# Pic of kid w/ his .22 rifle posted on FB - Child Services & cops show up demanding to search house **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 20, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429 "2013-03-20T04:20:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/161 "2013-03-23T21:30:05Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > I don’t see how you can say this. > > From the links in the OP, they were in the house: I know they were in the house. Since when does being in a house mean an inspection is taking place? ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/162 "2013-03-23T21:32:44Z")
ZenBeam, please read the article in the link posted in post 122 and then give me your opinion of whether or not a search took place. ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/163 "2013-03-23T21:46:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Without probable cause or a warrant, the police can search when they have voluntary consent from the individual. [http://www.kscoplaw.com/outlines/ssoutline.htm](http://www.kscoplaw.com/outlines/ssoutline.htm) If a search has begun merely by showing up and asking if a search can take place, that means in a case without probable cause or a warrant, the police have already performed an illegal search. Wouldn’t you agree that calling that scenario a search in progress makes no sense? I realize in that Loach claims in NJ you need at least reasonable suspicion to attempt a search, and I accept that, but I’m talking about defining what a search is. In the above scenario, it would make no sense for voluntary consent to be needed to perform a search if asking for consent means a search is already in progress. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/164 "2013-03-23T23:16:44Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > ZenBeam, please read the article in the link posted in post 122 and then give me your opinion of whether or not a search took place. From the link (bolding mine to highlight the relevant line): > [@](#): > > This Article proposes that **any intrusion with the purpose of obtaining** physical evidence or **information** , either **by** a technological device or **the use of the senses into a protected interest should be considered a search** A search took place by that definition. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/165 "2013-03-23T23:19:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > While the searches still fall under the 4th amendment that doesn’t mean they cannot immediately act on what they see. In addition, there is nothing stopping them from talking their way past a search warrant which is what they were attempting to do when stopped. The 4th amendment doesn’t prevent evidence from being introduced if you give them permission. It’s easy for someone to see a request from police as an order. It’s simple, if they have a warrant then they don’t ask, they just execute the warrant. If a request is made, the answer should always be a knee-jerk “no” with an admonition not to get any wood splinters on the way out. See, this is what kinda bothers me. Yeah, I have “rights”. Thats all well and good. But if I have to have the balls to tell the police and child protective services to fuck off to keep them (and risking in the process me misunderstanding what rights I do and DO NOT have and getting in a shitload of trouble as a result) then those rights do not seem so “right” in the first place. Maybe we need a sorta Miranda “warning” when it comes to any sort of “official” search by cops/child protective services. And, BTW, I know someone in the child protective biz. Some of their stories about families getting screwed by system would make you cry (for the parents). Interestly enough that person WAS a parent and had to reign in half the staff that had NO kids (because not being parents they knew fuck all about the real world). ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/166 "2013-03-24T14:28:09Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > A search took place by that definition. No, you are taking a phrase out of context. There was no “intrusion” and being invited in to talk is not “into a protected interest” just because they were in the home they were invited into. More for you: \*A “search” occurs when a government officer infringes upon an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable. (Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113.) search n 1 : an exploratory investigation (as of an area or person) by a government agent that intrudes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and is conducted usually for the purpose of finding evidence of unlawful activity or guilt or to locate a person [warrantless es are invalid unless they fall within narrowly drawn exceptions “State v. Mahone, 701 P.2d 171 (1985)”] \* [http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/search.html](http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/search.html) An officer moving his eyeballs around after being invited in does not infringe upon an expectation of privacy and no exploratory investigation took place. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/167 "2013-03-24T14:43:59Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > No, entering a residence does not a search make. I provided evidence of what constitutes a search in post 125. I disagree. A government official entering a residence, when that entry is not predicated on either a warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent, does constitute a search, because the doctrine of plain sight allows the admission of inculpatory evidence. In other words, if I have a pile of cocaine and a machine gun sitting on my living room table, and I refuse to let anyone into the house, but social workers enter the residence with police as escorts, and police see the coke and gun, those items are admissible against me. The motive of the police is irrelevant. They may well have been present, up to that point, as escorts for the safety of the DCSS workers. But once they see something whose contraband nature is apparent, that contraband is admissible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/168 "2013-03-24T14:53:02Z")
We’re assuming (I imagine) that the following statement of facts is what happened: \*Last night I was out with a buddy of mine. I got a text from my wife that the cops and dyfs are at the house and they wanna check out my guns and needed me to open my safe. I’m instantly on my way. I get in contact with evan Nappen on the way. I explain the situation. I walk in my house and hand the phone to the first cop I see. Then direct all of em outside. Dyfs got a call because of a pic on my son holding a gun. They wanted to look around and check all my guns out, make sure they were all registered. Obviously that didn’t go well because I refused. I had Nappen on speaker phone the entire time so they had to deal with both of us. They kept trying to pressure me to open my safe. They had no warrant, no charges, nothing. I didn’t budge. I was told I was being “unreasonable” and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe. Told me they were gonna get a search warrant. Told em go ahead. Nappen (my lawyer) asked me for the dyfs workers name. she wouldnt give it. i asked for credentials and she wouldnt show em. i tried to take a pic of her and she turned around real fast and walked away. After a while of them threatening to take my kids, get warrants and intimidation they left. Empty handed and seeing nothing. \* So here’s the key question: when the narrator arrives home, the police are inside the home. Did they get there by consent of the narrator’s wife, or did they demand to come in in the same way that they demanded to see the safe, and threatened to get a warrant if refused? Those are actions that would vitiate any consent given in response to them. In other words, if a DCSS worker says, “Let me in to look around, or I’ll take your kids,” consent obtained in response to that threat is not a valid consent. If the worker simply said, “May we come in and look around?” that’s valid consent. ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/169 "2013-03-24T15:18:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, if I have a pile of cocaine and a machine gun sitting on my living room table, and I refuse to let anyone into the house, but social workers enter the residence with police as escorts, and police see the coke and gun, those items are admissible against me. Of course that would be a search, as you refused to let anyone in the house and they went in anyway. > [@](#): > > The motive of the police is irrelevant. They may well have been present, up to that point, as escorts for the safety of the DCSS workers. But once they see something whose contraband nature is apparent, that contraband is admissible. Of course. And if I let a police officer in my house because he found my wallet and I forget I have a marijuana plant in plain sight I forgot about, that contraband is also admissible, but a search has not occurred (though one may after that). > [@](#): > > Did they get there by consent of the narrator’s wife, or did they demand to come in in the same way that they demanded to see the safe, and threatened to get a warrant if refused? There’s no evidence that they demanded to come in. If there was, I wouldn’t be arguing that a search didn’t take place. I’m arguing against the nature of what constitutes a search as given by several posters in this thread: > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > In the United States, a search has occurred if two things happen: > > 1. An officer of the law attempts to gather information from a person, place, or thing, and > 2. The citizen has an interest in maintaining privacy. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > They examined his house for firearms, and wanted to extend the search to the inside of his safe. > [@Magiver](#): > > Entering the house constitutes a search. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/170 "2013-03-24T15:48:58Z")
Are you claiming that it only counts as a search if consent is not given? ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/171 "2013-03-24T15:56:07Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > No, you are taking a phrase out of context. There was no “intrusion” and **being invited in to talk** is not “into a protected interest” just because **they were in the home they were invited into**. Where are you getting this from? Do you have a cite for the police and social worker “being invited in to talk”? Or is this just another example of someone in this thread making shit up? ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/172 "2013-03-24T16:08:49Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > Where are you getting this from? Do you have a cite for the police and social worker “being invited in to talk”? Or is this just another example of someone in this thread making shit up? Moore would certainly have bothered to mention it if they forced there way in or coerced his wife in any way. Do you have evidence of an intrusion or are you just making shit up? ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/173 "2013-03-24T16:10:22Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > Moore would certainly have bothered to mention it if they forced there way in or coerced his wife in any way. Do you have evidence of an intrusion or are you just making shit up? He didnt claim it was an intrusion, so stop accusing him of things. You made the claim, you back it up. Though, nobody who has followed this thread is expecting you to back anything up at this point. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/174 "2013-03-24T16:20:39Z")
So you’re making shit up. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/175 "2013-03-24T16:21:25Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > He didnt claim it was an intrusion, so stop accusing him of things. You made the claim, you back it up. See post 164. Now shhh, the adults are talking. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/176 "2013-03-24T16:31:34Z")
This is ridiculous. He didnt claim there was forced entry in 164. Can you actually read? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/177 "2013-03-25T21:06:39Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > I know what the 4th amendment does. No you really don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429/178 "2013-03-25T22:03:35Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > See post 164. Now shhh, the adults are talking. This actually made me laugh out loud. Multiple lawyers have explained the legal aspect of this and you continue to argue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pic-of-kid-w-his-22-rifle-posted-on-fb-child-services-cops-show-up-demanding-to-search-house/653429.md?page=8)