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

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.
Click to expand...
Once the police have a warrant to sieze something, they can enter the house to do so. If, during the execution of a legal warrant they spot other contraband it may be siezed as well. If they spot potential evidence of other crimes, that evidence may be siezed and/or a new investigation initiated. All legal, if the original warrant is valid.

I have even heard some state that refusal to search is grounds for a warrant, in and of itself. SO...what do you do?
Click to expand...
An officer may say this is so, but if he attempts to implement it, he will find himself in deep trouble. Courts have ruled that exercising your constitutional rights cannot be used as "probable cause" or supporting evidence for any warrant.

Of course, the problem is proving that the officer's official statement for obtaining the warrant was based, in part, on your refusal to permit a search.

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.
Click to expand...

Amen. Though some parents are afraid to confront their kids due to their physical size and/or aggressive behavior. When it comes to controlling who comes in the house, that can be difficult in poor neighborhoods where the parent(s) may work long hours to make ends meet and the kid is home alone for 3-5 hours after school (providing he really goes to school).
 
Yet another Hoot! Parrents Intimidated by there kids! Parents state Johnny you know you can't have that! Kid states, Shut up Dad! or I will call the CFS, Child and Family Services! Dad shuts up and colors! Police offer there services to become saragate Parrents. Your child is now a ward or the state. You no longer have control of them. They have control of you!:barf:
 
This is all part of the social deconstruction of our society and of the family. A century ago women were treated like chattel and had few real rights. The womens movement made real and needed progress in changing it. However, along with necessary changes came some social changes and some legal philosiphies and governemnt programs that have, perhaps unintentionally at times, contributed to the destruction of the family and positive social morays.

A few of the destructive factors that figure into this are: the loss of stigma associated with having children out of wedlock, the over sexualization of our society, the lack of stigma associated with divorce, men or women who put their children before their relationship and end up with households that are run by the children, and government programs directed at caring for children that are easily abused, (i.e. Mom diviorces dad, gets child support, gets public aid, housing, and medical card, mom gets boyfriend whose income does not impact her benefits, mom and/or boyfriend deal drugs and/or work for cash - result a better lifestyle in terms of cash and toys than a married couple both working two to four jobs). I can't tell you how much this irks my wife - who works full time, one part time job and goes to school full time, (I work one full time and two part time jobs). We both work in private social service type jobs and see many people who haven't worked a regular job for years who have better health care, better cars, and more toys than we could afford. Of course we save, have a home, and hope that at least she can retire someday - I gave up that dream. We set limits for our children and pay for what they need from our labor. We also see many of the homes where the children run it - where they have been spoiled - and have no sense of responsibilty and have not learned what it means to care and love for another. Very sad. Somewhere large segments of the population have lost or never learned what it means to be a parent to be responsible, and government is not a workable solution.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, the state law requires all firearms to be locked if not under direct control of a licensed individual. Leaving unlocked firearms around the house is illegal, even if it is disassembled. Even cleaning a gun, and leaving it disassembled on a work bench is considered illegal. Unless the serial # receiver has a trigger lock on it. There are a few different licenses need to own firearms depending on the firearm class. Handguns are heavily restricted so need a Class A or B license to own. All large capacity firearms need a Class A or B. If a cop comes to ones door for any reason and sees a firearm lying around, even if it is locked, they will ask for the proper license. If the person does not have the proper license for that class of firearm, and there is not another licensed person at the residence than there are going to be some serious legal problems. Allowing a under aged person access to unsecured firearms is a very serious crime in this state. That would be an automatic prison sentence.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Hah, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
 
Not so much a slippery slope as a very well greased one. In addition to this policy being pursued much more rigourously in low income and minority neighborhoods, I duspect it will pursued rigorosly against tenants, especially
in public housing, who will be informed that failure to consent will be grounds
for eviction.
 
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.
Click to expand...

  • Some people?? How do you make the sort?
  • May not violate my rights but does vilolate my privacy!!
  • Why should I even be required or put in a position to say; NO. Lets all say NO right now. Oh, I forgot that this is Massachusetts and thank God

Remember that when you compromise your rights, YOU LOSE !!!
 
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.
Click to expand...


I understand LEO's have always used their best discretion in determining which laws they will strictly enforce. However, that discretion is generally not applied to crimes of this nature. It appears to me we have a Police Commissioner playing policeman, judge and jury. Not good.
 
Let me say first that I think it's a bone headed idea in the first place.

BUT, I have no problem with the cops visiting a home and are required to read a script that goes something like this. "Good afternoon, I am ____ with BPD. We are in the neighborhood requesting parents permission to search their children's rooms for firearms or other contraband you may be afraid that they might have. In the event we find something illegal in your child's room we will confiscate it and no legal actions will be pursued".

The beat cops are doing their jobs and informing the public of their intent and the right to refuse this search. I do know of some single mothers who are mortified as to what their teenage children (boys usually) might be up to and this gives them some back up to investigate.

At the end of the day I think most parents know full well what their children are up to and would refuse if they knew something was in there. There's a very small handful of people who might benefit by this. I think the cops surveilling illegal drug/gun/contraband locations would be much better use of their time...same feeling about setting up speed traps.
 
At the end of the day I think most parents know full well what their children are up to and would refuse if they knew something was in there.
Click to expand...

Once again, we are focusing scarce resources on law abiding citizens. It's blatantly obvious, those who are up to no good will not allow entry. If there is probable cause, get a warrant and search the entire residence. Then arrest the minor for that offense and the parents for contributory negligence. (or whatever it's classified as in the local jurisdiction.) Enforce the laws on the books. Don't let some Police Commissioner make crap up on the fly and just run with it...

Doesn't this really boil down to political posturing so a few "do-gooders" feel important? Will this have any real impact on the real issues?
 
I do know of some single mothers who are mortified as to what their teenage children (boys usually) might be up to and this gives them some back up to investigate.
Click to expand...

If that be the case, a phone call to ask for a cop to toss her "boy's" room could be made. Cops coming uninvited to ask to search a room is one step shy of them coming to demand to search a room.
 
In terms of enumerated rights, sometimes it's not the individual or singular event, but more on how actions conform to The Constitution.

For example, when they read you your rights during an arrest (yeah, I know, I know...), they read the approved verbiage from a "Miranda Card." It protects your enumerated rights.

However, if there ever was a man who slipped through the system, but had his rights violated, it was Ernesto Miranda. There's a laundry list of things he did and things The State couldn't prove, including petty theft and rape.

He actually died in a knife fight in 1976, and his assailant was read his rights over his body.

The man might not be a shining citizen, but his treatment under the law is/was the issue.

Same deal here. A teenager might have pot, heroin, bomb making devices and a stolen Glock hidden under his Playboy magazines. But if he does, get it the right way.

Does the phrase "fruit of the poison tree" mean anything to you?
 
Wow! Who decides that?
Click to expand...
They do, but I think it's a decision that some people don't make well. Not that they shouldn't have the decision to make, but they often make the wrong decision. I'm not going to in any way say that people should have a remote control on their steering wheel, but turning right on a busy one way street that goes to the left is a bad decision that a driver who does so simply should not have chosen the way they did. Having kids one can't raise well, provide for, educated, etc. is a bad decision. Period. It can have bad reprecussions for lots of people just the same as car accidents, fires, bad laws and taxes, hazardous waste spills, and ill advised fashion trends.
 
Yet another Hoot! Parrents Intimidated by there kids! Parents state Johnny you know you can't have that! Kid states, Shut up Dad! or I will call the CFS, Child and Family Services! Dad shuts up and colors! Police offer there services to become saragate Parrents. Your child is now a ward or the state. You no longer have control of them. They have control of you!
Click to expand...

While you make fun of the idea, unfortunately it becomes reality in many households. Especially in single-parent households with a mother trying to control an increasingly frustrated and angry teenage boy. The kids don't threaten to call CPS or family services -- that's naive. In some cases, the boy's gang buddies intimidate single parents to the point where they are afraid of being killed or framed for some serious crime.

These people are too poor to hire experts or lawyers to help them out. Nor do they want to involve the police for fear that gang members will "cap" them for being a snitch. The still have to live in the area after the kid is in jail.

Imagine being having your every step shadowed by some gang-banger - from doorstep to bus, from the bus to work, even during your job in some cases. Being followed into the bank, grocery store and the bus home. And every time you talk to someone you're interrogated by a gang member asking what you said or reminded that they're watching and listening to make sure you stay in line. It's no wonder some folks are afraid to talk to police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top