BOSTON: Police limit searches for guns

[coloradokevin]

Well Kevin one of sources that we just popped for dealing crack for the thrid time gave up your 16 year old son's name as having a hand gun stored somewhere in his room. We are afraid he will use it to kill you and everyone in your home. Most people are killed by guns and by people they know. If you don't let us in we can come back with a warrant and search everywhere in the house and then we will take him to jail and maybe you as an accessory for obstructing justice. So how about you let us in now?

And, by saying that you have just turned the contact into an unlawfully conducted "consent" search if you were to gain entry.

The consent would be given, in that hypothetical, as the result of my fear of consequences... Thus, it is not truly consensual, as the courts have held. There was a case on this not too long ago, but I can't recall the name of the parties involved, and therefore can't find it at the moment.

The courts have also held that the burden of proof is on you, as the officers, to prove that the consent was gained in an appropriate manner. So, you would have to prove in court how that consent was not gained as the result of such an intimidating practice.

By the way, I doubt a warrant would be obtainable in that circumstance anyway... though we are obviously all speaking in broad generalizations for the sake of discussion!

 

[Poper]

coloradokevin:

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!

Ahem:

This week, the Boston program is back in the news. According to a March 25, Boston.com article, intense opposition from residents has forced officials to scale back the scope of the questionable program, which had been scheduled to begin in December. Implementation has been delayed at least three times since then, due to concerns within the community.

“The community doesn’t want this,” Lisa Thurau-Gray, managing director of the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University Law School, said at a recent meeting held to discuss the plan. “What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand?” she said.

While these sham programs stipulate that residents have the right to refuse the search, questions of constitutionality, intimidation, and civil liberties violations have rightly been raised. Critics say that the searches are unconstitutional and that police will not guarantee that residents would face no criminal charges if guns or drugs were found. There is also a fear that people may be too intimidated to deny police access to their homes, or may not understand the legal ramifications of their compliance with the searches, which, despite assurances of amnesty, could include eviction, arrest, and prosecution.

Looks to me like the people don't want this slippery slope either. Imagine that!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3740

Don't forget the "serve" part of the motto "To serve and protect". And don't initiate programs intended for my own good because I am too stupid to know any better.
I am an adult aged 53 and have lived this long without a baby sitter, thank you very much. I am sure most adults are just as capable.


All I ask is that my government, in all its forms, just LEAVE ME ALONE!

Poper

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

Interesting how they worded that, isn't it? They didn't say "You have a right to refuse the search," they said "You have a right to allow the search."

It's all in the spin ...

 

[Flyboy]

Coloradokevin:

The issues I--and I believe most people--have are simple:

A) Asking to search my home is a very personal thing to do. While I can say no, it's still an affront to my privacy. Put yourself in my shoes: you're at home, minding your own business, and a government agent asks to look through your bedroom (kid's bedroom, whatever). We've always considered peoples' homes to be a special place--a personal sanctum sanctorum--and the bedroom even moreso. Look at the design of most homes: the bedrooms are (typically) located away from the common areas, to provide a physical sense of separation and privacy. Asking to search my home--especially to enter my bedroom--is an intrusion on my private space. That I can refuse doesn't remove the fact that you asked in the first place. It's offensive to my privacy, my soul, my personal space.

B) You keep citing examples of police officers doing things right and by-the-book. Most do just that. A few don't. How do you intend to protect against this?

The bad cops don't wear special badges identifying themselves as such, so it's safer for the citizen to be skeptical of all officers. It's regrettable, but as has been cited numerous times, police officers on duty are not your friend. Most are genuinely decent people, but if you can't tell up-front whether the officer at your door is a good cop or a bad cop, and given that the courts will generally give the police officer's word the benefit of the doubt, it's safer just to not answer the door.

C) Because of most peoples' natural acquiescence to authority (as I mentioned previously), the power relationship is inherently unbalanced. Ergo, when a police officer asks to search your home, it is psychologically different than, say, your next-door neighbor asking. While the right to refuse may exist, there is a demonstrable psychological bias in favor of granting permission. It is therefore questionable whether any consent is genuine. As a further complication, some would argue--myself included--that programs like this desensitize the citizens toward invasion of their privacy. This, coupled with the (again demonstrable) nature of government to grow in scope and power makes such programs a potentially slippery slope.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your examples, or calling you, or police in general, bad people--I'm pointing out what I think to be fundamental objections, reasons that go way beyond any individual case. As long as these objections hold true--which is to say, as long as human nature is what it is--I find I must object to such programs.

 

[Titan6]

Well Kevin one of sources that we just popped for dealing crack for the thrid time gave up your 16 year old son's name as having a hand gun stored somewhere in his room. We are afraid he will use it to kill you and everyone in your home. Most people are killed by guns and by people they know. If you don't let us in we can come back with a warrant and search everywhere in the house and then we will take him to jail and maybe you as an accessory for obstructing justice. So how about you let us in now?

And, by saying that you have just turned the contact into an unlawfully conducted "consent" search if you were to gain entry.

"I never said that and you can't prove that I did. Everyone knows that police are perfect people who do not lie. A Jury will believe me over your lying, murdering, drug dealing son and his poor excuse for a single "mom" any day of the week."

Now... *starts video camera* "Ma'am, Do you consent to this voluntary search of your premises?"

The consent would be given, in that hypothetical, as the result of my fear of consequences... Thus, it is not truly consensual, as the courts have held. There was a case on this not too long ago, but I can't recall the name of the parties involved, and therefore can't find it at the moment.

The courts have also held that the burden of proof is on you, as the officers, to prove that the consent was gained in an appropriate manner. So, you would have to prove in court how that consent was not gained as the result of such an intimidating practice.

By the way, I doubt a warrant would be obtainable in that circumstance anyway... though we are obviously all speaking in broad generalizations for the sake of discussion!

Fully Agreed. However I pushed hard with you and because you are aware of your rights you pushed back. Many people are unaware of their rights and the legal system. This does not mean that they do not have rights merely because they are ignorant of them.

I believe that all the police would have to do in most cases is create a subtle fear of consequences that is hard to alliterate to a jury. Police are much more knowledgeable on the law than most citizens.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

in the washington highlands 8 year olds can recite miranda. wanna hear a sad thing? go to a third grade classroom and ask for a show of hands of "who has seen someone shot?"

 

[ctdonath]

My question remains:
How can you assure us that these Boston searches are, indeed, initiated by information that some crime/contraband is involved, and not just fishing expiditions?

 

[jrfoxx]

I'm glad to see people pushed back and make a stink on this issue, and Boston is pulling back at least a little.While I agree that there is nothing legally or constitutionally wrong with the cops asking anyone and everyone to volunteer for a search, but that doesnt make me like it at all, as I just dont trust the government to not go back on their promise of amnesty once they find something, or using lies, deception, coercion, intimidation to get people to allow the search.just casue the courts have decided something is legal, doesnt make it morally ok, right, or a good idea IMHO.Especially since I dont really trust the government to to not make decisions or legal/constitutional interpretations based on its its own interest as opposed to the peoples will, or the plain, obvious, historically backed "correct" meaning of the constitution.They've pretty well proven to me they are more than happy to make stuff up as they go along to suit themselves, IMHO.

 

[dewage83]

This does not mean that they do not have rights merely because they are ignorant of them.

- my point all along. the right to say no has been there, but if im unaware of it, i wasnt sure that was an option. It is also not my responsibility to KNOW my rights.(imo, its good to know but i MUST???) I have lawyers and POLICE for that. its sad when a "trying to be model citizen" has to KNOW his rights in every certin situation to KNOW that he wont be decieved by police.

also colorado i believe you are a stand up guy who does want to make a positive difference in the community but not all police are like you. go look up officer rivereri. some cop with a bug up his arse for a "skateboarder" OH NO! watch the youtube vid. he makes you, as a police officer, look like scum. this is just 1, that was caught on camera. imagine if he didnt have video and this was for something a little more serious than a skateboarding/ tresspassing violation?...not the perfect example (hes extreame) but he is an officier who abuses his power.

great thread for anyone who participated and was well thought out arguements from both sides. enjoyable reading

 

[ctdonath]

It is also not my responsibility to KNOW my rights. ... I have lawyers and POLICE for that.

The police don't need to know your rights. They need to know their rights and powers. If you voluntarily - especially ignorantly - give up your rights, that's not their problem.

And once you're paying a lawyer to tell you your rights, you've already lost them and are paying dearly to get them back.