Police to search for guns without warrant

[Lady Di]

Just say no!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/

[VegasGeorge]

I mean, really, what's the big deal here? It's always been the law that the police don't need a warrant if they have permission to search. And, a parent or legal guardian has always had the authority to grant that permission to search quarters occupied by a minor. So, I don't even know why this story is newsworthy.

I do think the notion that the police won't use evidence they find of other criminal activity to be a bit naive. The police always use what they find, one way or another.

[packnrat]

any good lawyer will have a field day with this one,

sure if permission is given it is leagle......
but if searching to look for a crime, this is just wrong in the spirit of any law.

if the "student" is a suspect in a crime,
yes please ask,
or just go see a judge as they should.

if no crime has happend....then stay away from the housing units.

i would like to see the cops stop making a crime out of any thing, and go after those who are know to be doing bad things with bad people.

but then the aclu has made it not right to look at people that way.
aka profiling...good
warentless seaches...very bad.
stoping and talking to know gang bangers...good
detaning people who have done no wrong...bad.

yea i know sounds like talking out of both side of my mouth. :?

[Bill of Rights]

True, no warrant is needed when consent of the homeowner is given to search. I take issue with the fact that they are approaching specifically homes where they are NOT attempting to prosecute a case and are suggesting to parents (in what terms?) that their child may have a gun. I also concur that the presence of police on the doorstep, even plain-clothes, would be intimidating, and I don't imagine many sheeple parents will refuse them entry, certainly not in "Mumbles" Menino's town. Note that Mayor Menino is a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns group.

Is it an "end run around the Constitution"? No, I don't think it is, at least not in letter, although in spirit, I'd say it probably is. A parent requesting the search is one thing, the police "suggesting" it is another entirely, IMHO.

I have to say I'm surprised that the ACLU is concerned about informed consent when the stated goal is the confiscation of firearms.

The police commissioner seems to me to be hyping this up some: "This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case." "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . ."
No, the object is not dangerous at all. The intent of the person holding it is the source of the danger.
Further:
"I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case."
No, they already have the option. If the parent finds a gun in their kid's room, they should find out why, call the police, or both. What the police appear to me to be doing is looking for ways to increase the count of "gun crimes" in Boston, possibly preparatory to a push for more (ineffective and unenforceable) "gun control" laws.

Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute.

Why not? Does it make too much sense? Or are they worried they might actually stop a crime?

"In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable,"

This would seem to indicate that if they search with consent but no warrant, they can't hold the kid accountable, which clearly is not true.

Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on.

Sounds like they're encouraging people to spy on and report their neighbors. Didn't that happen about 65 years ago in another country? Hmm..

If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges.

Amazingly libertarian of them, although hardly a case of justice being blind and thus, applied fairly and equitably. In essence, if two people commit the same crime, either both or neither should be prosecuted when caught, else the law is more of a whim.

Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.

Because of "profiling", maybe?

"We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted."

This is probably the saddest comment in the whole piece.

In sum, getting guns out of the hands of criminals who have done harm with them and punishing the violent crime committed is a good thing. Enforcing and punishing a "crime" such as "minor in possession of a gun" without a violent crime committed, however, begs the question that if a crime was committed, who is the victim? If I carry a gun without my LTC in my wallet, I am committing a crime, but if I have that paper on me, all is well. Again, what's the crime? Am I somehow a danger to society only without that little Pepto-Bismol-colored, plastic-laminated paper on me?

Let's stop worrying about non-crimes and start focusing on the real criminals... or does that make too much sense?

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

I have one word for you St. Michael. Eloquent. I couldn't have stated what I was thinking any better. Thanks for speaking for both of us. :)

BTW, does persuasive argument come naturally for you or was it the result of growing up with a father who was an attorney?

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks, Lady Di. I honestly don't know where it comes from, but it sure used to confound my parents to have their own words come back to haunt them. I wish they had not been liberals, but it sure made things easier for me as a kid. :lol:

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Unfortunately, sometimes we have to learn from the mistakes of our parents and appreciate them anyway as I know you do. :)

Oh, btw, I can just imagine you as a kid pushing the envelope. :lol:

[Bill of Rights]

I can just imagine you as a kid pushing the envelope. :lol:

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/nonono.gifI did no such thing. I was a perfect angel.http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/angel.gif

:roll:

*ahem* pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. (whistles ynnacyntly)

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

One thing bears mentioning here. This police effort presumes that if guns are present, they are being hidden, and are there against the wishes of the parents. I firmly believe that parents should have the responsibility, and be responsible, for the activities of their children. So, regardless of my personal feelings about the 2nd Amendment and possession of firearms, I am dead set against kids having guns when their parents don't know about them, or when their parents do not approve of them.

That being said, I think it is the parents' duty to know what the kids have in their rooms. So, I think the parents should search the rooms. However, knowing that many parents (who probably shouldn't be parents) are afraid of or intimidated by their kids, I can understand why they might want to defer the job of searching to the police. If so, that's OK. It's better to have a police search than no search at all.

[Bill of Rights]

No argument that the parents' wishes for what's in their house need to take precedence over the kids' RKBA, that only because the children are first answerable to their parents and only then to government.

If the kids are truly to be answerable to their parents, and by that, I mean that if they are found in one of these searches to be in violation of parental rules, I'd support the searches if they were followed up by an appropriate taking of responsibility by the parent, whether in the form of the kid taking a trip to the proverbial woodshed or in the form of some other appropriate sanction. If the only goal is the removal of the gun, without follow up, I say the parent needs to do the searching, take the gun and sell itif they don't want it, advising police that it was found, where, etc., so that if it was used in a crime, it can be used as evidence. My taxes shouldn't be used to pay for public servants to do the parents' job.

Blessings,
M