know this unusual fact?

I have friend one time who got a DUI, and was mad the judge didn't release him. This friend got out the next morning, got really drunk, and went to the judge's house. He wanted to demonstrate what "really drunk" was like. He said, in retrospect, that going to a judge's house the day after he arraigns you and knocking on the door and yelling was a really bad idea. In fact, it was such a bad idea that he suggests that no one ever do it.

By the way, this friend was sober 20 years when he told me the story.

Mike

And what exactly is that supposed to be an example of... that judges can do whatever they want to you for any reason they wish, even if it is against the law? That you don't have a good concept of property rights and trespassing?

The most I can really get out of that is that you're suggesting that judges deserve super-citizen rights because they can and will use many facets of state power against other citizens. It sounds like that whole "might makes right" argument again, which is still wrong.

RPCVYemen
April 14, 2008, 08:08 PM
I must have been a lousy cop for 32 years because I never arrested anyone that definitely did not need arresting.I never planted evidence or made a false arrest.I was never sued or ever had criminal charges brought against me.

In an earlier PM, I thanked you for that service. And I thank all LEOs that serve to the best of their ability.

Part of the reason for that was that I have lived in a society without a police force - Mogadishu in the late '80s.

I'm talking about law and freedom, you have decades in a profession that works against both those things.

As a profession law enforcement protects law and freedom.

A major city with no functioning police force is not a utopia. I lived it. It was brutal and and not very free at all (and we still had the Marines looking out for us - the local Somalis didn't have that). Luckily, I got out of Mog before it completely collapsed - but not a single person I knew there would have described Mog as "free".

Mike

Robert
April 14, 2008, 08:13 PM
This type thing had been going on for years in other areas of our lives.
As a former State Trooper I could stop someone for a broken tail light and then ask for consent to search the car for no other reason than I was bored and wanted to poke around. Now if the individual in question said no then it was remember to wear your safety belt and drive safe. But if I had reasonable suspicion I could impound the car right then and there and detain the driver for however long it took.
The point is, this is nothing new. It is a very old concept that is being applied in a very new way. Do I agree? Not one bit. The government has no business coming into my home unless I have committed a crime. If you really, really want to look around, get a warrant.

R127
April 14, 2008, 08:16 PM
As a profession law enforcement protects law and freedom.

A major city with no functioning police force is not a utopia. I lived it. It was brutal and and not very free at all (and we still had the Marines looking out for us - the local Somalis didn't have that). Luckily, I got out of Mog before it completely collapsed - but not a single person I knew there would have described Mog as "free".

Mike

Sorry, but none of that has any basis in reality. In the first instance professional law enforcement has flatly refused to ever enforce the highest law in the land yet consistently enforces malum prohibitum which quite often is in violation of the highest law in the land and certainly counter to freedom. What you probably meant to say is that the propaganda suggests that law enforcement protects those things, even if it really doesn't.

Your second example is as bad or worse. Africa in general has always had a higher crime rate than any civilized Western nation. What you experienced in Somalia applies to Somalia, not here. In fact for most of the history of Western civilization there were no police and there were no police forces in America at the time of the founding of our country. There are still no police where I live and the people in my area do not murder eachother, steal from eachother or commit acts of cannibalism. The idea that the existence of police forces creates society is false.

Editted to add: I'm not even arguing for disbanding all law enforcement organizations. I am arguing for law enforcement to either start enforcing the highest law in our land or stop trying to project the superhero image and accept they are merely government employees carrying out orders from corrupt politicians, most of which are unlawful and detrimental to society.

Vader
April 14, 2008, 08:39 PM
God, I love this "friendly exchange of ideas".
Very HighRoad

The Lone Haranguer
April 14, 2008, 08:46 PM
Anything to hide or no, I will not consent to any such search. "I'm sorry, but I must insist that you come back with a search warrant." Polite but firm is the key.

scrat
April 14, 2008, 08:49 PM
Well first of all my sons dont have access to my gun safe. Then same time we talk to much and go shooting too much for me to worry. Then Third

BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER

So when it comes to any police officer coming to my front door. My only response is GET OFF MY PROPERTY NOW.

scrat
April 14, 2008, 08:58 PM
I dont think theres is anything called a proffesional law enforcement officer. I proudly say this with numerous leo in my family including my brother. What i do know there is is yes no sir let me check ok sir no sir yes sir lets check. what they say he said she said they said.

Thats it. No officer can make up there mind. First of all no one knows the correct interpritation of the law. Everyone has there own opinion. how many times has an officer had to call another officer to check on the law. then why would anyone want to talk to a person whos prime job is to arrest people. Find the things wrong to make an arrest. so here we have a bunch of men and woman. wearing badges to serve and protect. when they are only looking and trying to arrest or. if they dont know they call someone then call someone. then call someone. I have talked to my family its a friggen joke. something happens your on the road. its over. First guy comes to seen. what happened. Here comes the story, then another one comes here comes the story again. then someone else comes here comes the story again. Then a srgnt comes. here comes the story again. Then the seargent repeats the story, then he tells the story. omg Same thing goes when they dont know the law. Well let me check then it just goes round and round. I bet if you were to ask 5 officers from every department around you a legal question. Lets say you ask 5 officers from 3 departments. you will get 15 different answers. NOPE

For me its GET OFF MY PROPERTY

revjen45
April 14, 2008, 09:03 PM
Obedience can be demanded. Trust must be earned. I trust people whom I have known for years, and who have given me good reason to trust them. A badge gives the bearer the legal right to demand obedience and exercise whatever level of force they can justify by knowing what to say. It does not entitle the bearer the right to expect me to trust them. Of course, when you exercise plenary powers, what does it matter if the sheeple upon whom you may enact violence for getting uppitty trust you or not? Obey or be maimed or killed peons!

Elza
April 14, 2008, 09:57 PM
They can ask for a sailboat but it doesn’t mean they’re going to get one.

I don’t care if they ask provided they make it abundantly clear that you are free to say no without repercussions and that they only approach an adult with the question.

My wife and I took the ‘old fashioned’ approach and raised our Son ourselves. Hillary’s opinion not withstanding, we didn’t feel that we needed the ‘help of the village’ when raising our Son.

pbearperry
April 14, 2008, 11:30 PM
R127 you are a real logical guy.You seem to be very impressed with yourself.I am happy for you.lolNow ,where did I put all that documentation of every arrest I made in 32 yrs?Oh here it is.lol

Pilgrim
April 15, 2008, 02:56 AM
You're not going anywhere in that baggy outfit until you turn out your pockets.
If your mother still drives you to school, you aren't a gangster. Pull your pants up.

ctdonath
April 15, 2008, 10:38 AM
As long as when I politely decline, they walk away.
That's the problem.
These are people trained to not take "no" for an answer.
If they're asking to search, they're probably not doing it for your benefit.

cassandrasdaddy
April 15, 2008, 12:10 PM
how many of you have said no to a search? i mean in real life imagination or roleplaying games don't count. do share with us what happened the few of you who qualify

R127
April 15, 2008, 12:45 PM
Actually just a while ago I found myself in a "consensual search" scenario. The local police department had set up a checkpoint on a heavily traveled one way street during peak hours and were asking drivers if they would "consent" to a search. I wasn't interested in playing games with them so I asked them what happens if I say no. The first officer who spoke to me tried to play word games to make it sound like I didn't have a choice but to consent to their consensual search. Something didn't sound right about the way she was trying to sell it so I asked for clarification at which time another officer told me I could refuse, I'd just have to back my car up, turn around and drive away. Which of course is not possible on a jammed up one way street. Many years prior to that I can recall being caught in another checkpoint on another heavily traveled public road where they were checking everyone for driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. It created a truly amazing traffic jam.

Based on those experiences I have no doubt that the hard sell approach is used in this Oakland program. It makes it even easier when you consider they are armed and percieved as "the authorities."

It's just a really bad precedent. That kind of thing has no place in a free society. Harassing people who haven't done anything wrong is not right.

jakemccoy
April 15, 2008, 01:31 PM
The importance of refusing a search goes beyond merely to prevent an invasion of privacy or to prevent inconvenience.

If a cop asks for a search, I always say "no", period. If the cop then forces a search without a search warrant and/or probable cause, the cop substantially eliminates any chance of using anything the cop finds. At that point, the cop is playing make believe, and the cop will probably get some type of reprimand from higher-ups. Most/all cops know the importance of probable cause, search warrants, consent, etc., and there should not be issues if I refuse a search.

I have refused a search of my car a long time ago. I was parked in front of a dorm near some college chatting with a friend late at night. Maybe one of the students called the cops because we were there too long in a strange spot. Cops came. Long story short, I denied a search when they asked. It was uneventful. That was during a time when I had just learned my rights.

I admit that people that do not know their rights will consent to a search...no doubt.

Most people don't know their rights, but that's their own fault really. Turn off MTV, get on the Internet and spend a few hours learning your basic rights. A basic understanding of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitutition is an absolute must. Read the Amendments. Then search the Internet for their use in everyday life.

PM me if you're interested in talking more. I don't care to type more if nobody cares.

misterwhipple
April 15, 2008, 02:35 PM
The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches, in which regard consent may well not suffice.

Under a test of reasonableness, individual consent cannot compensate for official coercion or intimidation, regardless of whether these are committed directly by the officers on the scene, or indirectly by the decision makers who contrive the situation. So, if any such abuse actually takes place -- which, from a high-level perspective, seems quite likely in this case -- it is clear which law is not being upheld.

In a broader context, any police searches that contribute to a police-state atmosphere must be presumed unreasonable. Surely a conscientious balance between legitimate need and restrained means is unlikely to create such an appearance, and very unlikely to sustain it. As such causes go, the unwillingness of policy makers to find or undertake such a balance, or the failure of voters to choose policy makers of integrity, does not suffice to uphold either justice or the law.

RPCVYemen
April 15, 2008, 02:36 PM
I admit that people that do not know their rights will consent to a search...no doubt.

Some of us non-paranoid types do know our rights and have consented to a search anyway because the request seemed reasonable. :)

I fully support your right to withhold consent if you choose to, but that's different from requesting/suggesting anyone else withhold consent.

If a quick search helps a police officer in a difficult and dangerous job, I don't see any reason not to consent.

I have consented to a couple of vehicle searches in my life, and a couple of frisks. None of them were a big deal, and I couldn't have cared less.

The last one was at a drug checkpoint and the hardest thing about it was convincing my daughter that the officers dog wasn't really there to play with her. The only other time she'd seen a police canine was at a school, where the kids were encouraged to pet the dog.

Mike

jakemccoy
April 15, 2008, 02:42 PM
If a search goes bad for whatever reason, there are zero upsides and only downsides to giving consent.

I have defended a client who consented to a vehicle search he thought was reasonable because he had "nothing to hide". It turns out his kid (or kid's friend) had left a not-so-legal object in the car.

As you can imagine, things got dicey for my client. Had he not consented, he would have had an uneventful night. Instead, he had to call me from jail, appear in court and keep me well paid. Inside my imperfect world, non-paranoid good people actually do go to jail sometimes.

I have no interest in consenting to a search merely to make the cop's job easier. I don't consent, ever.

Disclaimer

I am not giving legal advice. I'm sharing public information. I do not tell anybody here what to do. I explain what I do, and I give reasons. You can do whatever meets your fancy.

cassandrasdaddy
April 15, 2008, 05:48 PM
r127
would that be a long "no" answer to having ever refused consent? i had a hard time telling. and if so why have you never stood up to be counted?

DRZinn
April 15, 2008, 11:02 PM
Refused at a Border Patrol internal checkpoint. They opened the doors and trunk :fire: , walked a drug dog around, and let me go.

They weren't happy.

ALWAYS refuse consent.

1. Some need to be reminded of where their limits are.
2. Refusing does not make their job harder. If anything, it makes it easier, 'cause that's one less useless search.

cassandrasdaddy
April 15, 2008, 11:49 PM
what? you refused and weren't club maced and sent to gitmo? who woulda thunk it

nothinspecial
April 16, 2008, 04:06 AM
Well all your negative talk have convinced me. I am now going to stop all inquiries about consentual searches. Forgetting the fact that just tonight, about four hours ago, I requested to search a guy's car who was sitting in a apartment complex backed in, in the dark(Yes, I hear all of you now; "damn police harrassing people for no reason''). He agreed. The search yielded 9.7g of powder cocaine and a stolen (in a home invasion robbery) glock 23. Above listed suspect has a criminal history of robbery and selling dope.
But, thanks to all the talk about how I am the devil because I ask to search someones vehicle (person or home), I will stop now, and let the next possible robbery suspect drive around with someone's stolen gun in his car.

True story but total sarcasm (in case you didn't catch it)

If the police ask to search you or your car, (I intentionally left out house b/c the likelihood of that happening to most on here is slim to none) It is your right to refuse that search, but it does cast some shadow of doubt on your legitimacy in the minds of those who see the bad in people for 99% of thier day. I can't promise that you won't feel a little ''harrassed'' (especially if you have done nothing wrong) but it won't kill you. So stop being so hyper-sensitive. In a perfect world we would have mind scanners in our squad cars and we could tell if someone was up to no good, but unfortunatly we do not. It also won't kill you to consent to a search and give a quick look-see and be on your way.
and remember if you don't like the police, next time you need help, call a crackhead.

209
April 16, 2008, 05:09 AM
Cassandrasdaddy- how many of you have said no to a search? i mean in real life imagination or roleplaying games don't count. do share with us what happened the few of you who qualify


Let's see. Said no once to a request to search my car. The officer finished writing the ticket and I went on my way.

Let's see. Replied negative to a request from two troopers who were at my front door requesting to come in to see if my son was there. They had warrants for him. They went away.

Let's see. My wife was driving once and was stopped. The nice trooper asked for consent to search the car. I chimed in with a "Honey, just tell him no." She did so. The trooper finished writing the ticket. We went on our way.

Let's see. Even though it wasn't a request for a consent to search, I had three officers come to my door requesting information. I stepped outside. One asked if we could go inside and talk. I replied I was perfectly comfortable talking on the front porch. We finished talking and they went away.

Ironic isn't it? A firm understanding of your rights limits governmental intrusion. :banghead:

209
April 16, 2008, 05:14 AM
As to the subject of this thread: Oakland is just another city that is looking at this policy. I guess we can add them to Boston, DC, and I've heard, Philly and some other city (I want to say Chicago or Detroit, but I could be wrong). It's either a policy or being considered in those places.

I have to say Nancy Reegan's slogan comes to mind- Just say no. What is so hard about that. If you say yes, then whatever befalls you is your bad. Ceding your rights in a case like this is probably stupid. I can't fix stupid. No one can.

ctdonath
April 16, 2008, 07:10 PM
I requested to search a guy's car who was sitting in a apartment complex backed in, in the dark
You're talking about searching a specific location, involving a specific person, under specific circumstances that lead you, as a professional cop, to believe something is criminally awry.

That's not what we're talking about.

There's a difference between that and no-cause, no-reason, search-because-it's-the-next-one-on-the-block searches.

We're talking about searches where there is NO REASON TO, save the vaguest, most prejudiced, fishing-expedition, flimsy, made-up excuses to.

You searched that car, specifically.
You did not continue by searching every car in that complex, and you did not search every apartment on the grounds that, per what's happening in Oakland, a teenager lives there.

TAB
April 16, 2008, 08:57 PM
You're talking about searching a specific location, involving a specific person, under specific circumstances that lead you, as a professional cop, to believe something is criminally awry.

Have you ever been to oakland?
trust me, there is not a member here that could not pick which homes have illegal guns in them and which ones don't with a 90% correct rate. I have a feeling they know which houses to ask...

Clipper
April 16, 2008, 09:19 PM
He agreed. The search yielded 9.7g of powder cocaine and a stolen (in a home invasion robbery) glock 23. Above listed suspect has a criminal history of robbery and selling dope.

So he was a moron...What do you expect, he's a criminal. Which shows, conversly, that anyone who refuses is not a criminal, right? How's that for sarcasm?


But, thanks to all the talk about how I am the devil because I ask to search someones vehicle

Yes, you are...

It is your right to refuse that search, but it does cast some shadow of doubt on your legitimacy in the minds of those who see the bad in people for 99% of thier day.

You're breaking my heart...

It also won't kill you to consent to a search and give a quick look-see and be on your way.

It will if, say my wife's friend, who's husband is a druggie, lost a bag of dope the last time they went somewhere in my truck...

And remember if you don't like the police, next time you need help, call a crackhead.

At least the crackhead is predictable...I know what he wants...

misterwhipple
April 16, 2008, 09:22 PM
trust me, there is not a member here that could not pick which homes have illegal guns in them and which ones don't with a 90% correct rate. I have a feeling they know which houses to ask...

That is interesting. Would you be willing to write more about it, perhaps in a new thread? I've never worked in, for, or around LE, and I'd really like to know more about what you said.

jakemccoy
April 16, 2008, 09:28 PM
TAB wrote,
Have you ever been to oakland?
trust me, there is not a member here that could not pick which homes have illegal guns in them and which ones don't with a 90% correct rate. I have a feeling they know which houses to ask...

I've spent a decent amount of time in Oakland. I'll take you up on the challenge. I will bet you that I cannot consistently identify possible illegal guns by the looks of a house. You have provided yet another reason why I would absolutely not consent to a search. Apparently, cops in Oakland think they can smell illegal guns by the looks of a house. I’ll have to say no thanks to that attitude on my property.

Tokugawa
April 17, 2008, 02:08 AM
Some years ago I bought a used F-150 pickup. Good truck. Drove it for years. One day, I was cleaning the interior, and noticed a shiny bit of metal poking out from the shift boot. Aha, I said to myself, there's that missing 5/8" socket!
Except it was not a socket. It was a hash pipe, and it had been safely tucked away IN MY TRUCK for ten years, left by the previous owner or one of his friends.
Sure glad I was never in a position to consent to a "harmless" search.

MikeEvans
April 17, 2008, 07:06 AM
No, have a good day.

No reason to get pissy with the cop, he is just doing what he is told to do. You need to point your disagrement with this crap to the proper place... the guys that came up with the idea.

I disagree. I think if enough citizens let the cops know how wrong it was they couldnt just say "I was just following orders"

Actually I think the "They are just doing there job"

"Protect and serve"

The thing some of you are missing is they are not just asking to look around. If told "No" they are replying with "Do you have something to hide".... They try to scare people into thinking they actually have to let them in and that the cops are just being nice by even asking. Lets just say I got the memo.

If you enjoyed reading about "Consent-To-Search in Oakland, CA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!