Stand Still, Laddie!
The Boston Police Department has decided that there is no longer any need for trivial things like warrants or probable cause. They will simply begin searching people's homes for guns. They say they'll only do it if people volunteer to let them in. But they are sending teams of three policemen at once to call on people. To ask them to voluntarily let them in – constitution or not.
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.
Not everyone is happy with the secret policemen of the People's Republic of Boston.
"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."
Regardless of whether you are pro or anti-gun, you should be outraged by this. Period. That it is being proposed in the city that once held a rather famous tea party and was a hotbed of Liberty only makes it more disgusting. The patriots who fought and died to secure Liberty for this nation have got to be spinning in their graves up in Boston right now. Enjoy your new shoulder patch, Commissioner Commisar* Edward F. Davis, you've certainly earned it.
*Correction supplied by Quilly Mammoth.
NOTE: Bloggers or Liberty lovers, feel free to use the photo, I'd appreciate a link back if you do, but I don't insist on it.
UPDATE: Others: Just Barking Mad, Sadly, No!, Don Surber, LewRockwell.com Blog, Liberty Papers, Free Constitution, Bob Krumm, Traction Control, Big Dog, OK Future,
Other Links to this Post
-
justbarkingmad.com — November 17, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
-
at-the-water-cooler.com » Blog Archive » I don’t need no stinken warrant! — November 17, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
By DavidL, November 17, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms. Serfs are not. Are you a citizen or a serf?
By Quilly Mammoth, November 17, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
There. Fixed it for you.
By Greg, November 18, 2007 @ 2:29 am
“The Boston Police Department has decided that there is no longer any need for trivial things like warrants or probable cause.”
I expect the people who created this rule also criticized Mr. Bush for his alleged violations of the constitution.
I actually have a lot of respect for the police all over the country. They have a tough, thankless job. This easily abused rule is something they’ll have to be very careful with, or their jobs will become tougher and even more thankless.
By Paul, November 18, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Since when has the Fourth Amendment been understood to prohibit consensual searches? Or is it your view that you get to decide who enters your home and mine too?
By Gaius, November 18, 2007 @ 7:39 am
Yes, you can agree to let the police in and search. If you don’t, they know who won’t let them in. And the presence of three cops will intimidate some people into allowing the search. Some people won’t know they can refuse. The program is easily abused – and will be.
By kidrob, November 18, 2007 @ 7:53 am
vee have vays of making you talk!
By NortonPete, November 18, 2007 @ 7:59 am
What if they find something illegal other than a gun? What about drugs? Do the police get to arrest anyone in the house? Sounds like a bad idea.
By Paul, November 18, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Gaius, supra:
That might be true. But it’s irrelevant to your earlier assertion that “[t]he Boston Police Department has decided that there is no longer any need for trivial things like warrants or probable cause.” The Boston Police Department has decided no such thing, nor could it.
Instead, the Department has decided — consistent with well-settled principles of American constitutional law — that warrants and probable cause are immaterial in the presence of a consensual search. That’s especially true when, as here, the police have no plans to file criminal charges. (If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same defense offered for Mr. Bush’s warrantless surveillance of terrorists. There as here, the Government’s aim is not to effect a criminal prosecution, but to prevent the commission of a crime.)
I agree that prudential considerations weigh against a consent to search. I would never allow the police into my home without a warrant. But that’s not the same thing as saying that consensual searches are somehow unconstitutional. They are not.