Knock knock. "This is the police. May we search your home?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights.

'voluntary' is the key word of the poll, not 'warrantless'

I don't believe the poll said anything about requiring authorities to "walk from house to house".

again, how is a right "waived" when you 'choose' to allow a search (for any reason) - the right is exercised/used when you said "yes" or "no" to the request.

It makes as much sense and saying your right to free speech is waived by being informed of your right to remain silent.

Perhaps a voluntary search should also have the caviat that, since it's voluntary, you can halt that search at any moment...........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>I disagree that figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights.

"Sir! Sir! We saw an armed thief run into your backyard and disappear! Can we search your house and yard for him?"

Should that be illegal for police to attempt?

"Ma'am, we found your son with a drug dealer. We arrested the drug dealer, and found drugs on your son, but he states that the drug dealer stuffed them in his pocket just before we arrested him. Can we search his room for drugs?"

Should that be illegal for police to ask?

I don't think _asking_ should be illegal, as long as homeowners are not bullied/forced into allowing it. As Lawrocket said, knowing your rights is critical.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights.

'voluntary' is the key word of the poll, not 'warrantless'

I don't believe the poll said anything about requiring authorities to "walk from house to house".

again, how is a right "waived" when you 'choose' to allow a search (for any reason) - the right is exercised/used when you said "yes" or "no" to the request.

It makes as much sense and saying your right to free speech is waived by being informed of your right to remain silent.

Perhaps a voluntary search should also have the caviat that, since it's voluntary, you can halt that search at any moment...........

Quote

>I disagree that figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights.

"Sir! Sir! We saw an armed thief run into your backyard and disappear! Can we search your house and yard for him?"

Should that be illegal for police to attempt?

"Ma'am, we found your son with a drug dealer. We arrested the drug dealer, and found drugs on your son, but he states that the drug dealer stuffed them in his pocket just before we arrested him. Can we search his room for drugs?"

Should that be illegal for police to ask?

I don't think _asking_ should be illegal, as long as homeowners are not bullied/forced into allowing it. As Lawrocket said, knowing your rights is critical.

I was not referring to situations where the figures of authority have a reason. I was referring to the situations where the figures of authority have no reason (other than to search you home for anything illegal without probable cause or a warrant).

Example (Good): A shooting occurs and the shooters run through a neighborhood. The police go from door to door asking if they can search the houses. (This is to find the criminal and to protect the citizens.)

Example (Bad): The police go from home to home in an area with a high gun crime rate asking to search the homes for illegal guns.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I was not referring to situations where the figures of authority have a reason. I was referring to the situations where the figures of authority have no reason (other than to search you home for anything illegal without probable cause or a warrant).

the key word is 'voluntary'. tell them 'no'

it sounds like your issue isn't about whether a homeowner can give permission, it sounds like you are incorrectly relating this to some form of random searches.....

again, the poll was written wierd. The poll is essentially this - do you think police should be legally restricted from asking to search your home without a warrant (for any reason)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

"Ma'am, we found your son with a drug dealer. We arrested the drug dealer, and found drugs on your son, but he states that the drug dealer stuffed them in his pocket just before we arrested him. Can we search his room for drugs?"

Should that be illegal for police to ask?

It is not illegal for the police to ask that per se. Legally, the real issue is whether the police "request" is so coercive that the resulting "permission" is deemed to be invalid. That is highly dependent upon the individual factual circumstances of each case, and thus that issue must be decided by a judge on a case by case basis. There is no one correct answer that covers all anticipatable situations; thus it would be very difficult to craft a blanket rule to address this issue.
Clear as mud yet?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Example (Good): A shooting occurs and the shooters run through a neighborhood. The police go from door to door asking if they can search the houses. (This is to find the criminal and to protect the citizens.)

Example (Bad): The police go from home to home in an area with a high gun (or drug) crime rate asking to search the homes for illegal guns (or drugs).

Agreed.
(Boldface words added by me.)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights.

'voluntary' is the key word of the poll, not 'warrantless'

I don't believe the poll said anything about requiring authorities to "walk from house to house".

again, how is a right "waived" when you 'choose' to allow a search (for any reason) - the right is exercised/used when you said "yes" or "no" to the request.

It makes as much sense and saying your right to free speech is waived by being informed of your right to remain silent.

Perhaps a voluntary search should also have the caviat that, since it's voluntary, you can halt that search at any moment...........

Quote

>I disagree that figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights.

"Sir! Sir! We saw an armed thief run into your backyard and disappear! Can we search your house and yard for him?"

Should that be illegal for police to attempt?

"Ma'am, we found your son with a drug dealer. We arrested the drug dealer, and found drugs on your son, but he states that the drug dealer stuffed them in his pocket just before we arrested him. Can we search his room for drugs?"

Should that be illegal for police to ask?

I don't think _asking_ should be illegal, as long as homeowners are not bullied/forced into allowing it. As Lawrocket said, knowing your rights is critical.

I was not referring to situations where the figures of authority have a reason. I was referring to the situations where the figures of authority have no reason (other than to search you home for anything illegal without probable cause or a warrant).

Example (Good): A shooting occurs and the shooters run through a neighborhood. The police go from door to door asking if they can search the houses. (This is to find the criminal and to protect the citizens.)

Example (Bad): The police go from home to home in an area with a high gun crime rate asking to search the homes for illegal guns.

Both are bad ideas, the cops can say they are looking for a suspect, how does anyone know that for sure?

I had a situation years back where the cops wanted to search my fenced back yard (6' Fence) and then they asked that I bring in my two large dogs so that the police dog or the police officers would not be attacked

BTW I then spotted the two hiding in the easement along my yard, OUTSIDE MY FENCE OFF OF MY PROPERTY, they would not go into the woods after them nor risk their dog.

An hour or so later they carjacked a older couple and fled.

[Skyrad 0]

I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want them to then just say no. If they really want to and can fulfil the requirements then they will just wait outside until they get one. They only want to get rid of illegal firearms so whats the problem?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the real issue is whether the police "request" is so coercive that the resulting "permission" is deemed to be invalid

that's not the "real" issue for this thread

it's a completely "separate" issue. Important in it's own right.

Kind of like talking about wearing boots to someone used to sneakers....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

It's obviously meant to take advantage of those ignorant of their rights - especially the poor and uneducated.

Will not giving consent give the cops cause to wonder why you will not let them search? I mean, if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide right?

How about they arrest the murderers and put them away instead?

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

Especially when it comes to maths, dogs are crap at long division.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

that's not the "real" issue for this thread

is so

Quote

it's a completely "separate" issue.

is not

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

that's not the "real" issue for this thread

is so

Quote

it's a completely "separate" issue.

is not

(but I did acknowledge I think your issue is important, cops that bully are a problem in specific areas)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Of course if you say no, the cops will get a warrant and then deliberately trash your house.

Well, that would require that they go before a judge and explain their "probable cause" to believe there is something illegal in your home. And if they go around lying to a bunch of judges about such things, they're going to get slapped down sooner or later.

I stood up for my 4th Amendment rights once, by saying "no" when a cop asked to search my car on a speeding stop. He proceeded to invent his own probable cause then, by claiming that I was acting nervous. He locked me in the back of his police car, "for my own safety". Then they towed my car off the highway to a police lot. There they searched my car and found nothing. So he called in a drug-sniffing dog, which also found nothing. Two hours later I was released with just a speeding ticket, and the Barney Fife cop looked like an idiot in front of all of his peers for getting them all involved in the wild goose chase. He deserved it.

The moral of the story is: if you expect your rights to be respected, you have to stand up for them. Rights are like muscles: if they're not exercised, they atrophy and become useless.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

so you voted "Yes" in the poll? They can ask anything they want (the poll specifically notes "voluntary"). You have the right to say yes or no to the request as your choice. This is a stupid poll, people aren't reading it completely.

Um, then it's not the poll that's stupid - it's the people who are mis-reading what it clearly says.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"Sir! Sir! We saw an armed thief run into your backyard and disappear! Can we search your house and yard for him?"

Should that be illegal for police to attempt?

"Ma'am, we found your son with a drug dealer. We arrested the drug dealer, and found drugs on your son, but he states that the drug dealer stuffed them in his pocket just before we arrested him. Can we search his room for drugs?"

Should that be illegal for police to ask?

In both of those examples, the police have a reason to believe that there may be something inside the house that they need to find.

But in the news story which started this thread, it was talking about going up to houses at random where there exists no logical reason to do so, and asking for a search.

These are two different things.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't see what the problem is... They only want to get rid of illegal firearms so whats the problem?

They're police - they'll confiscate any firearm they find, illegal or not. "We're just going to take this back to the office and check it against our stolen gun list." And then you'll go through hell trying to get them to give you back your legal firearms.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Um, then it's not the poll that's stupid - it's the people who are mis-reading what it clearly says.

well, you do certainly have a point in that, I wouldn't not hesitate to not say that the poll isn't unclear in the actual or perceived wording towards not necessarily being, in effect, of containing wording which might not lend itself to reading into it several inferences that don't not misrepresent themselves as self conflicting conclusions or primary intentions of the poll question itself


(i dispute your statement that the poll is 'clearly' stated)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I was not referring to situations where the figures of authority have a reason. I was referring to the situations where the figures of authority have no reason (other than to search you home for anything illegal without probable cause or a warrant).

the key word is 'voluntary'. tell them 'no'

it sounds like your issue isn't about whether a homeowner can give permission, it sounds like you are incorrectly relating this to some form of random searches.....

I am not referring to the poll, I am referring to the first post in this thread.

Quote

... The unit will target neighborhoods where gun violence is most pervasive.

Police also plan to ask home owners at times for consent to search their homes without a probable-cause warrant. ...

I don't agree that they should have a written or unwritten policy to ask to search a home without probable cause or a warrant based solely on that home being in an area with higher crime (or based on nothing at all).

PS: I understand you can just say no. However, I also understand (first hand experience) how coercive the police can be.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[CaptainOKaos 0]

I dissapprove, but under certain circumstances, I may allow a warrantless, verbal request to search, as long as the flatfoots, promise to not get doughnut crumbs and jellied finger prints over all of my stuff.

You're as wonderful as a slinkie!! NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Of course if you say no, the cops will get a warrant and then deliberately trash your house.

Well, that would require that they go before a judge and explain their "probable cause" to believe there is something illegal in your home. And if they go around lying to a bunch of judges about such things, they're going to get slapped down sooner or later.

I stood up for my 4th Amendment rights once, by saying "no" when a cop asked to search my car on a speeding stop. He proceeded to invent his own probable cause then, by claiming that I was acting nervous. He locked me in the back of his police car, "for my own safety". Then they towed my car off the highway to a police lot. There they searched my car and found nothing. So he called in a drug-sniffing dog, which also found nothing. Two hours later I was released with just a speeding ticket, and the Barney Fife cop looked like an idiot in front of all of his peers for getting them all involved in the wild goose chase. He deserved it.

The moral of the story is: if you expect your rights to be respected, you have to stand up for them. Rights are like muscles: if they're not exercised, they atrophy and become useless.

But Barney Fife made sure that the exercise of your rights cost you 2 hours of your time and being locked in a police car. It's a wonder he didn't hogtie you for your own safety.

Thing that irritates me is that the cops can come up with an innocuous sounding reason to get you to let tem in, and once allowed in they can go on a fishing expedition.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Any sort of systematic witch hunt is a violation, whether they ask for permission or not.

Here's an example of why:

Criminals could use this tactic to perpetrate crimes. Knowing that police are doing this, they simply knock on a door in the target neighborhoods, and announce "Police, please open the door." The citizen opens to door in the spirit of good faith, and the crooks use the opportunity to commit a home invasion, which is increasingly common in my area.

In addition, asking for permission to search houses at random (yet in certain neighborhoods) violates the notion of presumed innocence. By asking to search, they are indicating that the person, MAY have committed a crime, and then try to find out.

Policies like this take us right into the world of police state.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Scoop 0]

In the UK its illegal to conduct a voluntary search of a person as it is generally thought that an honest citizen will agree, regardless of if there is a power to do so on the basis that they feel they cannot decline to a police officer. They feel obliged to say yes.

We do however, perform searches of vehicles on a voluntary basis from time to time where otherwise you might not have a power

"whats in the boot (trunk) mate? Mind if I have a look?"
"yeah sure" or "no. fuck off copper" *spidey senses start tingling*

You will be surprised as well, often people will agree to searches even if they are going to be caught out with something. Maybe hoping that appearing casual you'll only perform a half arsed quick search. WRONG!

I have only ever performed a couple of house searches without warrant (which were later issued retrospectively)

Looking in peoples cars is one thing, but someones house is quite another. If someone asked to look in my house I'd be telling them to do one

[Scoop 0]

Quote

Thing that irritates me is that the cops can come up with an innocuous sounding reason to get you to let tem in, and once allowed in they can go on a fishing expedition.

Thats called good policing. Its being proactive.

Colleague of mine knocked on someones door (for legitimate reason) could smell strong smell of cannabis so arrested him on his doorstep on SUPSPICION of possesing a controlled substance which given the circumstances gives the power to search a premises, without prior issue of a warrant, where he has recently been, in this case his house. In the loft a hydroponics factory/farm... whatever. That was a good job from absolutely nothing. Other officers might have not noticed or acted on it but unless you start digging around you'll never find anything.

I personally can say that on my 'fishing trips' I have found swords, firearms, lots of drugs, offensive weapons, stolen articles and more. You learn your laws and legislation so you know how to use them. If theres nothing preventing a voluntary search then thats another tool you can use.

HOWEVER I am strongly opposed to even suggesting voluntary searches of houses.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I stood up for my 4th Amendment rights once, by saying "no" when a cop asked to search my car on a speeding stop. He proceeded to invent his own probable cause then, by claiming that I was acting nervous. He locked me in the back of his police car, "for my own safety". Then they towed my car off the highway to a police lot. There they searched my car and found nothing. So he called in a drug-sniffing dog, which also found nothing. Two hours later I was released with just a speeding ticket, and the Barney Fife cop looked like an idiot in front of all of his peers for getting them all involved in the wild goose chase. He deserved it.

John, for what it's worth, this was a violation of your civil rights, and would have been actionable under Federal Law (in other words, would give you cause and standing to file a civil rights lawsuit in Federal Court against the police department).

Now, I can respect that some people dislike the idea of suing over things, but just like with 2nd Amendment rights, which I know you feel helps the citizenry of this free nation protect itself against the excesses of an oppressive government (or an absent one, like after Katrina), so, too, are the civil rights lawsuit laws designed to protect US citizens against the excesses of government agencies, such as police officers violating your constitutional rights.

In the case of those civil rights lawsuits which are not frivolous (and the Federal courts actually do a pretty good job of quickly weeding out the frivolous ones), the lawsuit is not so much about "winning some money" as it is about using the tools available to the American citizenry under the Constitution and laws to force the government and its agencies to behave themselves. That, in turn, helps reaffirm the credo embodied in the US Constitution, and that benefits all of your fellow citizens.

[Zipp0 1]

Lesson: Don't open your door for pigs.

Duly noted.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.