RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

Legally, there is no problem with the program, no matter how they do it. I can legally go door to door and ask consent to search and even use the evidence I find if someone is stupid enough to consent. There are no violations to this as long as the consent is freely given.

Ethically, it is an individual decision. I have no problem with asking stupid people for consent and taking advantage of their stupidity. We do it all the time. Most of us have made a traffic stop (or assisted on one) and asked for permission to search, then found lots of illegal stuff in the car. Usually the criminal says he did not think we really would search if he agreed because it would show he had nothing to hide.

And to clarify, I have no problem with the ACLU telling people to say no. Only a real idiot would consent to the search. But there are plenty of idiots out ther emaking our jobs easier every day. Smart crooks are much harder to catch than the dumb ones.

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

This whole mess is just downright SCAREY!

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

What is scary to me is that people do not know enough about their rights and the law to understand they can just say no and not even answer the officer a second time.

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

I think most people would interpret the police showing up at their door saying, "Can we search your home?" to mean, "Let us in, now, or else, and that's it." Who says "no" to the police?

If they show up all of a sudden in those intimidating blue uniforms, people will be frightened into doing whatever they want. It is not stupid criminals that make your job easier, it is intimidating, mean, lazy police officers that get the job done. If cops sit around and cry for people, they will never make any arrests...gotta....stare em down, make em do what you want...NO MORE MR. NICE GUY, OK? I WEAR THE PANTS IN THIS ROOM!

Last edited @ 4/8/2008 2:00 PM

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

Yeah this whole thing caused alot of heated debate around here. The problem was that some citizens and certain organizations as well as Marion Barry (The fine upstanding law abiding washingtonian that he is) had probelms with it because the MPD did not explain that citizens had the right to refuse the police entry and refuse a seach of the property. They were saying that the police were targeting certain groups of people and neighborhoods and homes where the citizens would not understand their rights and know they could refuse the search. I thought it was a great idea...... I mean since when did ignorance of the law become an excuse but, I guess when it comes to the extreme of all Politically Correct cities it was a No No. Good try though :)

Last edited @ 4/8/2008 2:39 PM

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

I SEE SOME LEGAL ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE SO-CALLED CONSENT TO SEARCH THING. AS WITH CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCIES VISITING A HOME FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, WHATEVER HAPPENS WITHIN THE COURSE OF THE VISIT, THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT, AND THE FEELING OF COERCION WILL MAKE ANY SEIZURE OF WEAPONS ILLEGAL.

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF COERCION; Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some ... SO, I SEE THESE VISITS BY DC POLICE AS BEING POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL AND INTRUSIVE. THE MERE PRESENCE OF A COP AT YOUR FRONT DOOR, ASKING TO COME IN TO EITHER SEARCH FOR WEAPONS OR HAVE THE RESIDENT TURN THEM OVER TO POLICE IS COERCIVE INTIMIDATION. ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF, SHE HAS NOT FIGURED OUT HOW SHE IS EQUITABLY GOING TO ENFORCE THIS NONSENSICAL LAW. MAYBE SHE SLEPT THROUGH HER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASSES WHICH WOULD HAVE TAUGHT HER AND THE IDIOTS THAT WROTE AND ENACTED THIS LAW THAT....SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I LIKE YOUR INPUT K9 KEEP IT UP :) MAYBE MORE WILL FOLLOW YOURS AND STEVE'S LEAD. OLD HAG'S OPINE IS NOT WORTH A PENNY. LOLOLOOLOOLOLOL

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

Iris, you make a mistake in your definition of consent. Our laws do not require informed consent, that is a medical term and used by them only. For police, what is required is voluntary consent. A person needs to only give consent without coercion and the consent is valid.

Is the mere presence of a uniformed officer at the door, politely asking for consent, intimidation and coercion? The Supreme Court has ruled several times that it is not coercion for the officer in uniform to do this. For it to be intimidation, there must be some other factor, such as location (which is not true in this case), some other act of the officer (such as tapping his baton in his hand), or the number of officers exceeds what is reasonably needed (say a group of 10 show up instead of just two).

And now, for the illegal part of the seizure, we have a completely different act. Bribery may make the consent illegal, but the police could not use the evidence anyway. One of the clauses for the consent was a promise of amnesty. This means the police could not use the evidence anyway. It was actually one of my big complaints with this program.

Say the police knock and the local gangbanger answers the door. The police ask him if he has any weapons he wants to turn in or if he will let them search the house. Of course, he denies the search, but then clarifies that he can give them a weapon and get amnesty for it. They agree and he turns over to them the rifle he just used in the birthday party drive-by shooting where a five year old was killed. Now, how are they ever going to build that murder case when the weapon cannot be used against him?

But, I have no problem with making sure the person knows they can refuse the search. I would make sure the person had to sign a form that specified this before the consent was legal. He would have to initial the line that says "You have the right to refuse this search. If you do the police officer will immediately turn and leave. No action will ever be taken against you for refusing this search." Right below it should be a number for them to call if the officer does not immediately turn around and leave. And the officer should also be recording the whole conversation. We have camera equipment that would capture audio and video of each door knock and answer. That should take care of the consent question.

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

THE QUESTION IS....WHEN DOES THAT "VOLUNTARY" BECOME COERCED? I THINK THE SUPREMES WILL PONDER THIS LAW CAREFULLY AND SEE SOME ISSUES WITH IT....

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

I HAD A BRAIN FART ...I WAS PONDERING SO-CALLED "CONSENT STOPS" MADE BY POLICE. I SEE ISSUES WITH IT IF A PERSON IS STOPPED, DONE NOTHING WRONG, ASKS THE COP IF THIS IS A CONSENT STOP AND THE COP SAYS YES, BUT REFUSES TO ALLOW THE PERSON TO BE ON THEIR WAY...THIS STUFF HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME. ALSO, THERE ARE COPS MAKING "PRE-TEXT STOPS" WITHOUT ARTICULABLE PROBABLE CAUSE, MAKING THIS KIND OF STOP, AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. IT HAPPENED TO MY RETIRED DEPUTY FRIEND AND IT PISSED HIM OFF....

IF YOU READ THAT ONE CASE I POSTED ON DCFS GETTING SUED BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF THE KIDS AND THEIR WERE "STATE AGENTS" INVOLVED IN THE SEIZURE OF THE KIDS, THE COURTS FOUND THAT PEOPLE MUST HAVE NOT BEEN COERCED INTO ALLOWING DCFS INTO THEIR HOME, AND THAT THE PERSON MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT TO DENY ENTRY INTO THEIR HOME...THIS WAS IN THE CASE A VIOLATION OF THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT ON THE PART OF DCFS AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHO ASSISTED IN THE SEIZURE.

RE: WASHINGTON DC VIOLATING SEARCH & SEIZURE LAWS......and 2nd Amendment...........

IN RESEARCHING THE "LEGAL" DEFINITION OF "INFORMED CONSENT" THIS IS WHAT I FOUND STEVE, AND IT IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE TERM TO MEAN;
informed consent definition – informed consent is a person’s agreement to allow something to happen after the person has been informed of all the risks involved and the alternatives.

APPARENTLY, THE LAW HAS AN EXPECTATION, THAT OFFICERS WHEN KNOCKING ON DOORS TO GAIN CONSENT TO ENTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFISCATING FIREARMS OR OTHER CONTRABAND, THAT POLICE ARE EXPECTED TO EXPLAIN THE RAMIFICATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING THAT ENTRY INTO THE HOME. THIS GOES TO INFORMED CONSENT, AND TOO MANY PEOPLE IN OUR POPULATION, AS K9 AND YOU HAVE STATED, DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE, AND ALLOW COPS INTO THEIR HOMES. TO ME NO MEANS NO AND YES, CAN MEAN MAYBE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS SCENARIO? COPS MAKE A TRAFFIC STOP, LET'S SAY IT'S A "CONSENT" STOP. YOU SEE NO CONTRABAND IN PLAIN SIGHT, YOU ASK TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE, DRIVER SAYS NO AND IT GETS SEARCHED ANYWAY. THIS SCENARIO HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN IT SHOULD....AND IT IS BAD NEWS, OR IS IT BAD TRAINING?