2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment? Who needs 'em?

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Police to search for guns in homes

City program depends on parental consent

By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | November 17, 2007

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.

The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.

In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.

If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.

The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders.

"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.

"Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found."

But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people.

"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .

"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."

But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street.

A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week.

"There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said.

The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out.

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.

"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," Davis said.

Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. [Just like Hitler's Gestapo did, by the way] They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square.

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.

"A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion."

The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks.

One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting.

"What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' "

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said.

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.

St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program.

"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," he said.

But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice.

Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said.

Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared.

"I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us."

Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did.

"We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said.

Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start."

It's definitely a head start - but in which direction?
 
If parents are giving police access to search for guns then I don’t see why the 4th Amendment is in jeopardy. As far as police intimidation, as long as residents are advised that they are not required under the 4th Amendment to grant access into their homes without a search warrant, and that they may deny access without fear of retaliation then I don’t see a problem. As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, if a person illegally possesses a firearm I don’t see how seizure of such illegal firearm offends the 2nd Amendment. I am pro-2nd amendment and a gun owner and member of a gun club, but let’s be reasonable.

The bottom line is that parents should be searching their kid’s bedroom, not the police. Lack of responsibility by parents to take control of their households and children is at the root of much of society’s problems associated with youth violence, including youth gun violence. I would rather have the police enter homes with permission and seize illegal guns then to see these guns kill people, including innocent bystanders.
 
As far as police intimidation, as long as residents are advised that they are not required under the 4th Amendment to grant access into their homes without a search warrant, and that they may deny access without fear of retaliation then I don’t see a problem.
After thinking about your response, I just want to address this part.

Picture a lady who probably didn't go to college and doesn't know her rights. THREE plainclothes police officers show up on her doorstep. Do you REALLY believe they're going to say, "Now ma'am, we'd like permission to search your house for illegal firearms, it's just this new program. And don't you worry, if you say no, you are perfectly within your rights, and we will leave immediately with no repercussions to you. What do you say, ma'am?" What kind of results do you think they would get? Besides getting fired?

I picture it more like this: "Ma'am, we're here to search your house for illegal firearms pursuant to blah blah blah code of blah blah blah city ordinance. Please stand aside." And if she says, "Ya gotta warrant?" They reply, (remember there's THREE of them on the porch!) "We could go get a warrant if you want, ma'am, but if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. If we go get a warrant things might be more complicated and difficult for you later. If you just let us do our job now, we'll be out of your hair in no time."

What do you think will really happen?
 
What happens if they find something other than a gun? Was that addressed? Like if they find 50lbs of marijuana ready for distribution under the kid's bed?

I doubt they'd turn a blind eye to it.
 
What happens if they find something other than a gun? Was that addressed? Like if they find 50lbs of marijuana ready for distribution under the kid's bed?

I doubt they'd turn a blind eye to it.
When you say find, do you also include "find?"
 
I dont know about Boston but in NJ, even if they found a room with naked women bagging heroine and they dont have a warrant, then none of it is admissable in court.
 
After thinking about your response, I just want to address this part.

Picture a lady who probably didn't go to college and doesn't know her rights. THREE plainclothes police officers show up on her doorstep. Do you REALLY believe they're going to say, "Now ma'am, we'd like permission to search your house for illegal firearms, it's just this new program. And don't you worry, if you say no, you are perfectly within your rights, and we will leave immediately with no repercussions to you. What do you say, ma'am?" What kind of results do you think they would get? Besides getting fired?

I picture it more like this: "Ma'am, we're here to search your house for illegal firearms pursuant to blah blah blah code of blah blah blah city ordinance. Please stand aside." And if she says, "Ya gotta warrant?" They reply, (remember there's THREE of them on the porch!) "We could go get a warrant if you want, ma'am, but if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. If we go get a warrant things might be more complicated and difficult for you later. If you just let us do our job now, we'll be out of your hair in no time."

What do you think will really happen?
While I don’t know the intricacies of what is being done with regard to home searches, nevertheless, such a program (if one exists) could not employ deceptive practices in order to mislead or trick residents into granting permission to search because such would violate the 4th Amendment. Also, I’m sure such a program would be openly advertised rather than being some secret operation designed to trick people into giving up their 4th Amendment rights. Moreover, any evidence collected or seized in violation of the 4th Amendment would be subject to the “Exclusionary Rule.”
 
While I don’t know the intricacies of what is being done with regard to home searches, nevertheless, such a program (if one exists) could not employ deceptive practices in order to mislead or trick residents into granting permission to search because such would violate the 4th Amendment.
You absolutely sure about that? I'm only asking because it isn't a deceptive practice to OMIT telling someone that they have the right to refuse permission. This happens all the time in vehicle checkpoints in NY State and we have yet to have a landmark decision like Miranda that FORCES LEOs to say, "You have the right to refuse permission to search your property." Do you really naively think that police officers advise people of their 4th Amendment rights every single time they want to search something?
Also, I’m sure such a program would be openly advertised rather than being some secret operation designed to trick people into giving up their 4th Amendment rights. Moreover, any evidence collected or seized in violation of the 4th Amendment would be subject to the “Exclusionary Rule.”
This program is being openly advertised; that isn't the issue I've brought up. When people aren't aware of their rights, they can be influenced (intimidated?) by law enforcement into waiving their rights. Ever heard of a cop getting a confession out of somebody? LEOs are trained to convince people to make a statement rather than lawyer up. This happens a lot. Anyone who thinks this never happens is naive.

In this situation the 4th Amendment is being sidestepped because people would be intimidated into giving up their rights. The only way this would be legit is if they "Mirandized" every person at the front door concerning their 4th Amendment rights.
 
Then to solve this, if they are going to spend the money to send 3 officers door to door, then send a public defender along with them.
Just my idea.
And there are some stupid laws in my opinion that if you refuse to consent to a search you can be charged with certain things but I think that's only if there is probable cause.
 
You absolutely sure about that? I'm only asking because it isn't a deceptive practice to OMIT telling someone that they have the right to refuse permission. This happens all the time in vehicle checkpoints in NY State and we have yet to have a landmark decision like Miranda that FORCES LEOs to say, "You have the right to refuse permission to search your property." Do you really naively think that police officers advise people of their 4th Amendment rights every single time they want to search something?

This program is being openly advertised; that isn't the issue I've brought up. When people aren't aware of their rights, they can be influenced (intimidated?) by law enforcement into waiving their rights. Ever heard of a cop getting a confession out of somebody? LEOs are trained to convince people to make a statement rather than lawyer up. This happens a lot. Anyone who thinks this never happens is naive.

In this situation the 4th Amendment is being sidestepped because people would be intimidated into giving up their rights. The only way this would be legit is if they "Mirandized" every person at the front door concerning their 4th Amendment rights.
If there is a publicly advertised law enforcement program to search for illegal firearms in homes upon permission then chances are it would be well advertised and the police would take reasonable steps to educate the public about the program and their rights. What happens during New York police check point stops is a separate issue. In NJ, it's illegal for a police officer to even ask to search a vehicle during a stop without "probable cause." Courts have already ruled that police can set up motor vehicle check points to enforce motor vehicle laws. If the police are engaging in illegal searches then chances are such conduct will become public and will be challenged in court.
 
You're obviously comfortable with police searching houses door to door, and you evidently trust the government not to ever abuse its authority.

I do not feel the same way, and evidently the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights did not either, else why would they see a need to pen those 10 Amendments? If the government is so benevolent and free from corruption, why have a Bill of Rights anyway? I see this as the camel's nose in the tent. You do not. That is your right.
 
You're obviously comfortable with police searching houses door to door, and you evidently trust the government not to ever abuse its authority.

I do not feel the same way, and evidently the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights did not either, else why would they see a need to pen those 10 Amendments? If the government is so benevolent and free from corruption, why have a Bill of Rights anyway? I see this as the camel's nose in the tent. You do not. That is your right.
I see the program as an attempt by government to curb gun violence. Unless there's reason to suspect otherwise, I will continue to view it as such. While I share your concerns about potential government violations of the 4th Amendment, I'm not willing to judge the intent of the program and law enforcement officials based upon mere suspicion. I don't know enough about the program or what steps are built-in or being taken to protect civil rights. In general, however, I don't see anything inherently wrong about a government program where law enforcement officials request permission to access homes where illegal firearms may be kept.

The problems such a program will likely present, however, are numerous, including which homes to request access to, privacy issues, retaliation against those who granted access, racial bias/discrimination, and allegations of police misconduct stemming from alleged improper searches. Due to the myriad of issues such a program would likely face, not to mentioned the unorthodoxy of such a program, chances are it will likely not yield the kind of results law enforcement would hope for and will eventually be abandoned. It seems like a difficult and cumbersome route to take in order to remove guns from the streets. This is why it's really up to parents to take responsibility for their households and do the searching rather than relying on the police.
 

Members online

Back
Top