Pic of kid w/ his .22 rifle posted on FB - Child Services & cops show up demanding to search house

[Loach]

@Trinopus

Muddying the waters a little… In some cases, a search really isn’t a search. This sometimes comes up in cases of safety inspections. If someone tells the Fire Department that you’re storing gasoline and old rags in your garage, then can come and inspect for safety violations, without a search warrant.

The deal is that they aren’t investigating a crime, but a situation that endangers the public. They won’t put you in prison if they find gasoline and rags; they’ll simply say, “Clean this up.”

I do not know if a child endangerment situation might or might not fall into the same sort of field. Do they need a warrant to intrude on a house in order to investigate a claim of child endangerment? I can see how it might be treated similarly to a search for immediate fire danger.

(A slightly more extreme case is when the Fire Department chop their way into your house with axes…because it happens to be on fire. Warrants never seem to be required in that situation either! The authorities don’t always need a warrant to go into a private home.)

The Fire Department can not enter your home either without permission or emergent circumstances.

[MuleSkinner]

@Loach

A search was begun.

…
In this case the police were not doing the search.

I’m confused as to what it is you’re claiming.

Labrador Deceiver claimed that a police search took place. Is that true?

Both Labrador Deceiver and Magiver claimed that they examined his house for firearms. Is that true?

Labrador Deceiver said this:

In the United States, a search has occurred if two things happen:

1. An officer of the law attempts to gather information, and
2. The citizen has an interest in maintaining privacy.

Is that true?

[Loach]

@MuleSkinner

I’m confused as to what it is you’re claiming.

Labrador Deceiver claimed that a police search took place. Is that true?

Both Labrador Deceiver and Magiver claimed that they examined his house for firearms. Is that true?

Labrador Deceiver said this:

Is that true?

Just the attempt to enter your home by a government agency falls under the 4th amendment. Regardless of where they were in there search, beginning middle or end. There are exceptions to the need for warrants which have been discussed here often.

[aruvqan]

@JBDivmstr

No, your stance is retarded. :dubious:

Children have been using (after having been properly trained in the use and handling of) guns responsibly, since the inception of this country.

And are*** still doing so***.

@Crafter_Man

I bought our 10 year old son a bolt action .22LR rifle last year. Posted lots of pics of him shooting it on FB. No one complained, which is to be expected.

And I learned to shoot at 8 by being taken to the boy scout camp in Pike NY by my Dad who at the time was volunteering to do rangemaster stuff on weekends [among other things he was on the Genesee Council off and on for decades, and was also one of the camp inspectors.] I have safely handled guns now for some 40 plus years thanks to sensible training in gun safety.

There is absolutely no reason that a kid trained properly can not manage to own and handle a 22LR gun. The round is not too powerful and there are many 22LR guns that are very traditional as Baby’s First Gun. [name obviously chosen to parody the many Baby’s First _________ product names. Get over your chapped arse about the use of humor. end precautionary warning[SIZE=2]][/SIZE]

[MuleSkinner]

@Loach

Just the attempt to enter your home by a government agency falls under the 4th amendment. Regardless of where they were in there search, beginning middle or end. There are exceptions to the need for warrants which have been discussed here often.

What did you mean when you said “In this case the police were not doing the search.”?

Both Labrador Deceiver and Magiver claimed that they examined his house for firearms. Is that true?

Is the following true?:

In the United States, a search has occurred if two things happen:

1. An officer of the law attempts to gather information, and
2. The citizen has an interest in maintaining privacy.

[MuleSkinner]

Also, see post 125. I provided cites that what occurred does not constitute a search.

[Magiver]

@Crafter_Man

I bought our 10 year old son a bolt action .22LR rifle last year. Posted lots of pics of him shooting it on FB. No one complained, which is to be expected.

A few weeks ago I purchased a .308 semi automatic battle rifle for him (metric FAL). He’s a bit too young to shoot it, but I figured I had better buy it now while it is still legal to do so. I haven’t yet posted pics of him holding it. I wonder what the reaction would be? Maybe I’ll do that next weekend.

Do you really want to poke the bear? Assume child services is run by Dianne Feinstein.

[Loach]

@MuleSkinner

What did you mean when you said “In this case the police were not doing the search.”?

Both Labrador Deceiver and Magiver claimed that they examined his house for firearms. Is that true?

Is the following true?:

In this particular case it appears that the DCPP worker was attempting to conduct the search. The police were there as an escort. In DYFS v BW and DYFS v Wunnenburg it was clearly established that any “inspection” by DYFS (now called DCPP) falls under the 4th and you do have all those protections.

[MuleSkinner]

So, the police did not examine his house for firearms. The police did not perform a search. Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search, which he repeatedly refused to tell me where he obtained it, is not an accurate definition. A DCPP worker was “attempting” to conduct a search but did not do so. Thanks.

[Crafter_Man]

@Magiver

Do you really want to poke the bear? Assume child services is run by Dianne Feinstein.

Sure, why not? Screw Fineswine, and screw CPS.

[Loach]

@MuleSkinner

So, the police did not examine his house for firearms. The police did not perform a search. Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search, which he repeatedly refused to tell me where he obtained it, is not an accurate definition. A DCPP worker was “attempting” to conduct a search but did not do so. Thanks.

Wrong

Not just wrong, deliberately obtuse. Trying to play semantics and failing.

[MuleSkinner]

@Loach

Wrong

Not just wrong, deliberately obtuse. Trying to play semantics and failing.

I asked you direct questions several times which you did not answer directly and were very vague. I tried my best to parse your vague answers. Now you’re saying I’m “wrong” when I made several statements and not telling me which are wrong or why. I’m being deliberately obtuse?

I’ll ask again. If you don’t want me to parse what it is you’re saying, answer the questions.

Labrador Deceiver claimed that a police search took place. Is is true that a police search took place? When I asked you that earlier, you said the police were there as an escort. Is it not reasonable for me to conclude that based on that you believe a police search did not take place?

Both Labrador Deceiver and Magiver claimed that the police examined his house for firearms. Did they? Again, you said the police were there as an escort. Is it not reasonable for me to conclude that based on that you believe the police did not examine his house for firearms?

I asked you if Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search is true. This was the definition:

In the United States, a search has occurred if two things happen:

1. An officer of the law attempts to gather information, and
2. The citizen has an interest in maintaining privacy.

An officer did attempt to gather information and the citizen had an interest in maintaining privacy, yet you claimed that the police were there as an escort as a response to me asking if Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search is true.

Is Labrador Deceiver’s definition above of what constitutes a search true?

You said A DCPP worker was “attempting” to conduct a search. If you believe that they did perform a search, why use the word “attempting”?

I’m not playing semantics. I’m asking direct questions and getting vague answers.

[Magiver]

@Loach

In this particular case it appears that the DCPP worker was attempting to conduct the search. The police were there as an escort. In DYFS v BW and DYFS v Wunnenburg it was clearly established that any “inspection” by DYFS (now called DCPP) falls under the 4th and you do have all those protections.

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.

What they did constituted a search and child services had the power to make that search. In this case, it lead them to a safe and that’s as far as they could take it. No guns were visibly laying around for children to play with.

[MuleSkinner]

@Magiver

In this case, it lead them to a safe and that’s as far as they could take it.

Where is your evidence that a search lead them to a safe? Where is your evidence that they even saw a safe? DCPP did not have the power to make a search and one was never made.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@MuleSkinner

So, the police did not examine his house for firearms. The police did not perform a search. Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search, which he repeatedly refused to tell me where he obtained it, is not an accurate definition. A DCPP worker was “attempting” to conduct a search but did not do so. Thanks.

I posted my source, you’re just unable to read or understand things.

[Loach]

@MuleSkinner

I asked you direct questions several times which you did not answer directly and were very vague. I tried my best to parse your vague answers. Now you’re saying I’m “wrong” when I made several statements and not telling me which are wrong or why. I’m being deliberately obtuse?

I’ll ask again. If you don’t want me to parse what it is you’re saying, answer the questions.

Labrador Deceiver claimed that a police search took place. Is is true that a police search took place? When I asked you that earlier, you said the police were there as an escort. Is it not reasonable for me to conclude that based on that you believe a police search did not take place?

Both Labrador Deceiver and Magiver claimed that the police examined his house for firearms. Did they? Again, you said the police were there as an escort. Is it not reasonable for me to conclude that based on that you believe the police did not examine his house for firearms?

I asked you if Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search is true. This was the definition:

An officer did attempt to gather information and the citizen had an interest in maintaining privacy, yet you claimed that the police were there as an escort as a response to me asking if Labrador Deceiver’s definition of what constitutes a search is true.

Is Labrador Deceiver’s definition above of what constitutes a search true?

You said A DCPP worker was “attempting” to conduct a search. If you believe that they did perform a search, why use the word “attempting”?

I’m not playing semantics. I’m asking direct questions and getting vague answers.

You seem to be hung up on if it was the police or not. I am telling you it does not matter. The 4th amendment protects you from illegal searches by the government, not just the police. LD may have misspoke and used “police” as a blanket term for the government. I have provided cites in which the courts have decided that an inspection of a residence by DCPP workers does constitute a search and they must follow the 4th amendment. I’m not sure how much more clear you want me to be. If you want your “A-Ha!” moment against LD go right ahead.

The DCPP worker wanted to search the entire residence. She was stopped before she could complete. But it became a search by 4th amendment purposes as soon as she entered the residence.

I don’t know how much more direct an answer you want. I have fat thumbs and a small phone so I only answer directly.

[Loach]

@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.

What they did constituted a search and child services had the power to make that search. In this case, it lead them to a safe and that’s as far as they could take it. No guns were visibly laying around for children to play with.

NJ state law says that a consent search can not even be attempted unless it rises to the level of a reasonable suspicion. In other states you can ask anyone for a consent to search. NJ does not allow fishing expeditions.

[MuleSkinner]

@Loach

You seem to be hung up on if it was the police or not.

You can call it being “hung up” all you like, but I am attempting to get direct answers to direct questions.

I am telling you it does not matter. The 4th amendment protects you from illegal searches by the government, not just the police.

I know what the 4th amendment does.

I have provided cites in which the courts have decided that an inspection of a residence by DCPP workers does constitute a search and they must follow the 4th amendment.

Of course it does and of course they must. However, in this case there was no inspection of the residence.

I’m not sure how much more clear you want me to be.

I have a hard time believing that. You keep answering questions in a vague manner or ignoring them.

Here’s one you keep ignoring:

Did the police examine Moore’s house for firearms? Did anyone?

The DCPP worker wanted to search the entire residence. She was stopped before she could complete.

No, she was not allowed to even start.

But it became a search by 4th amendment purposes as soon as she entered the residence.

No, entering a residence does not a search make. I provided evidence of what constitutes a search in post 125.

I don’t know how much more direct an answer you want.

Yes, you do. I’ve been very clear.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

Your post 125 was so inane that everyone is doing you a favor by ignoring it. In it, you confused invasion of privacy with invasion of a home.

You have no understanding of legal terms, or legal concepts. You’re conflating the legal definitions of things with whatever common definition that happens to be floating around in your head at the moment.

If it weren’t so sad it would be funny.

[ZenBeam]

@MuleSkinner

However, in this case there was no inspection of the residence.

I don’t see how you can say this.

From the links in the OP, they were in the house:

@Shawn Moore

I walk in my house and hand the phone to the first cop I see. Then direct all of em outside.

From the link to the ABC news story in post 14 they were in the house:

With the lawyer listening in on the phone, Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave.