Okay, well whether or not a warrant was obtainable in that particular instance, and whether or not fresh pursuit was applicable (which it wasn't... There was no victim to a crime, the time frame was too great before we found out, and we weren't specifically "pursuing" that individual to begin with), is not my point.
Moreover, redirecting the discussion to the fact that we could have obtained a warrant does not in and of itself invalidate that consent search!
I am strongly pro-gun, but as a police officer I also have no desire to see teenage gang bangers running around with illegal guns and shooting up their neighborhoods. If nothing else, the actions of these folks leads to the misguided gun laws that I don't like in the first place! No law was passed in Boston, and no changes to gun owner rights occured. From where I sit, this seemed to be more of a community policing idea where the administration felt they could work in cooperation with residents. The headlines grabbed my attention too, but the details just don't back the spectacular "gun-grab" headlines.
My point is, no person(s) rights are violated if they agree to allow a search. The constitution of the United States still protects that person, and they can legally refuse to allow Law Enforcement to enter (and the courts have held that if coersion is used to gain the "consent", then that consent is in-fact not valid. This is based on a "reasonable" person's view of the situation). An informed consent search, without undue pressure, is legal
Many times consent is used where a warrant could have been obtained. And, other times a warrant is obtained even when consent is given. Again, my larger point is that Boston was not doing anything illegal, nor were they engaging in any act that should be lumped in with other "black helipcopter" type conspiracy theories (and I'm not accusing anyone here of that kind of talk... But I've seen it other places in reference to the Boston plan)... This was not the ultimate door-to-door confiscation of guns that so many people have made it out to be!
In fact, the talk I've heard with this program was that it was going to primarily involve parents giving the tips to LE, or perhaps third parties who suspect a gun is present (school administrators, fellow students, etc). That hardly falls into the category of a blanket door-to-door inquisition in the neighborhod.
By way of example, let me present a different case that represents my understanding of what the city of Boston intended (this one being more of a hypothetical situation where this new program could apply):
Lets say I'm working as an SRO (school resource officer) and John Doe Freshman comes up to me and says "hey, I heard my classmate saying that he has a gun he just bought on the street". I check and see that the classmate in question is 16 year old in the gang book. I ask the accused student about the situation, and he tells me to pound sand. I don't have enough information to get a warrant, but I decide to talk to the kid's parents about this concern. I knock on the door and tell the parents that their son's classmate just told me that their son may have a gun. The parents are rightfully concerned, and I ask if they would like me to search their son's room for the weapon. They consent to this search and an illegal gun with the serial number scratched off is recovered. How is that illegal??
Furthermore, whether we like it or not, effective law enforcement involves far more than being concerned soley with firearms, and often involves talking to people. Consent is used in many facets of law enforcement on a daily basis, and criminals often give themselves up (which isn't really a bad thing in my opinion). Many small time crackheads are also the burglars that plague our neighborhoods, and talking to them often gets them off of the street!
A typical consensual contact on the street with a ghetto crack-head may go like this:
LEO (on foot patrol, approaches a shady looking individual hanging out near the mouth of an alley)
LEO: "hey, how's it going?"
dopper: "uh, yeah... I wasn't doing anything wrong"
LEO: "I never said you were, I was just saying hi"
dopper: "uh, umm, I was just waiting for the bus"
LEO: "Well, the bus stop is a block away from here, you sure you aren't trying to score some rock?"
dopper: "No, man, I ain't got nothing on me... you can check!"
LEO: "Oh, okay, well I don't really want to search you if you are just here waiting for the bus... but if you'd like, would you mind emptying your pockets for me?"
dopper: "Okay, ..."
(out falls the crack pipe. Arrest ensues. Search incident to arrest reveals crack in sock. Completely legal... Been there, done that, defendant guilty).
In this last case we are obviously talking about a person who is too dumb to exercise their rights, but the arrest is valid nevertheless. In my area we refer to that as "felony stupid".
By the way, how do we quote people in this forum??? I could certainly reply better if I could figure out how to quote the specific parts I was refering to!
