Search and seizure

[Cicero17]

Okay, you are at home on a Saturday, mowing the lawn and about to wash the car, when two police officers show up. They identify themselves and tell you they are going to search your home to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal.

You respond that they can't do that and resent the suggestion you are doing something illegal. They reply that its customary to conduct searches of people's homes and the last Saturday of June and if you don't allow the search you will be arrested.

Since you aren't doing anything illegal, why should you refuse? After all, they have the duty to keep the peace and there have been incidents in your neighborhood lately.

Isn't this how a lot of people see it? As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, let others trample on your rights.

Don

 

[MarkC]

That's not how I see it. I say leave me the F alone.

 

[rriddle3]

Goodness, what prompted this hypothetical Orwellian rant?

 

[CivicFan]

If they have a warrant then you don't have much choice to refuse. Otherwise you are living in a semi-authoritarian society. An authoritarian state would not have asked your permission to search your house.

 

[Pablo]

Does these officers have a legal warrant? If not, they may not legally enter your residence in this case.

 

[Cicero17]

See Legal Question and then tell me what the difference is.

 

[Pablo]

There is a big difference in a store vs. your home. What's your point?

 

[farrarfan1]

A couple questions:
1. Does this happen every year in Winlock,Washington?
2. Has this ever happened in Winlock,Washington?
3. Are you just bored and thought up a silly scenario and a question that has no answer?

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, just because we're here to discuss these matters, farrarfan1 ..let's go with it for a bit here. We're not going to set any legal precedent here ..I'm sure that this is to determine "perceptions" and how we react to them.

Let's move the scene to a car stop. You find a car with a broken tail light. You sense something is not right ..and going on intuition, you ASK "Mind if I search your trunk? Only people who have something to hide won't let me search their trunk." implying that they're a criminal if they don't let you do it.

Now let's suppose they say, "No. I don't want you to search my trunk". What's your next course of action? I would suspect that it would be to coerce the driver to give you permission by, either truthfully or not, threatening them with what you CAN (truthfully or not) do to them just for the broken tail light. Stuff like "Well, I can arrest you for the broken taillight and impound your car ..and then go to the trouble of getting a search warrant" - stuff like that.

Sound fair? Keep in mind that, not only have I been stopped many times in my youth, I'm also very acquainted with a few former officers ..including relatives. I'll also add that IF I was an officer, I would probably employ like manipulative techniques in doing my job. I'm a gun for hire. Give me a goal ..and (hopefully) within the frame work of the "rules", I'll use whatever means are at my disposal to reach that goal. That's what I'm paid for.

How would you react if someone who was stopped for a taillight ..just said "No. I have my blowup doll in the trunk and we're going to have a party and I don't want your paws groping her ..messing her up. I've got her made up just right." Suppose you went through your rhetorical threats and they still said "No". Suppose they said to you, "Sure, you can do all that stuff to me ..but you still don't have my permission to search my trunk. You're wasting your time.". Now let's suppose you go through with all of your threats and manage to search the trunk and find nothing? What just occurred?

This is where we'll see the difference in perception here. It's not necessarily good or bad one way or the other.

 

[farrarfan1]

There is a huge difference in the example you provided Gary and the one Cicero made up. Has any police officer anywhere in the country asked a citizen to search his residence on the last Saturday in June because it's customary? Anywhere? Has a court anywhere had to decide the legality of such a search like he described? The courts have ruled on thousands of cases involving searches made during traffic stops. Yes the officer can ask and the person can say no. If the offcer has reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime or contraband is in the car he can detain it and get a search warrant. If any evidence is in plain view then that alone is grounds for a search. If the officer is just "fishing" based on a hunch and is told "no you can't search my car" and he doesn't have a clear, articuable suspicion then the only option is to let the driver go.

The scenario he dreamed up is just silly and doesn't have any likeness to real world cases, so how can it be discussed intelligently?

 

[Shannow]

OK, depends whether you have a firearms licence.

If you have a firearms licence, they may request to enter your home to see how you store your firearms.

Anything else that they see while in your home is fair game.

 

[Pablo]

Quote:

---

OK, depends whether you have a firearms licence.

If you have a firearms licence, they may request to enter your home to see how you store your firearms.

Anything else that they see while in your home is fair game.

---

AS IF that wasn't predictable!

 

[Shannow]

Yeah I know.

But it annoys me that a certain group of law abiding people (we must be, as we've got licences) have less rights than the rest of the population.

 

[MarkC]

"Some animals are more equal than others."

 

[dwendt44]

An equipment violation (i.e.: broken tail light lens) does not an arrest able offense.
False arrest charges could be brought and any 'evidence' found would be inadmissible.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

The scenario he dreamed up is just silly and doesn't have any likeness to real world cases, so how can it be discussed intelligently?

---

It's a stretch, sure. Not likely in the near future. What he describes is more like what occurred in Romania before the Soviet collapse. A sizable % of the population were members of the secret police. Uncles would be turned in by nephews ..fathers by sons and daughters. People had their doors kicked in on a regular basis ..about as Orwellian as you could get. There was a certain warped "security" in that type of totalitarian governess. They cared enough to make sure that you were okay ..that you weren't doing anything wrong. You also knew that everyone else wasn't doing anything wrong either.

Imagine the insecurity these people felt when they no longer had this safety net to rely on

Liberty can be unsettling if you've never had any.

 

[Auto-Union]

My PSci prof at Penn was Romanian, very interesting dude. iirc, he gave me my only "A". Later saw him on McNeil-Leher a few times. His paranoia was extreme, but he was in-touch with his feelings.