Should read “Under the experimental program, dubbed ‘Screw the Bill of Rights’ or ‘Mother Government knows best’”.
The Germans called it Nacht und Nebel, their variation of such operations taking place during night and fog.
Posted on 11/28/2007 5:36:45 AM PST by SoldierMedic
In the coming weeks, Boston police will begin asking parents in several impoverished, high-crime neighborhoods to allow searches of their homes — without the need for warrants. The surprising reaction: many parents and community leaders are all for it. And that is making for an intriguing civil liberties debate.
Under the experimental program, dubbed "Safe Homes," teams of police officers assigned to Boston's public schools will hunt for leads on youths believed to have guns. Tips might come from neighbors, or even parents or guardians, who are often fearful of their own children. Three plainclothes officers and a clergyperson or community activist will show up at the youth's home. The officers will ask parents to sign a form allowing the search of the home, including the child's room. Weapons found in the child's possession will be seized, and no charges will be filed unless the weapon is linked to a violent crime. "This is an interaction between human beings, where common sense will prevail," Edward Davis, Boston's police commissioner, told TIME.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I don't have luck, I am a former cop. There are not many violations you can be arrested for, and for a cop to want to search your car he has to have more than "thoughts" as to what he is looking for. Now if you hit a roadblock set up because of an escapee, I'd suggest you not ask for a warrant.
We still call the fridge an "ice box".
True, but I believe in that one too.
Besides, will 90% refuse? Seems high to me.
I'm not sure if that's a typo on your part or if you didn't understand my other post, but my concern was what would happen if 90% consented. If 90% refused, it wouldn't mark them as out of the norm, and I'd be perfectly happy with that. I believe in a right to value my Constitutional rights without that become an index of suspicion in its own right. It should be viewed as a given.
It is your responsibility to stand up for, and defend, your rights. No one else will do it for you.
I don't expect them to defend my rights for me, but I'm entitled to expect them not to undermine or spotlight my own efforts to do so.
We still call the fridge an “ice box”.
Amen. We do, too.
We still wind clocks and watches and, now and always, have at least one Western Electric phone with a dial.
Furthermore, a lot of American kids in these high-crime neighborhoods are living with grandparents, aunts, older sisters, etc. who are scared of them as well. It is no secret that the loudest cries for gun control come from the inner cities where people listen to gun shots every night.
Doesn't mean I agree with it but many of these people have been wards of the government their entire lives and now they want the government to make their streets free from guns.
Oh, yeh—and we don’t invite the man into our lives or reccomend that others do so. If your kids’ room needs searching, have a look mom and dad (or guardian).
“Under the experimental program, dubbed “Safe Homes,”
Should read “Under the experimental program, dubbed ‘Screw the Bill of Rights’ or ‘Mother Government knows best’”.
“Many of these folks are from third world countries, where anyone in uniform symbolizes oppression,”
I’m from HERE and I’m begining to get the same feeling.
I have no difficulty with them asking, as long as they go away if you refuse.
And, after all, it can be done without putting the refusniks on a watch list. If this is a part of the operation, then I agree, it should not be done, and is a violation of your rights. If all they do is ask, there is no violation of your rights, IMO. You are free to refuse, and if you are too ignorant, stupid, drunk or drugged, don’t care because you actually ARE innocent, your rights have NOT been violated.
This would probably depend on your jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, just a term or two ago, upheld as constitutional an arrest of a woman for a seat belt infraction. If you can be arrested for a seat belt infraction, there isn't much else lower on the "seriousness" scale.
Some young man got shot to death a couple of nights ago in Chicago. He was innocent; a “stray” bullet from a gunfight down the street killed him, I believe. There was a street demonstration by the locals who were understandably upset by this, calling for an end to “gun violence”.
They don’t seem to understand that the way to end such violence is for the people in the neighborhood to stop having babies unless they are married and employed. When every kid in that neighborhood has a pair of parents that can call him or her to account, then this kind of thing will stop. But if 15-year old girls keep having babies and depending on their own resources and those supplied by the government to stop it, then they’ll fail.
Send me the link from that court
Thanks I’ll be back
Texas law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable only by a fine, either for a front-seat passenger in a car equipped with safety belts not to wear one or for the driver to fail to secure any small child riding in front. The warrantless arrest of anyone violating these provisions is expressly authorized by statute, but the police may issue citations in lieu of arrest. Petitioner Atwater drove her truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her small children in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt. Respondent Turek, then a Lago Vista policeman, observed the seatbelt violations,
Reading the decision, I have to believe the driver was arrested because the child did not have a seatbelt on and "She was charged with, among other things,
Guessing on my part she really pissed off the cop and he decided to "jam"her up.
I think that's exactly right. If I recall, there was a backstory with this particular policeman and the woman, where he had stopped her a few times before for the same violation.
Regardless, and unfortunately, this decision basically renders any sort of fourth amendment protection non-existant while you are in your automobile, especially considering the list of states that allow for warantless arrest for misdemeanors, as is set out in Appendix A of the opinion.
There was a Supreme Court case awhile ago which IIRC held that while police have to have probable cause to arrest you in order to charge you with resisting arrest, they do not have to to anything to let you know that such cause exists. IMHO, that's just plain wrong. Citizens have the right to refuse to cooperate with unlawful police actions; to exercise that right, they must have some way of establishing, at least prima facie, what police actions are legitimate.
Should read “Under the experimental program, dubbed ‘Screw the Bill of Rights’ or ‘Mother Government knows best’”.
The Germans called it Nacht und Nebel, their variation of such operations taking place during night and fog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.