# Police want to search my home in murder investigation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107 "2009-11-10T23:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/281 "2009-11-13T19:26:25Z")
> [@Fetchund](#): > > What IS relevant is helping out if you have a chance - or next time, it may be YOU the cops are searching for, and running into brick walls of paranoid people. > > So, yeah - I’d let 'em in. Any time. And I hope that most of you don’t ever need the cops someday. I prefer my slopes to slip the other way - here in Montreal, I’m quite unlikely to be the victim of a kidnapping or murder, but in the Montreal of the future where the cops accept it as their right to do mass sweeps, then to the small kidnap/murder chance, I have to add the small “imprisoned without charge or trial by fascist thugs operating under the cloak of authority” chance. And I rather prefer to avoid that. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/282 "2009-11-13T19:31:51Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’d let them in. Just because I _can_ say no doesn’t mean I should. I have no motive to keep them out, other than to just prove I can. And that would make me kind of a dick, especially since **they’re just trying to find a missing girl.** So if they happen to find a missing boy, they will just look past it? Your motive for keeping them out is that the social contract (US or Canada) is that they are granted some powers, but that they are limited, and everyone knows and accepts the limits. for them to seek to go beyond the limits is out of bounds, and that is all the motive you need. What is **their** motive for going out of bounds in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/283 "2009-11-13T19:36:36Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > What is **their** motive for going out of bounds in the first place? My guess would be political pressure. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/284 "2009-11-13T19:37:34Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > that is the point - it is meant to highlight those who would exercise their rights for further scrutiny, while those who would abrogate them - and I confess to being surprised how many dopers would - are rewarded by not being investigated further. Yes. What such a scenario does is that it creates an incentive to citizens to voluntarily discard their rights. The question is, is this something we want to incentivize? To answer that you have to ask whether it’s valuable to have such rights in the first place. To the people who are confidently saying that there’s no harm in it and every right-thinking person would let the cops in without hesitation, the answer is **no**. If the police are completely trusted then there is no reason to have these rights at all. These rights exist **only** to protect a person from falling afoul of corrupt or misguided police efforts. So, contrariwise, this means that if you deny them at the door (and are not the criminal), that means that you do not trust the police as a class to be and always remain uncorrupt and mistake-free. Oh no! We’re so paranoid, not trusting our good police force, how could we possibly be that mean? I dunno. But lacking a complete ignorance of history may have something to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/285 "2009-11-13T19:53:46Z")
Wow, this story is utterly obnoxious. Perfectly law abiding individuals will voluntarily give up their rights for fear of being a suspect, meanwhile the actual criminal gets warning so he can get rid of evidence and then voluntarily let the police search his home so could potentially no longer be a suspect. So, unless the criminal is a complete moron, this seems to me as if it will not only net no useful information, but potentially hurt the case while screwing with people’s rights in the process. And to those who said just because you _can_ refuse, doesn’t mean you should. How the hell is searching so many homes helping at all? Hell, chances are they’d waste at least a couple manhours searching my home to find absolutely nothing that’s relevant. I have absolutely nothing to gain by letting them search my house and they have nothing to gain by searching my house, so there is absolutely no way I’d let them in. To illustrate my point, I actually have a story. Several years ago, I went to Wallmart with a couple friends. While I was there, one of them decided he wanted to steal something and got caught in the process and I saw him get nabbed by security. I went home and his brother was there waiting for us to get back and I informed him of the situation so he wanted to go back to Wallmart to figure out what was going on so he could tell his parents. As we were getting in my car to leave, the cops decided that they needed to harrass us. After having my car blocked in for a good 15-20 minutes and after having answered the same questions half a dozen times, they asked for my permission to search my car for stolen items. Sure, I had nothing to hide since I hadn’t stolen anything, but what the hell did I have to gain, so I refused and upon being asked why I said because I didn’t have to. Of course, that wasn’t good enough, so they then ran my plates (because, you know, I might have stolen the car too) and found out that my father’s name was also listed as an owner on the registration and that they could search it with his permission instead. And the conversation went something like this: “Hello Mr. BlaM, we have your son here and like to have your permission to search the car?” “Did you ask him?” “He refused” “What the hell makes you think I’d say anything different.” “Sir, do you know who you’re talking too?” “Do you have any idea who you’re talking to?” “…” CLICK. After which I heard the cop mutter “Goddamn constitutionalists” to which I snidely remarked “Actually, I’m a libertarian.” There’s a reason those laws are in place and, in my opinion, it’s not just your right to refuse, but it’s the smart, prudent, and ethical thing to do. You know you didn’t do anything wrong, they have no reason to believe you did anything wrong or they could get a warrant, so how are you helping the investigation at all? What happens if they think they found something that might be related to the case that really isn’t? Say you have a teenaged daughter too who happens to have the same shirt that the missing girl was wearing when she disappeared. The point is, in this sort of situation, I actually think you’re helping the investigation more by not submitting to a search and forcing them to, you know, do their jobs. If they search the homes of a thousand innocent people, chances are in one of them they’ll find some set of things that seem suspicious in light of what they’re looking for. So not only are they wasting thousands of manhours searching all those homes, but now they get useless leads that they have to follow up on. So, no, I sure as hell wouldn’t submit to a search. In fact, I would be writing my representatives about it and be encouraging others to do so as well. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/286 "2009-11-13T19:55:56Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I rent an apartment. If I declined to voluntarily allow the cops to search it, can the property owner trump me? IANAL, but I’d posit that if they expected the evidence found to stand up in court (inthe US) then no. And if they found no evidence, and both to cops and the landlords were not interested in defending civil suits, they would not collaborate on such a hare-brained plan. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/287 "2009-11-13T20:00:58Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Only people who are jacked up about making a political statement or have actually done crimes would be so obscenely protective of their privacy that they wouldn’t allow the police a 5 minute look around. Cite please? Because if it is not so important to all of us, how did that position find itself into the Bill of Rights not once, but twice? > [@](#): > > In such instances, the police should and would deem your behavior suspicious. Which is precisely what we are protected against, and our forefathers fought and died for the separation from a country whose officials were acting precisely as you are saying we shouldn’t object to - unwarranted investigation, in all senses of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/288 "2009-11-13T20:02:54Z")
No, the police cannot come into my home to search without a warrant. I have been asked by police on several occasions for permission to search my home and my vehicle. I denied permission all times. When I called to see about filing a report on the officer who stopped my vehicle for no reason and then asked to search it, I was told that they could file the report, but that it would put my name and address there for every city cop to see, as someone who would try and mess with the police. In general, I do not trust the police to have anyone’s best interest in mind except their own. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/289 "2009-11-13T20:05:58Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > Can they seize my money printing machine that is outside the scope of their original warrant? No. > [@](#): > > Or do they need to go away and come back with a new warrant to look for counterfeiting materials? If they care, probably one of them waits around while the other gets a new or updated warrant. > [@](#): > > Part 2 of the question: Does voluntarily inviting them in to search my house leave me wide open for _anything_ they may find? In the case of the OP, a neighbor has had the police look in his kitchen cupboards and freezer. What if they opened my fridge and found an endangered fished as sauteed leftovers? This is precisely the risk. Even if they remember something that might be useful in some investigation 30 years from now, it is still fair game. You have Arabic textbooks on your shelf? Hmmmm…maybe we better park a car nearby and see who comes and goes… ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/290 "2009-11-13T20:11:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > In general, I do not trust the police to have anyone’s best interest in mind except their own. A friend, who is a police officer with 15 years on the job, has said repeatedly that even if you trust The Police (the institution) you should not automatically trust the police (the individuals). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/291 "2009-11-13T20:12:21Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > What if they opened my fridge and found an endangered fished as sauteed leftovers? Eh, don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll let you off the hook. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/292 "2009-11-13T20:22:19Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > A friend, who is a police officer with 15 years on the job, has said repeatedly that even if you trust The Police (the institution) you should not automatically trust the police (the individuals). Excellent distinction, eh. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/293 "2009-11-13T20:22:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > My scenario: > > \ > > “Yes - oh, cops. Is this that door-to-door thing?” > > “Yes. Can we come in?” > > “No. I disapprove of fishing expeditions on principle. Is there anything else? No?” \ \*\*Begbert \*\*and I have near violently disagreed on matters in the past, but on this, we are of one mind. I don’t think I’d mention the reason though. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/294 "2009-11-13T21:53:05Z")
[Update](http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/13/mariam-makniashvilli.html)on the particular investigation that prompted this OP, along with this interesting bit: > [@](#): > > Nealon said this week’s decision to send 60 investigators into the area bounded by Bathurst Street, Eglinton Avenue, Shalamar Boulevard and Chaplin Crescent has been met with 100 per cent co-operation from the public. Not one person has refused police entry to their home or property, he said. Astounding. I kind of wonder if the cops have been making intimidating statements to get that 100% cooperation? “All of your neighbours have let us in. You know, we could just come back with a warrant, is that really what you want?” ETA: And it doesn’t even seem like any new information has surfaced. They are searching the neighbourhood’s garbage now in a desperate hope to find anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/295 "2009-11-13T21:54:40Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > Um, yeah, that’s precisely correct. As I said before, my conscience is clean and I’m pretty sure I am not currently a criminal, but if by pure ignorance or accident I have violated some obscure and/or insensible law, I would much rather never be made to take responsibility for it. Do you have a problem with that? Do you really expect any sane individual to feel otherwise? So just say you’d like to get away with breaking the law. Don’t pretend this is about rights. This is about a bunch of people hoping the police won’t find something illegal in their house and using the pretense of civil rights to prevent that from happening. One can be moral and honest about it or one can be immoral and honest about it. Don’t tell me you’re morally outraged at the violation of rights when you know that’s deceit. > [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > When did I say anything that could be construed as “murder is OK as long as you don’t get caught?” I said that privacy includes the right to hide evidence of illegal behavior. Guess what: it does. In all criminal prosecutions, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, and the accused cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. > > This is a bedrock principle of our justice system. It doesn’t mean you have the right to commit crimes. It just means that you have the right to the presumption of innocence and that your reticence to incriminate yourself cannot be held against you. It means that if the state wishes to accuse you of a crime, it must prove its case fairly. This is done to protect the innocent, but it necessarily protects the guilty as well. We’re not talking about a trial here. We’re talking about seeing something on a voluntary search. If you made the mistake off keeping contraband out where the cops could see it, that’s too bad for you. > [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > They are very relevant when you are arguing that it is the action of a “decent” person to voluntarily give them up. When it is voluntary, there is no violation. And that’s all the police are asking for here: voluntary cooperation. > [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > And as we’ve rehashed already, this definition of “suspect” is meaningless, both to the law and to me. Also, as it happens, I _do_ argue that casting the net that wide is stupid and pointless. Searching my house won’t help them find a missing person, and it might just prove detrimental to me. At the very least, it is an inconvenience which I will not willingly bear when the only benefit is to allow the police to sustain the illusion that they are doing something useful. > > I have never once argued that the police asking for consent to enter my home violates any of my rights. Unless I’m mistaken about what you and others are trying to say, that is a total non-issue in this thread. It seems to me rather that the question has been about whether or not it’s “good” or “decent” to waive your rights in this circumstance, with the _ostensible_ goal of aiding the investigation. > > Personally, I don’t see where decency enters into it. If I thought for a moment that a small (or even substantial) inconvenience to me would make it possible to find a missing person, I would agree in a heartbeat. I would willingly lend assistance to any productive effort to solve a crime in my community. But I feel no compulsion to assist with useless acts of investigative theater, and much, much less so when they begin with the premise “we think you might be the scumbag what done it.” Well then I would simply say that you haven’t defined your variables very well for me to have made that assumption. I apologize. You can take your shot at me to get the last word in, but if that 2nd paragraph sums up your point, then we have nothing more to discuss > [@intention](#): > > You are conflating the law and morality, which is an extremely dangerous thing to do. > > When I was a kid, it was illegal for people of color to drink from certain drinking fountains, and people were caught and punished for it. > > However, that does not mean that they “deserved to be caught and punished.” It just means that that particular law was an immoral piece of shit. And that POS law was supported by the claims of idiots who said “Well, for them nigras to drink from that there fountain is agin’ the law, they were breakin’ the law already, they deserved to be punished.” > > Another version of this were the Prohibition laws against drinking alcohol. My mom was an alcoholic. She grew up during Prohibition. She drank during Prohibition. She drank after Prohibition. At all times, she needed help, counseling, rehab, tough love, understanding, and the like. > > But at no time did she “deserve to be caught and punished”. How would that have helped her addiction? Come down off of your high moral horse, “breaks the law” does not equal “deserves punishment”. In this case morals and law are equivalent in my eyes. That’s why I’m arguing. > [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > The point is, that if the police need the public’s help, they should ask for their help and not cast a ridiculously wide net that casts suspicions on all the “good decent people” you keep talking about. If you treat all the “good decent people” as suspects, you are not going to find them to be as forthcoming or helpful because you’re creating an environment that presumes their guilt. Or you can just submit to the probe and be helpful AND good decent people. If you think their methods suck, fine. They’re desperate, I won’t begrudge that. > [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > You are saying that there is no violation of my rights if I _volunteer_ to let the police search my house. And you say that all good decent people should let the police search their houses. Do you not see how that implies a lack of choice right there? Lack of choice? So you want to be a good decent person and not volunteer? Sorry, when facts stand in the way, choice isn’t completely free. Yes, I see a lack of choice there, but that choice is clear. Anyone who IS a good decent person would choose to volunteer their house for search (exception to that other poster above who has the phobias). You don’t have the right to be considered a good person and obstruct police investigations. So no, there is no violation of your rights > [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > It’s like when people say: “If you have nothing to hide, then you won’t object to the search.” It paints an inaccurate portrait of me: if I’m uncomfortable with having my private life open to unmerited police scrutiny, then I must be guilty of some crime. If I don’t want to look guilty, I _must_ let the police in. If I feel like I don’t actually have a choice in the matter, if I am letting them in only under duress, then I would say that yes, my rights are to a degree being violated. You have no right not to be suspected. How many times do I have to go over it? You have no right not to have an inaccurate suspicion cast on you. You have no right to be asked to help. You have no right to be thought of as guilty. You have no right to have the choice of acting as an obstruction and still be considered a good person. None of those things are rights. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/296 "2009-11-13T21:55:04Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > [ > > I kind of wonder if the cops have been making intimidating statements to get that 100% cooperation? “All of your neighbours have let us in. You know, we could just come back with a warrant, is that really what you want?” That’s why I label it coercive. No request of 6000 individuals, no matter what it is, meets with universal acceptance. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/297 "2009-11-13T22:04:41Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Or you can just submit to the probe and be helpful AND good decent people. If you think their methods suck, fine. They’re desperate, I won’t begrudge that. > > Lack of choice? So you want to be a good decent person and not volunteer? Sorry, when facts stand in the way, choice isn’t completely free. Yes, I see a lack of choice there, but that choice is clear. Anyone who IS a good decent person would choose to volunteer their house for search (exception to that other poster above who has the phobias). You don’t have the right to be considered a good person and obstruct police investigations. So no, there is no violation of your rights You are going off about morals and law being equivalent? Then what about the laws guaranteeing rights to not be subject to warrantless searches, or against self-incrimination? I don’t see any exceptions in those laws, so where to police get off even suggesting an exception, and coercing it over pity for a missing adult? They question is not why are WE acting immorally or outside the law if we have nothing to hide, it is what are YOU suggesting that there is an exception to the law at all? Is it really so onerous to get a warrant all of a sudden? > [@](#): > > ]You have no right to have the choice of acting as an obstruction and still be considered a good person. None of those things are rights. Actually, insofar as you conflate morals and laws, I claim the opposite - it is IMMORAL to abrogate your own rights that you do have - for a warranted search, and to be free of self-incrimination. What country are you writing about anyway? Most of us are focusing on US and Canada, which are very similar in these basic rights. Are you someplace else? Or if you are in either of those two countries, are you sure you understand your rights as they exist, and the reason for them being there in the first place? Just curious - what other rights would you toss in the dumpster just because someone with a badge asked you to? What do YOU gain, emotionally, morally, whatever, from acting as an agent of those who would expect us to not assert our rights at the very moment when they come into play? I really really don’t get your thinking here. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/298 "2009-11-13T22:17:17Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > \*\*Begbert \*\*and I have near violently disagreed on matters in the past, but on this, we are of one mind. I don’t think I’d mention the reason though. I’m the argumentive type who doesn’t know when to keep his head down. I do not recommend this as a survival tactic, as it relies on the luck of never winding up in a situation like this to keep you from being treated with the gentleness and love that police reserve for “known” criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Livardo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/43a26b/32.png) [@Livardo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Livardo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/299 "2009-11-13T22:23:57Z")
Hello there, we’re looking for the missing girl, may we come in? Thanks! Well, nice collection of dildos you got there. Wow, what’s that smell? Do you ever clean your fridge? I see you have a computer overthere. Do you mind if we log into it to do a quick search? Don’t worry, this program we have here is pretty quick at it (plugs in USB drive). Have you been looking at pornography? Well looks like no missing girl here. Oh one last thing, can I use your bathroom? (walks out with vials filled with DNA samples). Thanks citizen, we’ll need all your phone numbers, you know, just in case. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/300 "2009-11-13T22:45:17Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > So just say you’d like to get away with breaking the law. Don’t pretend this is about rights. Actually, no, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’d much rather not break the law in the first place. But if I have inadvertently violated a law, especially an obscure, irrational, or immoral one, I’d much prefer to get away with it, yes. I don’t think any sane person would _want_ to be punished under those circumstances. Would you? Answer honestly now. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > One can be moral and honest about it or one can be immoral and honest about it. Don’t tell me you’re morally outraged at the violation of rights when you know that’s deceit. Are you even reading what I’m writing? I’ve never once said I’m outraged at the violation of rights, because I don’t believe there _is_ any such violation in a simple request. I’m simply saying that it’s shocking and disgusting to say that people are being indecent for insisting on their rights. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Well then I would simply say that you haven’t defined your variables very well for me to have made that assumption. I apologize. You can take your shot at me to get the last word in, but if that 2nd paragraph sums up your point, then we have nothing more to discuss Actually, no, the second paragraph is just me framing what I think is the issue in the debate. The third paragraph comes closer to encapsulating my point, and I’d appreciate it if you responded to that specifically. For what reason is it the necessary action of a “decent” person to acquiesce to an inherently hostile request to enter and examine one’s home? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Lack of choice? So you want to be a good decent person and not volunteer? Sorry, when facts stand in the way, choice isn’t completely free. Yes, I see a lack of choice there, but that choice is clear. Anyone who IS a good decent person would choose to volunteer their house for search (exception to that other poster above who has the phobias). You don’t have the right to be considered a good person and obstruct police investigations. So, a decent person bends over and submits their life to the microscope whenever asked by the authorities? You and I have very different opinions then: I would say that such willful submission is a fundamentally _indecent_ act, because it assists, encourages and enables further useless and immoral actions by the police. A “decent” person who has nothing to hide also knows that he has nothing to prove, and therefore nothing to gain by allowing a search. And quite aside from the possibility of the police nailing me for some other, unrelated crime, what about the possibility of them nailing me for the specific crime that triggered the search? Innocent people are prosecuted and convicted with uncomfortable frequency, and if the police really want to search 6,000 homes, they stand a decent chance of coming across _something_ that looks like a lead. Why should I allow them into my home when I know that they are specifically looking for something they can use to put me in jail? After all, as you and **Dio** said, I don’t have a “right” to not be considered as a possible suspect, and they wouldn’t be asking to search my house if they didn’t think there was a possibility that I did it. Furthermore, you strain credibility by attempting to use “obstruct” to describe the refusal to consent to an unwarranted search. Obstruction is a specific crime with specific criteria, which last I checked is not even remotely related to refusing a search which you are well within your rights to refuse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=16)