Boston Police to search homes for guns, without warrants...

Manedwolf

Moderator
They're just going to ask the parents if they can come in and search the home for guns. How many residents will understand that they can say no, I wonder? How many will be too intimidated?

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. 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."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes?mode=PF

I see several flaws with this. One, they won't be charged with anything. So they just visit Eddie the Dealer and get another gun. Two, plainclothes. Asking if they can come in.

GEE, I'm sure a dealer who wants to get back at a kid they think is a deadbeat on their dealing will NEVER read this and PRETEND to be cops to get in! :rolleyes:
 
You could not have stated the problem and situation more clearly. Now you know what you are talking about and the police know that they can get by with this but the general public is not aware of their rights. Two years ago we got a letter from the county assessor stating they they would be required to come into the house to inspect for things they could assess. I replied that a warrent would be required, stating exactly what they would be looking for. I got no reply. Later these two guys show up and looking the house over. One was a hunting aquaintance. After a general hunting conversation he turned to me and asked to come into the house. "I don't think so and what are you looking for?" After that, no reply and just walked away. What if a cop comes in and finds a can of powder? You got it!! They just want to come in and do some fishing for whatever and nail your ass for God knows what?? Well, they had permission !!!
I have nothing to hide but much to protect.
 
Never in my house. After all some criminals have badges, don't they?
Bad guys in all professions, including LEO and fire dept's.
 
Wow... that woulda been interesting when I was in school... by the time I started high school I had adecent collection started! LOL...

in this case, it sounds like BS!
 
search homes for guns, without warrants...

This is NOT a good idea. As it was said in another post, bad guys come in all professions. With all due respect to ALL the real LEO's out there, the sad fact is that there are one too many people dressed as LEO's who do not respect or perhaps do not want to respect the very seriousness of the oath of the office. With that said, I fear that Boston is going down a slope who's surface has been greased by generations of corrupt individuals within the Boston PD's own rank and file. I foresee a lot of claims, both real and imagined, of "the police set me up" scenario's occurring in Boston's near future, and a lot of law suites to follow.
 
Here you also see the hypocrisy of Boston citizens with their fake "progressive" nonsense. Bet you they won't be knocking on any doors in Beacon Hill or out on the harbor bluffs to see if Biff of Muffy have a gun in their rooms overlooking the bay.

Dorchester, Mattapan, where the poor people live, of course.
 
Some people need more supervision than do others. An unappealing fact, but a fact nevertheless. Asking to search your house doesn't violate your rights. You can say no.
 
Some people need more supervision than do others. An unappealing fact, but a fact nevertheless. Asking to search your house doesn't violate your rights. You can say no.

Like gun owners?

Wow, that was an ugly thing you said. You might want to look carefully at it and see how it could be used by others. Against us.

You just called for more supervision by the government over people who are not you, who have not been charged with crimes yet, because it doesn't affect you. If someone else called for more supervision of you because you have guns, you'd scream.

Wow. Just...wow.
 
Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy! Where to begin?

This may be appropriate...
When asked if he had ever visited a communist state before, President Nixon replied, "Yes, Massachusetts."

As to this questionable program...

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.
Yeah, three men in "plain clothes" (better be nice suits, guys) standing on my porch uninvited, unexpected and unwanted. They'd better have both a badge and an I.D. card with them. I'd suggest a hand radio too, not a cellphone. Because when I call 911 to validate them, their dispatch better be able to talk to them too.

If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.
Yeah... right. I wonder how many people will be pressured into consenting because of officers telling them that their refusal now could mean less lieniency in a later prosection?

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.
So.... they test the gun and it doesn't match any known evidence. The kid isn't prosecuted if it's a stolen gun? What happens to the gun then? Is it returned to the rightful owner? And if the gun turns out to be registered to an older brother or parent, what then? Will the relatives be charged with a crime?

"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."

Legally, a parent can let the cops search a minor child's room any time the parent wants (with certain exceptions). If contraband is found, it's up to the cops & prosecutors what happens next. The downside is that some crimes can open the parent up to prosecution under other laws.

I can also see officers being less-than-agreeable to someone videotaping their search activities.

"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."

Obviously when police enter a residence, they aren't going to close their eyes to everything but the kid's room. If they're there with the "agreement" to search a kid's room for weapons with an "implied limited prosecution", there is nothing at all which prevents the officer(s) from developing probable cause for some other investigation.

And since these are poor neighborhoods, what happens when cops find a gun in the room shared by 2 or 3 kids? Which one is going to jail? And I can see some problems that will occur if a 16-17 y/o has a job and has managed to stash $100 to $300 away in his dresser. "Hey, sarge, would you say this is drug money?" :rolleyes:

To say this program opens up Pandora's box of legal issues would be an understatement.
 
When you get right down to it, if the individual is under age and the police have parental consent, then the search is perfectly legal.

But perfectly legal and a good thing are different things entirely.
 
Here you also see the hypocrisy of Boston citizens with their fake "progressive" nonsense.

How does this become the hypocracy of Boston's citizens? The areas they mention in the article are all dangerous areas, and it's the Police asking for permission to do searches.

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.

Though the searches are legal with permission how many people will feel free enough to say no with THREE plain-clothes cops on their door-step?
 
88 degree slippery slope

First of all, isn't Mass a state that has some kind of law requiring all guns to be locked up? And a Firearms owner ID card as well? So, any gun in a home without a FOID in residence would be illegal, right? And even if legal, if not secured, then I suppose it would be accessible to the minor, and be siezed, right?

And they are trying to lull people at the outset by stating they are going to rely on officer judgement for small quantities of illegl drugs. Some folks will interpret this as a "pass" on their stash, if they let them in to search for guns. Maybe they will get it, and maybe they won't, but the cops get in before you find out which.

And, one tactic employed often by police when a refusal for serach is encounterd is to threaten to wait, until they get a warrant, and if they have to get a warrant, they will make it for anything illegal in the house. This is technical bulls**t, because by definition, a warrant must describe the places/objects to be searched/siezed, but many don't seem to know this, including some judges. I have even heard some state that refusal to search is grounds for a warrant, in and of itself. SO...what do you do?

This is about as steep a slippery slope as we are going to find. There may be something out there that will be worse, but I can't think of it right now.

Glad I don't live in Boston!
 
another angle

Just the underlying assumption that the parents need help controlling what's in the their minor child's room is a problem.:barf:

Some people need more supervision than do others.

Live and let die, I say....
 
Impact on community relations?

I swear, officials become so intoxicated with themselves, they are completely oblivious to anything outside their own power tripping agenda. The likely consequences of this program:

1. Citizens videotaping the doorstep "interview". When the inevitable strong-arm tactics get broadcast on youtube, officials will prosecute the citizen for illegal wiretapping, impeding an undercover investigation, or some other horse hockey, that will be judged 100% legal in a court of law; and 100% repugnant in the court of public opinion.

2. The "plain sight doctrine" will snag other offenders. The highlighting of "officer discretion" from the outset of this program is a huge red flag. When the officer's hunch, or intuition tells him the citizen is dirty, "he just can't prove it"; there will suddenly emerge several other things he can jack them up on. (Kitchen knives=illegal deadly weapons, for example).

3. Resurgence of the "don't snitch" ethic that we see in Philadelphia now. When the t-shirts feature the faces of some of the 12 undercover officers, with their arms folded on someone's front porch... that will be a major boost for police public relations, eh?

4. Using the fallout from this program to impact public housing. A likely companion bill to force subsidized tenants to submit to unwarranted searches as a lease condition.

There's an interesting discussion on this over at THR. The same individuals who engineered the "no politics" policy there are making an entertaining defense/non-defense argument for the Boston program.
 
Last edited:
You just called for more supervision by the government over people who are not you, who have not been charged with crimes yet, because it doesn't affect you. If someone else called for more supervision of you because you have guns, you'd scream.


I said it was an unappealing fact. It's a fact, though. Take a drive through their neighborhoods. There's a reason why things work the way they do. It's not random.
 
If parents are worried about their kids getting involved in gun violence, why not search their own house and watch what their kid has in their house.

This is insane. If you tell the cops to search your house for weapons, you obviously think you kid is into some sort of violence. Why don't these parents take control of their house hold and control what is coming and going in their house. Why don't they clear out their own house of guns if they are worried. Why must we have the govt to control what is in our house.

This is an absurd program and they are foolish if they think this will accomplish anything.
 
BillCA said:
Yeah, three men in "plain clothes" (better be nice suits, guys) standing on my porch uninvited, unexpected and unwanted. They'd better have both a badge and an I.D. card with them.

For me, they better have body armor and a local cop I know and trust.

And that's just to discuss the issue.

This goes beyond the ownership of guns and the enumerated rights of The Second.

This touches on the "double-think" aspects of a free society changing over to sheeple and directed in their lives by an oligarchy or tyranny.

My next question is, "How do you want to go down?"

As an asailant, or a serf?
 
Back
Top