Washington, D.C. police to conduct warrantless searches of houses for guns.
By paulseale Posted in Law — Comments (100) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Guys, this is down right frieghtening. I cannot even begin where to start with this story which comes from our nation's capitol.
Police will be doing door to door "consent" searches for guns. That means they knock on your door and ask if they may search your house for fire arms banned under the current law being contested in the Supreme Court.
Residents will be asked to sign "consent" forms while being promised "amnesty." If weapons are found, they will be tested to see if they were used in any crimes. If the results come back in the affirmation, the the police may take futher steps to investigate the crime.
Whats worse about the matter is that this strategy is also being tried in Boston and considered in other parts of the nation without much question to civil liberties.
I simply cannot understand how people are missing the conflict with the fourth ammendment and the closeness to an outright police state. Whats next, searching to see if people have Bibles in their homes because it isnt "inclusive" and "incites" people as decided by some member of Congress?
Citizens should not be subjected to "prevalence" in which you are guilty until proven innocent. If there is a legitimate reason for law enforcement officers to search a house, then the Constitution makes a very specific case for that. In fact the legal precedent is very clear.
Citizens are to be protected from illegal search and seizure. That means that without probable cause their should be no reason to access a home or business. This policy being followed by the Washington, D.C. police is in direct contradiction to those protections and flies in the face of our basic rights.
Sadly, once we head down this path then we subject our selves to some very serious issues which undermind the very fabric of our liberties. I hope that you would join me in contacting your law makers and voicing outrage with this policy before it spreads.
This type of policy is a type of cancer which will kill the very basic and fundamental liberties which our nation is founded upon. If it is not dealt with swiftly, then many if not all others will fall closely behind them.
Searches without warrants for guns or drugs or phone calls or e-mail or anything should be condemned by every American who believes in the Constitution. Whether it is the police, NSA, CIA, FBI or phone companies nobody should be above the law when it comes to privacy.
they are requesting consent to search. If you consent there is no need to have a search warrant for one's home.
As to your obvious reference to the wire-tapping program, please see gamecock's post here.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
See my comment down thread after reading into this program a little more. I was hoping that the questions that I raised would have been answered. They were not.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures?
It's been 20 years since I had Con Law, but I do think I remember reading that somewhere, no.
I can't believe that the NRA will allow this to go unchallenged!
I failed to link the washingtonpost.com story. i just updated it to include the link.
its a new policy which will be implimented on march 24th - which maybe why the NRA isnt involved yet.
I hope they are.
This is outrageous. Period.
Is a better pro-gun organization than the NRA. GOA doesn't play politics with gun rights. The unequically are stand-up gun rights. No holds barred.
Join both. There is strength in numbers, & the NRA has the numbers. Plus, the NRA (while not perfect) stands up for gun owners, hunters, & law enforcement.
From my cold dead fingers.
Tim Schieferecke
I've had enough of these good for nothing socialists who are taking away our cherished rights day by day. It sickens me to know that this kind of unconstitutional madness is going on in our nation's capital.
Christopher C.
I googled the article and read several of the attendant articles concerning this, and the Washington Post says it was the DC police force wanting to do this, not the good-for-nothing socialists. Must we blame everything we disagree with on the Democrats?
Wikipedia says she is a 39-year old single mom who started as
a foot patrolman in 1990 and has worked her way up, having been
the Head of Homeland Security for the D.C. police department.
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
As long as they are only going after law-abiding citizens and not people with connections to terror cells calling Al-Qaida bases in Pakistan with out warrants, there will not even be a collective yawn from the left.
Just click here to add to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity, and make it grow!
will actually allow the police inside their homes.
Heck-even the ACLU is against this tactic.
Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the program is "a very bad idea." He said officers might act so aggressively that residents feel coerced into letting them in.
and it doesnt even have to be an aggressive move persae.
I might add what happens when the person refuses? Do they get put on some sort of watch list?
If you refuse to submit to a voluntary search, that in and of itself gives the police "reasonable cause" to proceed with the search without your permission. Just like if you refuse to do a breathalyser you immediately give up the "privledge" of having a drivers license. I am so sick of these people messing in my life.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
The reason why you can be punished for refusing a breathalyzer is because driving (in most tates) is considered implied consent for the test. Owning a house cannot be considered implied consent for a search at all and refusing a search without a warrant is not probably cause in any jurisdiction I know of.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Going into a private citizens home to check for weapons is not within anybodies jurisdiction either....but is that not what is going to be happening...really I think that once they have crossed that line what is going to stop them from using the same broken logic to search without your permission?
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
They are asking for permission first - so you are worried that once they decide that they can search with permission they may decide ti is ok to cross the line and search without permission? Based on what? You ask what will stop them - that is where the actual constituion comes into play since the line you are so worried about is the actual line of the law.
You absolutely have the right to refuse consent search, and doing so does not in any way, shape, or form give the cops any kind of reasonable cause in and of itself to search.
It is NOT like submitting to a B.A. if D.U.I. is suspected. Driving is a privilege, NOT a right, and when you get your driver's license you sign or otherwise subject yourself to some form of implied consent agreement in every state in the country.
The right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure is a right... not a privilege.
I would LOVE for some cop to search my residence without my permission (especially after he/she asked for it and I denied it) if there was no search warrant and no other justification for the search (e.g., if you are arrestable for another reason that is not related to the search.) My house would be paid-for, and the cop would no doubt be out of a job as a result.
All you have to do is say, "No", and close the door.
I am the acting Chief of Police of a small town myself right now, and if one of my officers violated a citizen's civil rights in the manner you describe, he or she would be hard-pressed to retain his or her job. There are too many ways to get to search legally without jeopardizing the Department or community by blatantly violating civil rights.
This entire thing just really got my blood going and I know that I took it a little far...I was in a big time black helicopter mood yesterday(see Operation Manchurian Conservative). But with all that said I do know some cops that have abused their power on someone who did not know their rights but that is not the standard so I apologize if I offended you.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
And I DO understand your frustration. Policing is in my opinion the most misunderstood profession going. And that includes by many of its practitioners.
There are bad cops out there, but they are far and away the exception, not the rule.
Police administrations tend to actually be the cause of about 99% of the stress that accumulates in a cop's career (not the man with a gun call - that's a stress reliever for a cop), because of the continual non-doable mandates and mixed messages they send their officers.
A major reason for this is that police administrations are often working at crossed purposes. They are trying to use every tactic at their disposal to increase quality of life for the general citizenry (which in real terms often comes down to interdicting the bad guys), while at the same time protecting civil rights. The law changes almost daily in some form or another of its application.
Everybody knows a cop they consider a bad cop, and everybody knows one they consider a good cop. Usually what they are really referring-to when they make the distinction is that they see the 'good cop' as someone who has recognized that they are a good guy, and the 'bad cop' as someone who has not or will not make that distinction.
I'll tell you something else that's true also. Everybody knows who the bad guys in your neighborhood are, even if nobody can prove it to a standard that is acceptable in a court of law. Mostly, cops try to target those individuals, and the tactic that is being proposed on a grand scale in DC is a common, acceptable police practice that has been in use for as long as cops have existed in this country. In the parlance, it is referred-to as a "knock and talk". The only difference is that usually when a cop does a knock and talk it is for a specific purpose, involving a specific individual or group, not a generalized purpose.
There would be nothing illegal in knocking on doors and asking permission to search, however. And though they may, if fact, actually be targeting a high crime area, the courts don't care a lot for 'fishing expeditions', so the cops announce they are going to be doing this universally, rather than picking out particular neighborhoods, apartment complexes, or high-crime locations.
An analogy with D.U.I.s that stand up, I think, is more along the lines of a D.U.I checkpoint. They tell you they are going to be out there, they post signs in advance, and then they check everyone that comes through. All you have to do to avoid it is take a different route.
Here they are telling you in advance that they are going to ask permission to search. All you have to do to avoid the search is say no.
when the ACLU comes down on the conservative side of an issue.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Usually I hear this kind of thing early, but this is the first I've heard of it. Thanks for the information, Paul.
Come on ACLU - when is the court case going to be?
if this is some sort of ploy to somehow sabotage the Supreme Court hearing the DC weapons ban case. I'm not sure how it could, but why push this sort of thing now? Is it an attempt to show how many people are breaking the law to add credibility to the District's position? Hmmm. I question the timing.
I think it means DC is pretty sure they are going to lose the case. They are trying to grab as many guns as possible before the case is decided and the gun ban is overturned.
I am very much against this tactic that DC and maybe other locations are going to, or trying to do.
That said, do you guys not see the problem with warrantless wiretaps of us too?
The 4th amendment is not only to protect our 2nd amendment rights folks.
The "warrantless wiretaps" are not being conducted wholesale on everyone, and they don't involve police physically entering your premises, and they don't typically involve citizens but alien suspects.
Bye.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
But anyone in the US has a constitutional right to not be wiretapped without a warrant, both are unconstitutional in my opinion. This is just as important as not allowing police searches our houses without cause or warrants! And we know that some Americans have been illegally wiretapped, thanks to the dummies who gave information they were not supposed to give to one of the parties suing the telecoms.
be used in a criminal prosecution, and that is what matters most, ie whether one goes to jail, not whether someone knows you rented Debbie Does Dallas
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I am not clear on what your point is.
The DC thing is voluntary and offers immunity as long as no crime was committed (not that I think that makes it OK)
The warrantless wiretapping does neither, and clearly is against the 4th amendment.
you will ever get mine.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
then of course I won't get it.
I fail see why one is OK and the other is not. I think both are flat out unconstitutional.
And understand that the main way one's rights are violated is that they go to jail or are fined or have property seized.
What is reasonable as per preventing acts or war is different than what is reasonable in domestic drug laws.
As to the DC plan, I suspect that if people consent, then courts would deem a search reasonable. But I also suspect that the public will create an uproar and that the mayor, et al will stop it.
ps
your claims of what is "clearly unconstitutional" when even the SCOTUS disagrees, makes you seem unserious
but maybe you are seriously seeking to learn
you aren't ready to teach, that's for sure
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I would say that McCain-Feingold is "clearly unconstitutional" even though SCOTUS disagrees on it.
Not agreeing with the guy's point at all, just sayin'.
upheld any of the unconstitutional parts so far.
Plus, that was only a makeweight part of my substantive argument re the 4th amendment's "reasonableness" test, which neither you nor mahler nor the silly kid that challenged me, have addressed.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I'm not disagreeing with you substantively. All I'm saying is that pointing to SCOTUS being divided on something is not the strongest proof that it is or isn't clearly unconstitutional, since we have a decent portion of judges that don't really care about the text. If SCOTUS were to rule 5-4 that the second amendment doesn't provide an individual RKBA, would you still say that a law banning guns isn't clearly unconstitutional?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I did not ask if you agreed with a law and it's constitutionality, I simply stated that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. There is precedent and law behind this notion. You do not have to agree with it to see it is a reality, like it or not.
You may be willing to give you your rights to feel safer, but there are a lot of us who are more libertarian who strongly disagree. I also disagree with the police actions in DC, and feel they too go too far. But am not aware of similar actions being ruled on before this, so my opinion is based on just that, not law.
to gather intel on the enemy.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
are subject to inspection. Words entering our country are just as worthy of inspection as your suitcases at the airport or the trucks at the border or shipping containers at the port. All are subject to inspection for our safety without any warrants.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
whether a telephone, cell phone or even internet.
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
I've commented on this before, but never got a response. Guess I was usually late on the thread. Spoken words entering this country across virtual borders need to be inspected like anything that the customs inspects at the physical borders. I have never seen/heard this rationale used in the international eavesdropping debates. Not sure why not.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
letters entering the country were opened, read and even censored. Nobody questioned it. NOW, we have a political party that is worried about rights of terrorists? gimme a break...
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Please, show me one precedent, one law, that says it is just fine and dandy for the government to monitor or communications without a warrant. Show me one.
Of the CinC won't do, how about the many laws on "foreign intelligence?" Or the FISA law that was passed and now is not being extended because the trial lawyers have their knickers in a twist?
no case exists stopping past Presidents, most all of whom have exercised the power.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
For the same reasons as discussions entering our borders: potential harm they would cause.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
The NRA-ILA has a very good rundown of District of Columbia vs. Keller at this link.
There have been some attempts in recent weeks to spread calumny about the Bush Administration into an implication containing a meme advocating a position that the Bush Administration is anti-2nd Amendment.
Regardless of whether you buy the hype, my advice is to read the briefs in this case.
Oh, and of course:
Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA
It is indeed a very odd day when the ACLU and the NRA agree on anything like house-to-house searches, but that gives you an idea of the gravity of the situation. Obviously D.C. has an idea that confiscation and intimidation is the best way. It must not stand.
The Washington, D.C. Police Department is going to be walking around in certain neighborhoods (because it certainly wouldn't do it in every neighborhood in D.C.), knocking on people's doors and asking them if they can come on in and search their homes? Just to show their spirit of "community?"
And then promise amnesty for guns people voluntarily surrender...
It's astonishing that this is, in fact, the "clomping in in heavy boots" that Bork considered an anachronism...
It's actually going to happen in Washington, D.C.
Ladies and gentlemen, if this is the kind of proactive police presence that Washington, D.C. considers to be good governance, we're doomed as a nation. We've well and truly forgotten everything that made this country independent in the first place.
Right on time for the 2008 Presidential election, I see...
is that we actually have a case that is worthy of the "Gestapo-like tactics" meme.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
Here's your synopsis:
Police will be doing door to door "consent" searches for guns. That means they knock on your door and ask if they may search your house for fire arms banned under the current law being contested in the Supreme Court.
Here's the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If they ask for permission, and go away if the answer is "no," it's not unreasonable. There simply isn't a 4th amendment issue here. I think the real problem y'all might have is some idea that this is a vague 2nd amendment encroachment. Or something. But again, the rights aren't infringed upon since, if the person says "no" there is apparently no ill judicial or punative effect. They are to be protected, they are protected in full by simply saying, "no, we're eating dinner, go away."
If, for instance, this was a 1st amendment issue (let's say an anti-war march), and DC had a program whereby they asked all anti-war protesters to please shut up or, well, nothing would happen but it'd be nice if they complied. I think that wouldn't be a popular topic of outrage here at RedState. When the ACLU or UFJP or whoever whined about it some here would mock them and wonder what the big deal was. So I assume -- and I could be wrong, but I'm not -- that this is much more about guns than warrants. This is about the recent gun-related issues in DC than anything else.
And as such it's understandable. I mean, you don't want some jerks, or cops, or whoever going around asking about your guns. Asking to see them. Understandable. You don't want gun ownership viewed as a collective right. I agree, that's a stupid interpretation. But conflating that with an actual violation of the 4th amendment in this situation -- especially when the opinion here is largely pro-police, pro-search, pro-police intelligence gathering etc. -- is silly. This is about guns, not the 4th amendment.
And then, of course, it can't be helped but the hyperbole starts and all of a sudden cops asking to look around becomes...
Whats next, searching to see if people have Bibles in their homes because it isnt "inclusive" and "incites" people as decided by some member of Congress?
Oh dear. And some at Dkos think Bush is going to have the Liberals rounded up in the FEMA camps because of the Patriot Act.
There was a good, measured diary about this topic in there somewhere. Something about bizarre, likely completely worthless policing/anti-crime tactics. Something about the idiocy of thinking the people with illegal guns who would use those guns for illegal acts are going to allow searches. Something about the harassment law-abiding citizens will face. It's still waiting to be posted. This is hysteria.
As it makes law abiding citizens feel like it's them against the police, when instead they should be on the same side.
That's the real problem in law enforcement nowadays. Police are trained to not trust citizens. Everybody not wearing blue is a potential enemy.
Sort of like the feminazis saying that every man is a potential rapist.
It's true in a technical sense, but inflammatory and harmful in all meaningful senses.
...I would argue that a bigger problem in law enforcement today is various bits of stupid, poorly crafted, reactionary legislation that the police have to enforce.
Addison, you say this doesn't infringe on the 4th Amendment, but isn't tax payer money being used to pay the overtime required for this gestapo-like process? There is no reason the police should EVER be allowed to search without the specificity of a court issued warrant, never.
Tim Schieferecke
If a cop asks to search you, your home, your car etc without a warrant, it is not unconstitutional, as long as you can say no and not be searched.
I agree with the other poster, this is not a 4th amendment case, at least not yet.
I cannot believe you honest to God have not problem with this type of search and siezure.
This is coming from the side of the isle who believes in rights for terrorist.
Amazing. Hug a terrorist - throw in jail and terrorize law fearing citizens.
Dude, you pwn.
but at least Addison is very respectful when she comes over to our side to engage in a discussion.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
We can't go door to door to get illegals, because that would be wrong. But we can do this?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...I don't understand the hold up on going, getting, and deporting undocumented workers (if that's what a jurisdiction and its voters want to do). They're working and living here illegally. I'm in favor of a pretty broad-based amnesty, I'm for their complete and total human rights, I don't WANT them to be deported at all, but it still escapes me how one can argue that they shouldn't be "gotten" if that's what the people of a community want. My guess is the various groups supposedly for their deportation or an enforcement of the immigration laws aren't really for it at all because of various economic pressures. That's the only explanation for the inaction.
Anyway, yeah Neil, I don't understand that either. And I'm not really for this DC policy, but that's because it's stupid and won't work. My general opinion (and probably not a common one) is that undocumented workers and guns should both be left alone unless they're misused, or perhaps if there's an overwhelming local (countywide, perhaps statewide) mandate for action.
Primary wars getting to you? I'm not needling you; you saw what the primaries did over here,h eh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...I don't recall ever being too shy about disagreeing with those on "my" side, or their positions, especially those of certain groups (anarchists, believers in modern hippiedom, fraudsters, pro-dictator folks, etc). Illegal immigration is just one of those areas where I recognize it's against the law, and so if it's enforced that's part of the social contract, but I personally don't care too much about (or for) the law itself.
And as far as the primary goes, I'm a lot less worried about that since from the standpoint of my involvement it appears to be in some sort of autopilot and whatever will be will be. Kamikaze or safe landing, whatever, we'll see. I have more immediate things to think about (like my upcoming new job). So the Democratic primary has been, since Ohio and Texas, somewhat irrelevant to the things I've been thinking about.
Here(AZ) they were nattering about wanting all guns anytime to have triger locks on them. Who cares if you get shot while trying to unlock your gun the childern will be safe.
at this-
"Oh dear. And some at Dkos think Bush is going to have the Liberals rounded up in the FEMA camps because of the Patriot Act."
How oh how does your sanity survive over there?
...most of those bizarre theories (usually banned by Markos) are imported from Democratic Underground, InfoWars, or other such sites. Those sorts of people aren't really native to Dkos soil, or at least we forced them out 2-3 years ago after the "Fraud!" invasion. They get hooted out for the most part.
What happens to the weapons after they are confiscated? Are they going to be held by the police? Will they be destroyed?
If they are destroyed, will the gun owners get compensation if the hand gun ban is overturned?
I'm starting to look at this more along the lines that the purpose of the program seems like it could be a good idea. But, like many other good ideas, implementation can destroy the best laid plans. There seem to be too many holes in the program that would defend the actual rights of the property owners.
A much bigger concern that I have about this program, second to the questions asked above re: hand gun ban being over turned, is what kind of recourse are the home owners given if they feel that they have been mistreated by the DC police? Should they rely on help from the ACLU? Will they be able to directly appeal to someone at police HQ?
There may be answers to these questions, but so far they have not been given. I think that, given what we know about the program and the myriad of logistical issues that I have raised, the program should be suspended until such time that the legal challenges to the hand gun ban are exhausted.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
These are the types of initiatives that police forces all over the country should be putting in force:
At a news conference, Fenty and Lanier also said police will host monthly meetings with other law enforcement agencies to identify trends in gun-related crimes and to facilitate information sharing. The goal is to identify repeat offenders and find new ways to stop them, Lanier said.
"It should give us a much clearer picture of how to coordinate our efforts," she said.
Police also announced the creation of an anonymous hotline for people to call with information about crimes. The line, 888-919-CRIME, is staffed by detectives. In the coming weeks, the department is planning to set up a system through which the public can send tips as text messages.
"We want to make sure the community has every means necessary to get in touch with us," Lanier said.
From the Washington Post.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
The Frigtards at the NRA spent the last year, and two sessions of Georgia's general assembly, trying to force a bill that put gun rights above private property rights. The bill was wanted by neither the Gun Owners of America nor the Georgia Shooters Association (the GA affiliate of the NRA). Embarassed but not bowed, The NRA kept at it, and threatened life members with A+ ratings with an F if they did not back the bill drawn up in Washington but rejected by their own grass roots. Wayne LaPierre himself flew down to personally lobby (threaten) GA legislators. It backfired. The Georgia Senate completely gutted the language, the Governor promised a veto, and the bill is now in conference and should never be seen again.
The time Mr. LaPierre spent threatening his friends would have been much better spent guarding the actions of his enemies. Mr. LaPierre shouldn't be looking for a lot of response from his GA direct mail to bail him out of this one.
The proposed GA law. Religious speech has "free speech" rights as well as "free exercise" protection, a double header, as it were. Firearms are both "private property" and specially protected under the 2d A. Doesn't that give them a status "above" other property?
is that those who are foisting this statist exercise don't consider those who they will "ask" to be citizens - they consider them the masses, who need to be controlled.
It's dangerous, it's police statish, but not unconstitutional.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
but the seizure isn't.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
They are asking consent. Those who rely solely on the words of the Constitution in making your decisions as to what is or is not Constitutional don't understand that in addition to the Constitution, we have two-hundred plus years of case law and stare decisis applying as well.
You will not, for example, find the term "incident to arrest" anywhere in the Bill of Rights. But the concept of search incident to arrest has long been established as a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment. Search under exigent circumstances based on probable cause is also a long established exception to the warrant requirement, as long as certain criteria are met.
Consent search, in and of itself, is most assuredly constitutional. All you have to do to stop it is just say no.
Consent search, in and of itself, is most assuredly constitutional. All you have to do to stop it is just say no.
I think this discussion has clearly established that. Your header implies you were disagreeing with what I said. You weren't. Of course searching with consent is legal. The point I was making was about the seizure, which on any reasonable reading of the Second is not.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
pursuant to a consensual search of property for which the consenter has custodial control.
The reasonableness of the seizure is judged by the reasonableness of the search. This relates to the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree." If the tree is not poisonous, then neither is the fruit.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
but I am not arguing that the seizure is unconstitutional because there is no warrant for the search but because the underlying law breaches the RKBA in the Second.
If RedState consented to a search of its offices the search would be legal, but if as a result of the search computers were seized in order to pursue a policy of censorship the seizure would be illegal.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Fruit of the poisonous tree operates only in the pejorative. A bad search will of necessity yield a bad seizure, and any evidence that obtains as a result of the bad search whether discovered during the search or not will also be tainted. But the opposite is not necessarily true. A good search does not guarantee a good seizure.
You can have a good search, that nonetheless results in a bad seizure. This case in DC could be a perfect example. The consent search is constitutional, but if they find weapons and seize them as a result of the search, it could still be an inappropriate seizure if the DC law under review by the Supremes is thrown out.
Bad search automatically means bad seizure. Good search does not automatically mean good seizure.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
that the law was struck down. I was addressing the matter in the abstract.). I agree with the insomniac attorney!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
at the heart of the DC gun case now before the Supremes. I'm holding my breath. They seem to have gotten away with it in New Orleans.
Just like the guy who gets pulled over in a traffic stop. Cop asks if he has any drugs. Guy says no. Cop asks if he can "take a look". Guy says no. Cop calls for a drug dog. Cop detains and delays guy while waiting for dog. Dog snifs around the outside of the vehicle and alerts. Maybe he alerts on drugs, maybe not. Now there is probable cause for a forced search.
This kind of thing can go waaaaay wrong.
Like for 37 years, with the DC government, I can almost guarantee both that the program is not unrelated to the politics of Heller, and that a refusal of search will place a homeowner on some sort of "suspect" list.
At the least, they are operating under the SG's assumption that guns in an urban area are, ipso facto, dangerous. More than likely they wish to provide support for the argument that even under DC's strict law, many households have these "dangerous" things around, therefore the law is not "unreasonable" and maybe should be even stricter.
I'm glad to see at least someone on Redstate speaking out against it. I was saddened that when the issue in Boston came up on one of the other boards on which I participate, support for it broke down along exactly partisan lines, with conservatives being in favor, liberals opposed.
Anyway, I agree, it's really, really scary stuff.
-luvthelp