TexasCHLforum.com

Police limit searches for guns
Opposition from residents is strong; Invited into homes without warrants

Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a warrant.

The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start date.

One community group has been circulating a petition against the plan. Police officials trying to assuage residents' fears have been drowned out by criticism at some meetings with residents and elected officials.

Officers may begin knocking on doors this week, officials said yesterday, but instead of heading into four troubled neighborhoods, as they had planned, officers will target only one, Egleston Square in Jamaica Plain, where police said they have received the most support.

For the full story, follow the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... _for_guns/

Can you believe it? The arrogance of our government is astounding!

but it's for YOUR safety!!!!

There is another thread started for the one happeing in Washington DC. Guess it going to become a common place.

if someone came into my home, 'specially without a warrant, I'm not so sure I'd be very diplomatic about the whole thing.

you guys remember the guy, who was later arrested for beating down two constables(?) that were unlawfully entering someone's garage? IANAL, but, IIRC, they were serving "papers" and tried to enter the garage, when the lady of the home attempted to close the door, which they prevented from happening, I think they ended up tasing the wife, or maybe the husband....
anyone remember that whole ordeal? turned out the guy was in his right for slappin' them around.

course, anyone knocks at the door and they haven't made an appointment first, well, I ain't opening the door!

The title is a little misleading. The police don't come busting into the house looking for weapons. They are looking for weapons in the procession of juveniles. First they knock.

"Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns. Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.

But critics say that the searches are unconstitutional and that police will not guarantee that residents would face no criminal charges if guns or drugs were found."

Should be "guns unlawfully in the procession of a juvenile, not illegal guns.

jmorris wrote: "Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns.

I wonder what would happen if one parent agreed and the other objected?

Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

Not too effective if the juvenile has hidden the gun/drugs someplace else. Wonder how long it would take kids to figure that one out.

The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.

The I would suggest that she reconsider this. If there is no penalty for illegal possession of a gun/drugs (read "arrest") then the authorities are simply stuck in a revolving door. Another "feel good" antic that accomplishes little if anything positive.

Besides, the last time I checked....a parent or guardian..could summons the police to their home for "help" anytime they wanted. If a parent/guardian suspected a minor child had drugs or weapons in their possession and the parent was not capable of dealing with it, call the police.

But what I want to know is: What the heck happened to responsible parenting?

Has "parenting" gone so amuck in Boston...that the police now need to go door to door to see if anyone needs some "help"? If so, then Boston's society best take a hard look at themselves because "Something Ain't Working"!

jmorris wrote:The title is a little misleading. The police don't come busting into the house looking for weapons. They are looking for weapons in the procession of juveniles. First they knock.

"Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns. Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.

But critics say that the searches are unconstitutional and that police will not guarantee that residents would face no criminal charges if guns or drugs were found."

Should be "guns unlawfully in the procession of a juvenile, not illegal guns.

Police knock and ask to come in. Those who agree are abrogating their constitutional rights. Once the officer is inside, anything goes. If a parent believes or is worried that his teen has a gun, he/she should look for it himself. Why in the world would you ask or expect a police officer (a government official) to do your job as a parent???

DoubleJ wrote:you guys remember the guy, who was later arrested for beating down two constables(?) that were unlawfully entering someone's garage?

Yup. One of many threads that wound up getting locked.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... f=7&t=6185

I wonder what would happen if one parent agreed and the other objected?

The Supreme Court has already sort of ruled on this. One legal resident cannot give LEOs permission to search another legal resident's portion of the house. Since this concerns minors I'm not sure they have any legal standing in this even if one parent objected. If and when this occurs it will probably take an appeals court to determine the case law on it.

CHL/LEO wrote:

I wonder what would happen if one parent agreed and the other objected?

The Supreme Court has already sort of ruled on this. One legal resident cannot give LEOs permission to search another legal resident's portion of the house. Since this concerns minors I'm not sure they have any legal standing in this even if one parent objected. If and when this occurs it will probably take an appeals court to determine the case law on it.

Not quite right in the interpretation of the decision as I understand it. The SCOTUS has ruled that permission to search may be given by any person with access to the area. The room would have to be marked off and somehow delineated as not accessible to the person giving permission. For children, access has been shown by such things as putting away laundry. I am not sure if a juvenile could legally complain.

The most recent court ruling on this area was about what happens when two people both have equal control over an area. If they are both present, the area cannot be searched over the objection of one. If they are not both present, either one can give permission and the one not present does not have standing to complain.

Given that, if the child objected, I think I would go get a warrant, but I would definitely be checking on this with the DA before starting.

While I detest the police asking to search a resident who has broken no law, I really think the parents can get the cops to search.

Think about it. If you can search your kids room, then why can't you call the cops to do it?

Now as for the DC and Boston programs, I think they are the pits. It's not like a parrent actually calls the cops, it's the cops coming up to the door and asking (polite or otherwise) if they can search the kids room. Keep in mind the mear presence of a policeman IS KNOWN TO BE INTIMIDATING!

It was a stupid program, just like gun buybacks.

srothstein wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

I wonder what would happen if one parent agreed and the other objected?

The Supreme Court has already sort of ruled on this. One legal resident cannot give LEOs permission to search another legal resident's portion of the house. Since this concerns minors I'm not sure they have any legal standing in this even if one parent objected. If and when this occurs it will probably take an appeals court to determine the case law on it.

Not quite right in the interpretation of the decision as I understand it. The SCOTUS has ruled that permission to search may be given by any person with access to the area. The room would have to be marked off and somehow delineated as not accessible to the person giving permission. For children, access has been shown by such things as putting away laundry. I am not sure if a juvenile could legally complain.

The most recent court ruling on this area was about what happens when two people both have equal control over an area. If they are both present, the area cannot be searched over the objection of one. If they are not both present, either one can give permission and the one not present does not have standing to complain.

Given that, if the child objected, I think I would go get a warrant, but I would definitely be checking on this with the DA before starting.

This sounds correct.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

jmorris wrote:The title is a little misleading. The police don't come busting into the house looking for weapons. They are looking for weapons in the procession of juveniles. First they knock.

"Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns. Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.

But critics say that the searches are unconstitutional and that police will not guarantee that residents would face no criminal charges if guns or drugs were found."

Should be "guns unlawfully in the procession of a juvenile, not illegal guns.

Police knock and ask to come in. Those who agree are abrogating their constitutional rights. Once the officer is inside, anything goes. If a parent believes or is worried that his teen has a gun, he/she should look for it himself. Why in the world would you ask or expect a police officer (a government official) to do your job as a parent???

I've heard the term "in plain view" bantered around by some in law enforcement...

"Mind if we have a look in your vehicle/home???"

I've heard an interesting refusal to a request like that could be like:

"I do not consent to a search of my vehicle (or home), am I free to go? (or will you please leave?)...At no point do you say anything like; "yes, I do mind, or no, I do not..."

It's all dependent upon your personal threashold, and willingness to cooperate, which is what most of us do anyway because we are good and respectful people...We really don't have too many problems in our state or locality...Some places just have a more inquisitive law enforcement community...

I almost forgot about this occuring in Boston from last year...Just makes me glad I live in Texas...

Deaf Smith wrote:While I detest the police asking to search a resident who has broken no law, I really think the parents can get the cops to search.

Think about it. If you can search your kids room, then why can't you call the cops to do it?

Now as for the DC and Boston programs, I think they are the pits. It's not like a parrent actually calls the cops, it's the cops coming up to the door and asking (polite or otherwise) if they can search the kids room. Keep in mind the mear presence of a policeman IS KNOWN TO BE INTIMIDATING!

It was a stupid program, just like gun buybacks.

Searches can destroy your property. I've seen them destroy an RV and completely destroy a home, even though they found nothing they didn't restore the damaged property/