… 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.

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.

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.

Enjoy your new shoulder patch, Commissioner Commissar Edward F. Davis, you’ve certainly earned it.

There. Fixed it for you.

This has just popped on a number of places and Gauis has created a great new logo for Beantown’s Brownshirts.

It seems that Boston’s Police Department has decided that the Constitution of The United States of America is something for them …