Consent-To-Search in Oakland, CA

Oakland PD = Geheimes Staatspolizei-Amt or "Gestapo".

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".

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--

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Where is the ACLU? Why aren't these departments getting their asses sued off?

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

Click to expand...

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?

R127

Mr R127 are you sober?You make no sense to me.Anyone else out there feel the same?

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.

Click to expand...

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

sense

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

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?

another problem to think about

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

In theoretical fantasy land, the answers may be different.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

pbearperry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

R127 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

God, I love this "friendly exchange of ideas".
Very HighRoad

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.

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.

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

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!

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.