Boston Police want warrantless searches for guns

[Guest Hyaloid]

STORY LINK

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."

Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com.

_________________

[fury2neon]

It is hard to believe that the state that is the home to S&W would be so anti-gun and so anti-individual for that matter. What has happened to the North Eastern US to convince them that the the fundamental under pinnings of this country are worthless?

[Im Neero]

Think about all the manufacturers that are based in Illinios and how anti-gun that state is.

[Guest bkelm18]

There's a thread over on XDTalk about this. One of the guys over there who's an officer basically said what they are asking for is not illegal and the reason they are doing it is in situations where young people are into gang activity and live at home with their parents, and in some cases the parents may very well be very frightened of their children and are not likely to allow the police to search the house. This would give the police the power to search the house regardless of the parent's wishes. They aren't going to be doing random house searches, as with anything else, they still require a reasonable suspicion.

http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53550

[KahrMan]

This may sound good to the sheeple but there is a lot of opportunity for abuse of this program.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Remember what the road to hell is paved with...

All it takes is one person who feels intimidated by those officers, and let's them in to search without a warrant to constitute infringement.

We are supposed to have probable cause and warrants for a reason, fishing trips aren't a good thing, whether they are prosecuted or not.

[jughead]

no warrant you come through my under protest

[Guest bkelm18]

Well, you reap what you sow. They elected those officials and now they have to live with them.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Actually, there is not really a problem if I read this right, as long as the parents say no and the cops leave. It's when this line is crossed that this becomes a problem. This is perfectly legal and is exactly what they do when investigating a crime anyway, knock on some doors and ask questions. Now, if they could search without consent AND without a warrant, that is a whole different story.

[Guest Boomhower]

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.

Ok kiddies. Once again, the news reporter's have given you a heads up on the plans that your law officials have, so if you live on any of these streets, and you have a gun illegally, you might want to hide it until this all blows over. Or at least get a back up in case your other one is confiscated. .....This is crazy, but typical.

"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.

And this....this is just plain ole out right stupid. If I understand the laws correctly, once you make a statement such as this, you have just forfeited most of your constitutional rights, indefinitely, therefore rendering the law officials blameless for anything else they might want to search for while they are at your house while you are present or not.

If I were in a parents situation where I felt my child was gang involved, I might, "MIGHT", agree to a search of my child's room for an illegal weapon, but I would require some kind of signed documentation stating that they were only there searching for an illegal weapon and anything else that they found could not be used against the parent or child in a court of law. But since I'm not a sheeple, and while I might still be young myself, I know what it takes to raise children in a way that they will grow up and you will be proud of them for the way they conduct themselves in representing your family name when they are grown. So for that, you'll have to step OVER me to get inside my house, unless you have a search warrant signed by the judge. As usual, this is a step in the direction for the government to have more and more penetration into every aspect of your life. They penetrate me enough already.

[Marswolf]

in some cases the parents may very well be very frightened of their children and are not likely to allow the police to search the house. This would give the police the power to search the house regardless of the parent's wishes.

No, this is not what they are saying at all.

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.

This is all perfectly legal. But if the parents are actually afraid of their kids, I doubt they would agree to a search.

And you are right Boom. Once you voluntarily agree to a search of your property, whether home or car, any promises the police make about what happens if they find something mean nothing. Never allow a search if there even might be something you don't want LE to know about. Make them get a warrant.

[dariks]

If the police want to search my house (and I'm home), then they will have to get a warrant.

If the police want to search my car then they'd better have probable cause, because I won't consent to a search.

My wife is different though. She feels that because she/we have nothing to hide that it won't "hurt anything" if she lets the cops search. I, on the other hand, feel that since I have nothing to hide that there is no reason to give up my rights and let them to paw through my property.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Saying it's "Ok" because they are just asking for permission is bull.

We all know people who are easily intimidated, or aren't too swift, and would consent to a search without protest even though they may not want to have their premises searched, because saying "no" to a police officer, whether armed or not armed or plainclothsed or not, is difficult for some people.

Not to cop bash, I am sure MOST of Boston's finest are good people, but just like any job, there are bad apples. unfortunately, I think this can open the door for easy abuse.

Is the practice against the law? Not yet. Is it ethical? Hardly.

[Marswolf]

Saying it's "Ok" because they are just asking for permission is bull.

We all know people who are easily intimidated, or aren't too swift, and would consent to a search without protest even though they may not want to have their premises searched, because saying "no" to a police officer, whether armed or not armed or plainclothsed or not, is difficult for some people.

Not to cop bash, I am sure MOST of Boston's finest are good people, but just like any job, there are bad apples. unfortunately, I think this can open the door for easy abuse.

Is the practice against the law? Not yet. Is it ethical? Hardly.

I can't agree. Nothing unethical about it. The cops are just trying to cut down on gang and other thug violence since the parents won't be good parents and sit down on their kids. If people are weak and won't say "no" to a request to search their property, that's not the fault of the police or me either.

[molonlabetn]

It sounds like their intention is only to visit those households which have been 'reported' to house 'dangerous' kids... not necessarily to visit and search all student's rooms. Not that that makes it any better, but the reasoning isn't totally off the wall (considering where this is happening). As long as the searches are by the consent of the adults in the household, there's nothing really 'illegal' about it... but I wonder how forceful they will be in getting that permission.

Another thing I wonder is... why, for heaven's sake, can't law-enforcement get search warrants for these kids' rooms, if they have a legitimate suspicion that they are doing something illegal?

btw, unrelated... I saw a picture of the new Boston PD uniforms:

[Guest Phantom6]

...She feels that because she/we have nothing to hide that it won't "hurt anything" if she lets the cops search. I, on the other hand, feel that since I have nothing to hide that there is no reason to give up my rights and let them to paw through my property.

At the very least the principle of the thing is very wrong. Once you let one of your rights be set aside unchallenged then you invite other more egregious abuses of your rights.

Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" is B.S. It takes parents! What the BMPD are doing is an extension of the Nanny State. They are taking on the job of the parents. The parents should be watching little Junior, Jose or Jamal in their homes and not expecting the police to do it for them. If the parents are afraid of their own children then they should have long ago taken the steps necessary to get their children under control or now take the steps to get little Junior, Jose or Jamal into programs that will protect the parents and the rest of society from the little buggers. Some call it tough love or intervention but to open the door to uninvited police knocking on doors in the neighborhood and say "oh please Mr. PoPo do come on in and look around" is just plain wrong and asking for bigger trouble the next time the Nannies want to take care of your business.

"We're from the goverment and we're here to help you."

I'm sorry I don't recall requesting assistance officer. Goodby.

Edit: If the parents won't take care of the problem then take care of the problem as the law proscribes- with a warrent or on the street.

molonlabetn wrote: their intention is only to visit those households which have been 'reported' to house 'dangerous'...

-and his depiction of the new uniform is a rather chilling reminder of what happened 70 years ago and untimately cost the lives of millions.

[molonlabetn]

I wonder when there'll be a push to form a new social group for young people... called the Hillary Youth?

[The Rabbi]

I liked the comment that said "any time police try to do an end run around the Constitution I get queasy."

Is there anything strictly illegal about this? No.

Does it set a really bad precedent, taking advantage of people's fears and their ignorance to increase police power? Yes.

Is this a good thing? No.

Parents can call cops anytime to come search their houses. Why they couldnt do it themselves is beyond me, but thats another issue. Sending undercover cops door to door is bad.

I get Black guys in my shop and over the summer one complained that cops would come up to him and ask if they could search him. He responded, no, can I search you?

OT, how many people would be interested in a one evening lecture on civil rights in every day life, given by a practicing attorney?

[molonlabetn]

...OT, how many people would be interested in a one evening lecture on civil rights in every day life, given by a practicing attorney?

I'd show up.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I can't agree. Nothing unethical about it. The cops are just trying to cut down on gang and other thug violence since the parents won't be good parents and sit down on their kids. If people are weak and won't say "no" to a request to search their property, that's not the fault of the police or me either.

To me, I consider it unethical in the sense that they are trying to get a workaround that pesky Constitution.

I agree that it is the individual's responsibilty to know and exercise their rights. However, there are weak people and their rights are just as valid as mine or yours. People acting as agents of the government should not be trying to workaround our rights, whether they violate them by pouring honey in our ears or punching us in the nose, it is still wrong.

[molonlabetn]

But... it's for the children!

[Guest Hyaloid]

...Parents can call cops anytime to come search their houses. Why they couldnt do it themselves is beyond me, but thats another issue. Sending undercover cops door to door is bad...

Excellent point.

[creeky]

But... it's for the children!

You have a valid point Molonlabetn.

After all... "they are our are future"

and we should... "Teach them well and let them lead the way"

and maybe even sit down with them and... "Show them all the beauty they possess inside.."

Group hug anyone?

[molonlabetn]

I think that I'm going to cry...

So many powerful feelings at this moment...

[Marswolf]

The point is just as Phantom said. The problem is that the parents are not taking responsibility for their kids. There oughta be a law.

I'm afraid I just don't have a lot of sympathy for the weak and stupid, especially if their weakness and stupidity affect me.

Rabbi, I think all citizens would do well to attend a lecture on their civil liberties. If you can organize it, I'll give you a big attaboy! People need to know what their rights are, how others (LE for example) try to get you to give up your rights, and how to politely say "no" to such attempts.