Please Volunteer to Let Us Search Your Home For Illegal Weapons

[BPSCG]

Police are asking residents to submit to voluntary searches in exchange for amnesty under the District's gun ban. They passed out fliers requesting cooperation on Monday.

The program will begin in a couple of weeks in the Washington Highlands neighborhood of southeast Washington and will later expand to other neighborhoods. Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

Community leaders went door to door in Ward 8 Monday to advise residents not to invite police into their homes to search for weapons.

"Bad idea," said D.C. School Board member William Lockridge. "I think the people should not open your doors under any circumstances, don't even crack your door, unless someone has a warrant for your arrest."

Ron Hampton, of the Black Police Officers Association, said he doesn't expect many in the community to comply. Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/15688264/detail.html?taf=dc).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has just heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of DC's gun ban. Maybe people want to find out whether they have a right to keep and bear arms before turning them in to the DC police.

Prediction: The number of drug dealers who will volunteer to allow their homes to be searched for illegal guns will be very close to zero.

[wahrheit]

"Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes."

How absurd. Can you imagine your door bell ringing, and police officers saying "Hey, mind if we look around a bit? Maybe you are hiding guns and stuff, you know... To be sure we would like to search your home. Nothing serious, just day-to-day business. ha ha."

"She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home."

We called them Blockwart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockwart) 70 years ago.

It seems it becomes more and more popular to skip the old innocent until proven guilty thing in some police heads. Soon, every citizen is a potential criminal and suspect. If you don't open your door for a voluntary search, you are probably hiding something from authorities. What idea will come next? Let us search your computer without warrant, and if we find nothing illegal we will allow you to put a "Good Citizen Of Oceania" sign up in your front yard.

If they suspect someone of hiding (illegal or not illegal) guns in their home, they will have to find some evidence for this and show it to a judge.

[dirtywick]

Prediction: The number of drug dealers who will volunteer to allow their homes to be searched for illegal guns will be very close to zero.

Hmmm, you might be surprised. I've watched enought Cops to know that a surprising number of people agree to have their cars searched knowing full well they have a pound of meth in the trunk under a blanket.

But this is pretty stupid. Having a dozen cops rooting through your house for no particular reason doesn't sound like a very appealing option when the other is having then not root through your house.

[BPSCG]

Hmmm, you might be surprised. I've watched enought Cops to know that a surprising number of people agree to have their cars searched knowing full well they have a pound of meth in the trunk under a blanket.I guess I don't watch enough TV... :boggled:

[Drudgewire]

"No thanks, I don't want you knowing how many legal weapons I have just in case the rules change." :p

[qayak]

If you guys were decent law abiding citizens, why would their be an issue? Invite them in, make them tea, they are only looking to protect you. :D

[Zep]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a constitutional law or amendment or something that prevents a search of private property without a proper warrant with reason? And wouldn't just wanting to "look around" not constitute a good reason?

Or has Perry Mason been lying to me again...

[rjh01]

If you invite police in and invite them to do a search then I cannot see why it should not be legal.

But I would not allow police to search my house. They might say 'Oh that computer we think it is stolen, now tell me where you got it and produce evidence or we give you a hard time at least.'

[TheDaver]

This sort of abuse of authority is exactly why the right to bear arms must be upheld.…

[SezMe]

From the OP link:

A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well.

Perfect! Some meth dealer is worried about being busted so he invites the cops in and they find his gold star meth lab. But, er, he's got amnesty.

[rjh01]

Yes then they raid the place later to make sure he has stopped.

[Puppycow]

Hmmm, you might be surprised. I've watched enought Cops to know that a surprising number of people agree to have their cars searched knowing full well they have a pound of meth in the trunk under a blanket.

But this is pretty stupid. Having a dozen cops rooting through your house for no particular reason doesn't sound like a very appealing option when the other is having then not root through your house.

I agree. It's because people's brains or knees often turn to mush when a uniformed police officer asks them "mind if I look around." They panic, and their brains freeze. They think they have to comply, even if it was a request, not an order. Amazingly, I've read that some people even admit to crimes they didn't commit under interrogation.

I do remember one episode of Cops in an airport where an officer asked a man if she could search his suitcase and he said yes, and they found drugs therein. I'm pretty sure he could have said no.

You have to know your rights and make full use of them, and not panic at the sight of a police officer.

[Soapy Sam]

I guess I don't watch enough TV... :boggled:


Or perhaps you lack a licence to operate a TV?

This is exactly the modus operandi of the government sanctioned Television Licencing Agency in the UK- and is one reason I will not own a television.

[brodski]

This sort of abuse of authority is exactly why the right to bear arms must be upheld.…

you mean if the police ask to search your home, you should shoot them?

Or... what?

[wahrheit]

A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well.

Since when is it in the authority of the police to grant amnesty? :confused:

[brodski]

Since when is it in the authority of the police to grant amnesty? :confused:

Every since police have had discretionary powers of arrest, in a system (such as the USA) where only the state can prosecute.

[WildCat]

You have to know your rights and make full use of them, and not panic at the sight of a police officer.
I've had my car searched twice after I told them "no". They'll just make up an excuse to search it anyway, and a favorite is "I smell marijuana", even though they don't. So even though they lied and didn't find anything, what really is my recourse? How do you prove they didn't smell something?

If the cops want to search your car, they will, no matter what.

[rwguinn]

Yes then they raid the place later to make sure he has stopped.

That would be very iffy.
Evidence gained through an illegal search (no Probable cause) cannot be used to prosecute...

[Lothian]

Please Volunteer to Let Us Search Your Home For Illegal Weapons:w2:

[skeptical]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a constitutional law or amendment or something that prevents a search of private property without a proper warrant with reason? And wouldn't just wanting to "look around" not constitute a good reason?

Or has Perry Mason been lying to me again...

"consent" is a universal exception, that is why if you watch any episodes of "cops" they always say "do you mind if I search?", because if you say "yes" its game, set, match, no violation. In theory, you can limit the scope of the permission and also withdraw it after they have started, but in practice the chances of that working are virtually zero.

That is why they are asking the homeowners, if they have permission then no violation.

[skeptical]

I've had my car searched twice after I told them "no". They'll just make up an excuse to search it anyway, and a favorite is "I smell marijuana", even though they don't. So even though they lied and didn't find anything, what really is my recourse? How do you prove they didn't smell something?

If the cops want to search your car, they will, no matter what.

You're correct of course. They will make up an excuse if they really want to search and in court it would be a "he said/she said" situation. If they actually found something in a search, you might be able to get the evidence thrown out if you could convince a judge that you knew your rights and refused to search, then it would be up to the cops to perjure themselves, which unfortunately happens too often.

If they search and don't find anything, then you could sue them in civil court, but the time and effort involved is almost never worth the payoff, so 99.9% of the time these sorts of rights violations never get punished if they do not find anything.

This is why I always have to shake my head when I see pundits complaining about a court throwing out illegally seized evidence because "the person is clearly guilty!". Well, yeah, that's true, but the case would not even be in court if the police had not found anything, so pretty much if there is going to be any punishment for illegal police searches, it will be against the guilty.

[madurobob]

I might let them search my home if they let me search their homes first and also if they've already searched the homes of each district council-person live on TV. If they think this is a good idea they should submit to it first.

OK, I still wouldn't let them search my home, but I'd enjoy the TV show.

[Rob Lister]

I've had my car searched twice after I told them "no". They'll just make up an excuse to search it anyway, and a favorite is "I smell marijuana", even though they don't. So even though they lied and didn't find anything, what really is my recourse? How do you prove they didn't smell something?

If the cops want to search your car, they will, no matter what.

true as that might be, it is not necessarily relevant. The cop can't have it both ways, and a judge will throw out evidence so had...typically. To clarify, if the cop had probable cause, he need not ask.

The best answer to the question, "Do you mind if I search your car?" is "Well, that sounds like a legal matter best left to my lawyer."

[skeptical]

true as that might be, it is not necessarily relevant. The cop can't have it both ways, and a judge will throw out evidence so had...typically. To clarify, if the cop had probable cause, he need not ask.

The best answer to the question, "Do you mind if I search your car?" is "Well, that sounds like a legal matter best left to my lawyer."

While you are technically correct, judges typically tend to believe the testimony of police over that of someone who they already know was participating in illegal activity. But, it's still better to decline consent and then force the police to perjure themselves.

[Autolite]

If you guys were decent law abiding citizens, why would their be an issue? Invite them in, make them tea, they are only looking to protect you. :D

I did it once, and it was a good lesson learned. I voluntarily permitted a couple of cops into my home to do a search. Why not, I had nothing to hide. The problem was when they DIDN'T find what they where looking for they didn't stop there.

They started looking at everything for anything that could be incriminating at all. They asked all sorts of bizarre questions and I was beginning to understand what all the fuss concerning the Spanish Inquisition was about.

When they left they seemed disappointed that there was nothing they could dig up that would have justified the time they spent. I don't blame them for their behavior or attitude because they where trying to doing what cops are suppose to do. Find reasons to arrest people. After all, who's ever heard of a cop who got promoted for the number of people they DIDN'T arrest???

[Autolite]

Consider also that someone might think that they are a law abiding "Joe Citizen" but unless they have an encyclopedic memory of every law ever written then they might be getting themselves in a jam.

An ambitious cop is going to know about obscure laws that the average person might be unaware of and they will look for reasons to enforce such laws. Just because someone believes that they are honest with "nothing to hide" doesn't mean that they aren't liable for something...

[chulbert]

When they left they seemed disappointed that there was nothing they could dig up that would have justified the time they spent.

This reminds me of my favorite technique for dealing with telephone solicitors before the DNC registry. I would simply feign interest, ask for just a moment to finish some task, then never return to the phone in order to waste their time. "Wow, you know my windows are a bit drafty. Can you hold on just a moment while I take something out of the oven?"

Perhaps the best way to deal with this issue is to insist the police search hundreds of clean houses. :)

[Soapy Sam]

The word "solicitor" in the UK usually means a particular category of lawyer. The general meaning of " one who solicits" is now rarely applied.
This is why there is a brisk trade in "NO SOLICITORS" signs, by Brits on holiday in the US.

[Fitter]

I did it once, and it was a good lesson learned. I voluntarily permitted a couple of cops into my home to do a search. Why not, I had nothing to hide. The problem was when they DIDN'T find what they where looking for they didn't stop there.

They started looking at everything for anything that could be incriminating at all. They asked all sorts of bizarre questions and I was beginning to understand what all the fuss concerning the Spanish Inquisition was about.

When they left they seemed disappointed that there was nothing they could dig up that would have justified the time they spent. I don't blame them for their behavior or attitude because they where trying to doing what cops are suppose to do. Find reasons to arrest people. After all, who's ever heard of a cop who got promoted for the number of people they DIDN'T arrest???
Meatheads? Because you know they are their own brand of stupid.

[Autolite]

Meatheads? Because you know they are their own brand of stupid.

No argument there. However, in my case they were real cops (Gendarmerie royale) ...

[winnietheblue]

Because it is relevant to this topic, I thought I'd point everyone to Flex Your Rights (http://www.flexyourrights.org)-an organization dedicated to educating people about their right not to be searched, and some information about how to conduct yourself when the police ask to search your property, what to do when they search your property without a warrant, etc.

Edited to correct link.

[Pope130]

Consider also that someone might think that they are a law abiding "Joe Citizen" but unless they have an encyclopedic memory of every law ever written then they might be getting themselves in a jam.


Before you let them in you'd better check the pillows and make sure they all have their "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags!

Robert

[Autolite]

Before you let them in you'd better check the pillows and make sure they all have their "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags!

Come to think of it, I might still have a bootleg copy of "Smokey and the Bandit" on VHS laying around somewhere. I'd better ditch that or I'd be lookin' at some serious jail time... :jaw-dropp

[Old Bob]

We had the Australian Army pull us up for a ramdon search, I said ----off and get out of the way. The troops don't have bullets in the tupperware guns so no fear. We drove on and that was that. Anyway my old deisel Toyota is hard to stop. As for our house, no search without warrant.

[Checkmite]

Because it is relevant to this topic, I thought I'd point everyone to Flex Your Rights (http://www.flexyourrights.org)-an organization dedicated to educating people about their right not to be searched, and some information about how to conduct yourself when the police ask to search your property, what to do when they search your property without a warrant, etc.

Edited to correct link.

That site is funny. I know it's intended to be a reference for everyone, but some of the language it uses at some points seems to indicate that the site is assuming you're doing something illegal and don't want to get caught, rather than that you're just a normal person who wants to refuse a search strictly on principle.

[geni]

Come to think of it, I might still have a bootleg copy of "Smokey and the Bandit" on VHS laying around somewhere. I'd better ditch that or I'd be lookin' at some serious jail time... :jaw-dropp

Copyright is mostly a civil matter in common law based juristictions.

[quixotecoyote]

You're correct of course. They will make up an excuse if they really want to search and in court it would be a "he said/she said" situation. If they actually found something in a search, you might be able to get the evidence thrown out if you could convince a judge that you knew your rights and refused to search, then it would be up to the cops to perjure themselves, which unfortunately happens too often.


$40 buys you a pocket sized voice recorder. Its as much a part of your emergency roadside kit as a lug wrench and flares. Unless they frisk you, of course. But that generally doesn't happen unless they find something in the car.

[WildCat]

$40 buys you a pocket sized voice recorder. Its as much a part of your emergency roadside kit as a lug wrench and flares. Unless they frisk you, of course. But that generally doesn't happen unless they find something in the car.
Except in most states it's illegal to audio record someone without their permission. I assume these laws were passed so politicians could solicit bribes with less risk, but maybe that's just my cynicism from living in Illinois my whole life.

[wahrheit]

Except in most states it's illegal to audio record someone without their permission. I assume these laws were passed so politicians could solicit bribes with less risk, but maybe that's just my cynicism from living in Illinois my whole life.

You don't need cynicism nor do you have to live in Illinois to come to the same conclusion. It's just common sense. :)

[Pope130]

Except in most states it's illegal to audio record someone without their permission. I assume these laws were passed so politicians could solicit bribes with less risk, but maybe that's just my cynicism from living in Illinois my whole life.

I don't believe that is a problem for two reasons.

First, a public official has no expectation of privacy while performing his duty. He is acting under color of authority, and all his actions and statements are subject to review.

Second, it is quite common now for police cars to have a camera mounted on the dashboard to record traffic stops. Since one side is already recording the conversation (a recording which may be used in court) it must be legal to do so.

Not a lawyer, but I have been on both sides of a traffic stop.

Robert Klaus

[WildCat]

I don't believe that is a problem for two reasons.

First, a public official has no expectation of privacy while performing his duty. He is acting under color of authority, and all his actions and statements are subject to review.

Second, it is quite common now for police cars to have a camera mounted on the dashboard to record traffic stops. Since one side is already recording the conversation (a recording which may be used in court) it must be legal to do so.

Not a lawyer, but I have been on both sides of a traffic stop.

Robert Klaus
I don't think you're correct. For example (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070122/REPOSITORY/701220301/1037/48HOURS):

Michael Gannon, 40, of Nashua was arrested after his home security camera made video and audio recordings of detectives who had come looking for his teenage son. Felony wiretapping charges against him were later dropped.
Gannon was arrested after he brought the recordings to the police station to complain that a detective had been rude to him.
The police later returned Gannon's cameras and recording equipment but did not give back the tapes, saying they were illegal recordings.

...
Dumaine said he also plans to sponsor a bill to make it legal to make video and audio recordings of people in public settings, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
That bill was motivated by a case in the Keene area, in which a motorist was charged for turning on a tape recorder after being pulled over by the police, Dumaine said.

[Pope130]

Wildcat,
That's disturbing.

Robert

[ServiceSoon]

Second, it is quite common now for police cars to have a camera mounted on the dashboard to record traffic stops. Since one side is already recording the conversation (a recording which may be used in court) it must be legal to do so.

Sometimes law enforcement is granted special powers to help them perform their duties. Makes sense :covereyes

[quixotecoyote]

Except in most states it's illegal to audio record someone without their permission. I assume these laws were passed so politicians could solicit bribes with less risk, but maybe that's just my cynicism from living in Illinois my whole life.

Actually in most (38) states you can, so long as you are one of the participants in the conversation.

Source:http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

In my ideal world there would be increased transparency in all police proceedings by requiring all shootings, arrests and interrogations to be videotaped whenever possible.

[WildCat]

Actually in most (38) states you can, so long as you are one of the participants in the conversation.

Source:http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

In my ideal world there would be increased transparency in all police proceedings by requiring all shootings, arrests and interrogations to be videotaped whenever possible.
Cool, but I note that Illinois is one of the ones that require consent from all parties. And that the police are excepted from the law and may film (audio and video) you but you can't do the same.

[quixotecoyote]

Cool, but I note that Illinois is one of the ones that require consent from all parties. And that the police are excepted from the law and may film (audio and video) you but you can't do the same.

True enough. I'll add it to my Reasons-Illinois-Sucks List.

[Ranb]

WA state is one of those that require all parties to a conversation be informed prior to recording. There are a few exceptions like, emergencies or threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests. So I guess if I record any threats by the police or someone getting harsh with me, then I am in the clear. :)

Ranb

[WildCat]

So I guess if I record any threats by the police or someone getting harsh with me, then I am in the clear. :)
Except you can't turn your recording device on if you're stopped by the police. If you do, you get arrested. And if they threaten you after pulling you over or engage in other illegal activity, they're not likely to allow you to fire up your recording device and repeat it all for the record.

[Ranb]

I was thinking more of a small recorder like an I-pod that I could turn on discretely if the situation warranted. One only needs to use the recording if there are verbal or other threats made. It is not likely I could be prosecuted for making then deleting a recording that no one heard if it did not contain threats or other illegal activity.

A question for those states that only permit recording a conversation when all parties are informed. If a person is pulled over by the police during a routine traffic stop that is recorded by the police cruiser’s dash-cam, can they legally record the activities of the police without telling them since the police are already recording?

Ranb

[quixotecoyote]

I was thinking more of a small recorder like an I-pod that I could turn on discretely if the situation warranted. One only needs to use the recording if there are verbal or other threats made. It is not likely I could be prosecuted for making then deleting a recording that no one heard if it did not contain threats or other illegal activity.

A question for those states that only permit recording a conversation when all parties are informed. If a person is pulled over by the police during a routine traffic stop that is recorded by the police cruiser’s dash-cam, can they legally record the activities of the police without telling them since the police are already recording?

Ranb

I believe so. As far as I know, if you give your consent to be recorded it doesn't matter which party is doing the recording. The cop implicitly consents to use the dash cam, which means he has consented to being recorded.