BOSTON: Police limit searches for guns

[Titan6]

I like facts that is why I found these posts confusing.

Here are the facts:

1) Young gang-bangers have guns (illegally). First, they are too young to own guns. Second, many of these guns are stolen. And, perhaps most importantly, many of these inner-city kids have already been convicted of a felony

That certainly is a fact.

2) These bangers are violent towards their parents as well as the community, and their parents are often afraid to deal with them

Well of course everyone knows this.

3) This program concerned the use of a well-known warrant exception (that is CONSENT on the part of someone who is authorized to give such consent).

Maybe, maybe not. You start running aground of issues if the person is over 18 or maybe paying rent... So this is not entirely true.

4) The police are ALREADY authorized to do what was intended with this program, in any city in the country... and it violates the rights of no person.

Well, the whole violation of rights thing is opinion not a fact. A legal opinion that we are likely to see soon will prove more binding. These are fishing expeditions casting a broad net. Certainly the potential for abuse is nothing less than astounding.

So, if the police learned that "T-bone" the local 16 year-old crack dealer felon is storing guns under his bed, they can go to his parents and say: "Hey, we think your kid probably has illegal guns, do you mind if we search his room?"... The parents say "oh, please do, I don't want him to have an illegal gun", and the police legally search the home.

On the other hand, if the police were told "Pound sand" when they asked the parent for consent, no search could take place without a warrant (or by somehow meeting one of the other criteria for a warrant exception... which is another topic entirely).

Okay, so you are saying if the police have reasonable suspicion that a person is dealing drugs and has an illegal gun stored in a known location: a judge will not grant them a warrant???? That getting a warrant is too dificult??? That evidence maybe lost due to delay??? I don't think so. In fact I find it impossible to believe. Maybe it happened once, but certainly not every day. Certainly not these days when a warrant can be had in a few hours or less. For the last 225 years the government has been trying to do an end run around the fourth ammendment. That is why it is there.

This is NOT a situation where the police are conducting door-to-door random searchs of homes without the consent of the adult residents, and this is not a program that was intended to strip law-abiding citizens of their right to bear arms.

Really. And you know this how? Oh wait from the brochure:

http://bpdnews.com/safehomes/safehomes.pdf

Myth: Safe Homes is a violation of your constitutional
rights.
Fact: Safe Homes is not a violation of your
constitutional rights because you have the right to
consent to the search of your home.

See the police said so, it must be true.

Last year I responded to a gang fight... As most of these fights go, things quickly broke up when we arrived at the scene. Some witness told us that one of the well-known bangers had just gone in his house with a gun (a 15 or 16 year old male with prior felony convictions). We knock on the door and ask the kid's father whether he knew if his son had just come home with a gun. Father said that he had no idea whether or not his son had a gun, but didn't want him having a gun. Father gave us permission to search his son's room, and signed a "consent to search" form that our department uses. We search the kid's room and recover three guns, cocaine, and some pot.

Tell me how that violated anyone's rights?

It does not. This however, is not an example of what the article is talking about. What they say now, is this.

Police officials have said the searches would be based on tips from the community, including neighbors, school officials, and even the parents of the child. The officers searching homes would be members of units that patrol schools and who have visited the houses of teenagers as part of Operation Homefront, which is meant to help build better relationships between troubled children and their families.

But even this is very different from where we started.

Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a warrant.

You have to look at where we started a few months ago to where we are now. Broad random sweeps. Sorry not random, targeted at poor minority neighborhoods... Might check the title to get the drift...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...006/11/26/hub_police_sweeps_get_slim_results/

Strangely the Globe's biggest complaint in 2006 was that not enough guns were seized...

And what did the police say about what they were trying to do. Like all easy answers that start down the road of trampling rights this one will also. But why do we have to head down that road anyway? I am just glad that the people of Boston are fighting this, unlike the sheep of DC.

This is not the type of situation where homes are being searched to take away little Johnny's deer rifle that his parents bought him. For that matter, it isn't even to search for little Johnny's AR-15 that his parents bought him to defend his home! These consent searches are occuring to remove illegal guns from kids who illegally have them, and the searches are occuring with the cooperation of the parents! I grew up around guns, and I know that many responsible law-abiding teenagers have access to guns, with their parent's permission. But, that is not this situation.

Maybe, maybe not. I guess we are likely to find out either way. As a skeptic of course I am fairly certain this will lead to abuse, this subversion of the warrant process. Certainly If I were a drug dealer and I wanted to get rid of somebody or divert police attention I would be turning in my competition or other threats on a daily basis. Maybe even put something there for them to find.

But you guys are overlooking the most important part of the whole process. The police are not targeting drugs. The police are not targeting stolen property. They are not targeting child pornography. They are targeting guns.

 

[coloradokevin]

Quote:
3) This program concerned the use of a well-known warrant exception (that is CONSENT on the part of someone who is authorized to give such consent).

Maybe, maybe not. You start running aground of issues if the person is over 18 or maybe paying rent... So this is not entirely true.

We were not talking about people over 18 years of age. An adult in a home can refuse the search, and invalidate anything that this program intended. I never mentioned this against adults.

It absolutely applies for juveniles, but not adults.

Quote:
This is NOT a situation where the police are conducting door-to-door random searchs of homes without the consent of the adult residents, and this is not a program that was intended to strip law-abiding citizens of their right to bear arms.

Really. And you know this how? Oh wait from the brochure:

So are you implying that this program was going to allow police officers to violate every search and seizure law, the US Constitution, state law, local ordiance, etc? I see that as unlikely, particularly since no laws were even passed to make this a reality. It was simply a community policing idea, and NO laws were changed to make it a reality!

 

[M110]

Just say "NO" to the po po.



I'm really surprised that Herr Dailey hasn't jumped all over this kind of "intimidation operation" Because thats exactly what it is.

 

[ArmedBear]

It was simply a community policing idea, and NO laws were changed to make it a reality!

LOL

That's (part of) the problem.

"Community policing" has exactly WHAT to do with pushing the limits of search and seizure?

I'm sure you are aware that current search and seizure procedures come from court cases. But have you thought about what that means?

What it means is simple: current procedures arose when those who had the wherewithal fought their convictions, often all the way to the Supreme Court, sometimes wasting years of their lives. What have they been fighting? The "ideas" of the local police, who apparently had no interest in erring on the side of civil liberties.

For all those who fought, there have been many more who languished in jail.

"Community policing" = "trust us, we are only trying to help you"?

Bull****. Get a warrant.

As long as there's a "Drug War", there will be a black market that attracts the worst sort of people and fills their pockets with money. No matter how much the police try to push the outer limits of our liberties, there will be gangbangers with an income. Any promise to eliminate gangs is a false promise. I'm not one who wants to give an inch, in return for a lie.

Now there are arguments for the "Drug War". Maybe the effects of legalizing some drugs are worse than the gang problem, when one takes the long view. However, if we're going to have this "war", we should understand that it's a perpetual low-intensity conflict, not something that will ever be decisively "won", if only we citizens are willing to cede enough of our rights.

 

[ctdonath]

A major concern some of us have is some form of:
Oh sure, you can say "no".
They won't search.
Nothing official happens.
Then, at some point, you call 911.
They show up.
The next day.

You won't cooperate?
Fine.
They won't either.

Kinda hard to address that in court.

Show up with a warrant? I know you're playing by the rules.
Show up without a warrant and without an articulable reason for wanting to search? Something is wrong - very wrong.

 

[General Geoff]

Then, at some point, you call 911.
They show up.
The next day.

How is that different from normal though?

 

[ArmedBear]

ctdonath-

That's exactly right. If this is a form of "community policing", it seems to be an attempt to get around those pesky laws and court decisions. In the past, this kind of "community policing" has been used to cover up a lynching or two, among other things.

No thanks.

I thought "community policing" meant that the cops with a certain beat would get to know the people and businesses in the area, to gain trust and improve relations with the law-abiding, in order to get tips on criminal activity and to help spot criminals more easily. I never heard that it had anything to do with rummaging around anyone's bedrooms.

 

[Poper]

It was simply a community policing idea

Sounds a lot like pre-war Nazi Germany. Jews were forced to wear yellow stars and neighbors were instructed to rat each other out.

I want no part of that no matter HOW bad the gangbangers get!

Talk about a SLIPPERY slope!

Poper

 

[coloradokevin]

Sounds a lot like pre-war Nazi Germany. Jews were forced to wear yellow stars and neighbors were instructed to rat each other out.

I want no part of that no matter HOW bad the gangbangers get!

Talk about a SLIPPERY slope!

I'm sorry, but that's simply fanatical talk there... The point is, you are forced to do nothing by this program. You are not forced to let the police in, you are not forced to "wear a star", and none of your rights change even the slightest bit.

What makes this a "community policing" program is the type of involvement and cooperation (that means working together with citizens) that the police were attempting to have.

I find it interesting that so many of the folks who have jumped on me about this issue have conviniently distorted the facts when they reply (isn't that what we always accuse the anti-gun industry of doing?). My replies are ignored, and the same baseless arguments are said over and over again...

If I knock on your door because I received a tip that your 'banger son might have a gun, and I ask for permission to get that gun, you are not being violated.

You have every right to say "No", and you should know this right as an American. I remember learning about the constitution as far back as Elementary School myself, so I find it hard to believe that so many folks completely missed out on learning about their rights (maybe they should have paid attention in school, instead of dealing crack?)! Moreover, if everyone has forgotten what their rights are, then the country really might be in trouble!

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh here, but I think some people need to step back and take a good hard look at this. This is NOT a way to skirt the laws, because no laws are skirted.

If the police showed up at your door in this hypothetical situation, many of you would have replied "No, get a warrant". That's fine, and the police would have gone away (or obtained a warrant, if possible). So, you have in no way been violated, and there is no slippery slope. That is the way things are right now with our legal system, and the way things have been for my entire lifetime, regardless of whether or not you want to believe it!

A major concern some of us have is some form of:
Oh sure, you can say "no".
They won't search.
Nothing official happens.
Then, at some point, you call 911.
They show up.
The next day.

You won't cooperate?
Fine.
They won't either.

That is pure speculation on your part. I work in the ghetto, and I often get called to the same houses over and over again. Some of these folks are real turds, but we still help them... I have a professional and moral obligation to do my job, as do my peers. You have skirted the issue by providing a factless argument that assumes that if you don't make the police happy, then you will most certainly not be helped by the police (we don't take bribes in this country, and sometimes we help people that we don't like just because it is our job). Half of my complainants at work are convicted felons. This information is known to me as soon as I run them in my computer, but do you honestly think that means that I don't take a report from them, or show up when someone is assaulting them?

What is being totally lost in this whole debate is that using this sort of tactic is completely legal, and it is already being done! The only difference that I can see is that Boston has attempted to make it more publicly transparent, which they hope will get more scared parents and community members to provide them with tips (hence, the community policing angle -- And, just for clarification: neighborhood watch is also community policing; being forced to "wear a star" clearly is not)

Transparency in government is not a bad thing! As I said three or four posts ago, we already do this kind of police work... If a kid tells me that another student is hiding an illegal gun, you can be damn sure that I'll talk to the kid's parent (and I imagine that YOU probably expect that of me, even if we aren't yet on the same page on this topic). If the parent is willing to cooperate, then we might get the ILLEGAL gun off of the street. In doing so we haven't 'skirted' a warrant, because nothing occured to require a warrant. On the other hand, if the parent doesn't cooperate, it is business as usual... In that particular hypothetical case we wouldn't have enough information to get the warrant, while other times we might.

Regardless, this is being done by officers around the country even as I sit here and type this response on my computer! It is nothing new, and it certainly isn't a conspiracy!


In summation:

I think the reason we are not seeing eye-to-eye on this issue has a lot to do with the fact that we are looking at this from two different angles:

My version: Police receive a tip on an illegal gun being kept by a juvenile. Police follow-up and talk to the subject's parents. The parents are willing to cooperate, and provide you permission to search the subject's bedroom (something that they are well within their rights to do). Police recover a gun, and get it out of the hands of a gang banger.

Dissenting Version: Police start going door-to-door randomly asking to search homes (not working off of tips). Police use high pressure tactics, and shun those who don't participate.

Obviously we aren't going to find our middle ground as long as we see this issue in such a different light. But, I can see what you guys mean, and I think that most of you can probably see what I mean!

 

[coloradokevin]

I thought "community policing" meant that the cops with a certain beat would get to know the people and businesses in the area, to gain trust and improve relations with the law-abiding, in order to get tips on criminal activity and to help spot criminals more easily. I never heard that it had anything to do with rummaging around anyone's bedrooms.

Actually, Armedbear, you aren't really off-base in this response. That is really a pretty good explanation of what community policing is all about!

But, as officers we are expected to follow-up on the tips that we receive from the community, and those follow-ups often inolve talking consensually to other people... If the people we talk to allow us permission to check a tip at their house, then we are certainly able to do so!

 

[ctdonath]

How can you assure us that these searches are, indeed, initiated by information that some crime/contraband is involved, and not just fishing expiditions? You assert the former, we believe the latter (especially in the DC searches). Again, we have no problem with your take on it - IF there is, as you assert, actual articulable (and thus presumably warrantable) reason (which begs the recurring question of why don't they just get a warrant???).

 

[Poper]

I'm sorry, but that's simply fanatical talk there...

Not Really. It is very concerned talk. If you have reason to believe but not enough to warrant, then further investigation is necessary. Warrantless searches are not necessary and are intrusive at the LEAST. If the kid is indeed gang affiliated, a little surveilance should be all that is necessary to get substantiation for a warrant.

Just because it is legal, doesn't make it right. Some things are just plain wrong. IMHO, this is one of them.

BTW, what is the definition of an "illegal" gun? An NFA firearm? Stolen? One not registered with Boston PD?

Poper

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Coloradokevin, welcome to THR.

To everyone else, I think he's absolutely right: the government takes advantage of people's ignorance of the law all the time. There is nothing new about this attempt, except the very public announcement. So, we can take advantage of it as well and publicly announce people's right to say no.

And, this may be a pet peeve of mine, but I think the phrase "illegal gun" is a misnomer and should be stopped being used. There's nothing illegal about the gun, just the gun posessor. After all, do cops who arrest drivers that have suspended drivers licenses (for example) tell everyone about all of the illegal cars they get off the streets?


ETA: Looks like Poper hates the phrase too!

 

[Poper]

the phrase "illegal gun" is a misnomer

ETA: Looks like Poper hates the phrase too!

That, he certainly does.

Poper

 

[coloradokevin]

Not Really. It is very concerned talk. If you have reason to believe but not enough to warrant, then further investigation is necessary. Warrantless searches are not necessary and are intrusive at the LEAST. If the kid is indeed gang affiliated, a little surveilance should be all that is necessary to get substantiation for a warrant.

Just because it is legal, doesn't make it right. Some things are just plain wrong. IMHO, this is one of them.

BTW, what is the definition of an "illegal" gun? An NFA firearm? Stolen? One not registered with Boston PD?

Poper

It isn't all that simple either!

Warrants will not be issued simply because someone else makes a claim like I've detailed. This is not the movies, and we don't have the time or the resources to put surveilance on every 'banger problem in the hood (particularly when a "knock and talk" could solve the problem). Furthermore, warrantless CONSENT searches are a very real part of police work, are necessary, and always have been. The US Supreme court has had a number of rulings on this issue.

I can agree with you guys that the use of the weapon is what makes a gun generally illegal (though a stolen gun is "illegal" in some senses, as is one with a stripped serial number). I used the term mostly due to an ease of describing the situation, though I should probably refrain from the practice as a pro-gunner myself. Anyway, for sake of discussion, my definition of a illegal gun in this context was preety much any of the following:

1) obliterated serial number
2) stolen
3) possessed by a minor
4) possessed by a prior felon

I don't believe in gun registration at all, but the above-listed criteria are commonly accepted as being "illegal" by most law-abiding citizens, and in every state that I know of. The obliterated serial number is a touchier issue, but the practice of stripping the serial number is only commonly done for one reason!

By the way, here are some things you can read on consent searches:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html

This final example is just one of a number of case law decisions on this subject, this one is NOT in favor of the police:

http://images.jw.com/com/publications/374.pdf

So, the argument that the good (bad guy) never wins against the police just doesn't seem to hold water. As outlined in each of those documnents, the burden of proof on whether or not consent was granted lies with law enforcement... Unless I can prove that you consented voluntarily and without coersion, the consent will be suprressed.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

My definition of a legal (sic) [strike]gun[/strike] car is any of the following:

1) obliterated [strike]serial number[/strike] VIN
2) stolen
3) possessed by a minor
4) possessed by a [strike]prior felon[/strike] person with a suspended license

...the above-listed criteria are commonly accepted as being "illegal" by most law-abiding citizens.

So how many illegal cars have you gotten off the streets lately?

 

[Sage of Seattle]

As outlined in each of those documnents, the burden of proof on whether or not consent was granted lies with law enforcement... Unless I can prove that you consented voluntarily and without coersion, the consent will be suprressed.

By the way, I agree with all of what you've said in this thread.

 

[Wetawd]

Bad Idea

Originally Posted by poper
Sounds a lot like pre-war Nazi Germany. Jews were forced to wear yellow stars and neighbors were instructed to rat each other out.

I want no part of that no matter HOW bad the gangbangers get!

Talk about a SLIPPERY slope!

I'm sorry, but that's simply fanatical talk there

Is it????? It doesn't sound like it to me.

When the government takes away one of your liberties (or rights) they are not going to give them back, they will keep it and use it as a building block for more restrictions.

In a way I can under stand where coloradokevin is coming from, he is public servant on the street everyday trying to make things better. BUT the politicians and people in power like their power and want to expand it and make it grow they want MORE. it's not that politicians are evil (although some sure are) in their eyes there personal aspirations and what is best for this country are one in the same.

I can't believe how many people are sounding like they think this is a good idea... It sounds like a slippery slope and more rights will taken away after this.

I think they've done a very good job at sugar coating a very bad idea.

 

[Wheeler44]

knock knock knock

Mrs. Fernortner: Hello officers is something wrong?

Officer1: We hope not ma'am. Mrs.Fernortner we have received information that young Johnny might have an "Illegal Gun" hidden in his bedroom and we'd like your permission to search his room for it and any other illegal items we might find.

Mrs. Fernortner: My Johnny?

Officer2: Yes ma'am, your Johnny.

Mrs.Fernortner: I don't believe it, where did you hear such a thing.

Officer1: It was reported to us just this morning. We can't reveal the name of his accuser at this time.

Officer2: If you let us search his room and we find anything we promise not to press any charges. We just want to be sure he doesn't have an "illegal gun". You don't want him to have an "illegal gun" do you Mrs. Fernortner?

Mrs. Fernortner: Oh no officers, I don't want my boy to have an "illegal gun".

Officer2: Then may we search his room?


Ok THR Amigos, I could go on but I think that I've gone on far enough to prove a point or three.

Point 1. The police have no (read zero) obligation to be truthful when contacting the public. So at this point in the dialog above Mrs. Fernortner has to choose whether or not to believe the officers or her motherly instinct as to whether or not Johnny has a gun. She also has to decide whether or not the officers are being truthful about not pressing charges. (more on that later)

Point 2. Mrs. Fernortner also has to decide if the risks outweigh the rewards ie. If Johnny has an "illegal gun" and the police find it during a search now and receives immunity vs. they come back with a warrant and if they find an "illegal gun" Johnny goes to court (costing a whole lot of money) and possibly jail. She has to decide NOW during the course of the conversation. Meanwhile she is busy trying to wrap her head around the possibility of Johnny having a gun and trying to guess how "illegal" it is.

Point 3. The police don't press charges, the Prosecuting Attorney does. The police do not speak with any authority for the PA.

I can see how this scenario could play out very well, for everybody except Mrs. Fernortner and her family. The only option I see, as concerned citizens, is educate the masses about their basic rights.
The down side is, I see that as possibly widening the gap between Us (the People) and Them (those that would use such a tactic in the first place).

The police on this forum know that warrants are usually pretty restrictive about where they can search and what they can search for. I feel that most officers would push that as far as they could (that is human nature, not cop bashing).
On the other hand an open invitation to search leaves no (I mean zero) restrictions at all. If I were a police officer I'd rather search without restrictions. As a law abiding homeowner I won't invite an on duty police officer into my home under any circumstance. And no, I don't have anything to hide.

Wheeler44

 

[Poper]

Illegal gun defined:

1) obliterated serial number - ok, I'll buy this one.
2) stolen - Nope. Stolen property is not illegal in and of itself. Possessing stolen property IS illegal.
3) possessed by a minor - Nope. Makes the minor a lawbreaker, not the gun.
4) possessed by a prior felon - Nope. Makes the felon a repeat offender. The gun is not illegal.

Illegal guns:
1) No.1 above
2) Unregistered MG
3) Smuggled from a foreign country
4) homemade w/out following lawful procedure
5) unregistered FA where required (NYC, DC, etc.)

Just my 2 cent opinion, of course.

Poper

 

[M14/11B]

How about this?

Officer 1: Would you like us to search Johnnys room for the alleged illegal gun?

Mom: I'm quite capable of checking my son's room...wait here and I'll check and be right back to ease your mind officer. After all this is heresay at this point, right? After all you won't tell the accuser's name. If I knew the accuser I might know if he's been here , etc. etc. etc.
So come back with a warrant! Now excuse me.

 

[ArmedBear]

Warrants will not be issued simply because someone else makes a claim like I've detailed.

True. And there are good reasons for that.

The police have no (read zero) obligation to be truthful when contacting the public.

Unless someone is an attorney or some sort of civil-libertarian activist, the cop will know more than the civilian about what can and can't be done. That's just a fact. Hence, the cop is in a position to deceive someone, with little incentive not to.

Note that an attorney or somesuch will say, "Come back when you have a warrant." There's a damn good reason that someone who knows about the justice system would say this.

A gun is a tangible object. It can be introduced as evidence very easily.

Words exchanged at the door? Those count for nothing in court. There's no real accountability for what a cop said and how. There can't be.

In court, everyone has a story. The cop does, the civilian does. Nobody knows who is telling the truth, or has any way of knowing.

Jury Duty can be an eye-opening experience. I recommend it.

 

[rbernie]

2) These bangers are violent towards their parents as well as the community, and their parents are often afraid to deal with them

I don't doubt this to be true. But I contend that the parents should search the yoot's room and call the police asking for help if/when they found contraband. Soliciting an unrequested search is both intimidating to the parents, and removes from them the need to actually get involved in their own childs life.

Last year I responded to a gang fight... As most of these fights go, things quickly broke up when we arrived at the scene. Some witness told us that one of the well-known bangers had just gone in his house with a gun (a 15 or 16 year old male with prior felony convictions). We knock on the door and ask the kid's father whether he knew if his son had just come home with a gun. Father said that he had no idea whether or not his son had a gun, but didn't want him having a gun. Father gave us permission to search his son's room, and signed a "consent to search" form that our department uses. We search the kid's room and recover three guns, cocaine, and some pot.

Tell me how that violated anyone's rights?

I'm not going to make a legal argument; my concern is more fundamental. In the above example, you encouraged the parents to abdicate their parental responsibility. You acted as 'Dad', aka the authority figure, and allowed the parents to wash their hands of the whole situation.

How does that help us, in the long run?

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW did the prosecutor file charges against the property owner for the multiple felonies above?

If so, I suppose the Consent Form reads simply, "I am the biggest idiot in the world. Signed:_______"

If not, and if there is a general policy of de facto immunity for the property owner, I can accept this as "community policing." However, if charges were filed, I'd say that you tricked him into incriminating himself.

He might have been scared, stupid, ignorant, or all of the above, but deception is what it is. I'm pretty much a Social Darwinist, and I still think that.

 

[Clipper]

I'm sure that my opinion on this subject will be harshly criticized here

Yup.

if the police were told "Pound sand"

Oh, yeah...