# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/321 "2009-11-16T22:34:56Z")
I was going to be in the camp of “I don’t think this type of dragnet is proper or have any chance of being effective, but I’d probably allow the search”) until I heard that the missing woman is 18. I can better understand the community fear and outrage over a missing child that might precipitate such searches, but for an adult? And it’s insane to argue that _anyone_ living in a neighborhood or community is a suspect if the police want to conduct a massive dragnet. That’s the type of thinking that awhile back in Boston led cops to randomly stop/question/harass blacks after it was reported that a black man had robbed and shot a white couple, killing the wife (it later turned out that the husband had killed his wife and falsely reported a black perpetrator). It is brainless and intrusive to “profile” an entire neighborhood. “Excuse me, we’re in the area investigating this woman’s disappearance and hope you wouldn’t mind us going through your house looking for clues. Thanks! Sayyyy…aren’t those enormous bloodstains I see on your kitchen floor? And body parts hanging out of your refrigerator? Hmm, maybe we need to ask you a few more questions…” American citizens in general do not take kindly to these fishing expeditions, nor to the massive collections of DNA that we sometimes hear about in connection with murders in Great Britain. ---
**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 16, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/322 "2009-11-16T22:49:32Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The general rule of the plain view doctrine is that if the police are lawfully on premises and see evidence of a different crime, they are empowered to seize that evidence as well. Evidence is not fact. It is subject to impeachment, and generally cops know that. A printing press in a house is not evidence of a crime. There is nothing exigent about it. If they have concerns, and actually want a court to hear the evidence, they will get a warrant. ---
**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 16, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/323 "2009-11-16T22:54:53Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > The ends justify the means. Take a look at some of the people in this thread for example. I’m quite sure they’d be quite happy shoveling Jews into ovens spouting the law was the law and you should follow it no matter what. My understanding of that subset of posters here was that they had a pisspoor understanding of the law and their rights and how to exercise them, and never really got passed the lesson 3 year olds learn that “a police officer is always your friend”. That is the sort of mindset that makes rights tenuous for all of us. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/324 "2009-11-17T00:10:24Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > My understanding of that subset of posters here was that they had a pisspoor understanding of the law and their rights and how to exercise them, and never really got passed the lesson 3 year olds learn that “a police officer is always your friend”. That is the sort of mindset that makes rights tenuous for all of us. Or that they think that somehow it will help find the girl. Which it won’t- and the police full well know that. Hell, there’s no reason to even suppose she might be in that area, as opposed to any other. ---
**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 17, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/325 "2009-11-17T00:30:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Or that they think that somehow it will help find the girl. Which it won’t- and the police full well know that. > > Hell, there’s no reason to even suppose she might be in that area, as opposed to any other. Given the short time she was in the country, I am guessing she was tied up with some shit in her home country before she left, and never planned to stay - it was a ruse for Mom to come to Canada at all. See “Hans Reiser’s Kids” to see how hard it would be to both find her and bring her back. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/326 "2009-11-17T18:00:50Z")
An additional issue for anyone in the search area in Toronto is that, under Canadian law, anything the police find during an unconstitutional search is not necessarily excluded, as the relevant criteria is whether allowing the unconstitutionally acquired evidence to be included would bring the legal system into disrepute or not. This is a much looser criteria than the “constitutional/not constitutional” bright line criteria used in the US. ---
**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 17, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/327 "2009-11-17T18:11:28Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > An additional issue for anyone in the search area in Toronto is that, under Canadian law, anything the police find during an unconstitutional search is not necessarily excluded, as the relevant criteria is whether allowing the unconstitutionally acquired evidence to be included would bring the legal system into disrepute or not. This is a much looser criteria than the “constitutional/not constitutional” bright line criteria used in the US. That is interesting! Do you have a cite for that? Is there a name for that doctrine I could google to find out more? ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/328 "2009-11-17T18:24:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yeah. You can tell them to stop any time you want. Right. What do you think is going to happen when you say, “Okay, that’s enough, stop there and get out of my house”? They are going to think they’re close to finding what they came looking for. Good luck getting them out at that point. ---
**Author:** ![G.Pie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@G.Pie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G.Pie)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/329 "2009-11-17T18:41:38Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > Right. What do you think is going to happen when you say, “Okay, that’s enough, stop there and get out of my house”? They are going to think they’re close to finding what they came looking for. Good luck getting them out at that point. Well, maybe try something more practical then. “Sure, come on in. Look anywhere you want except the kitchen closet.” That should do it. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/330 "2009-11-17T19:57:59Z")
I trust the majority of police. But I still wouldn’t let them search my home without a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/331 "2009-11-17T22:23:11Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I suppose the first thing I’d do is wonder why they’re broadcasting in advance that they want to search everyone’s home. “Hey, abductor! If there’s any shit in your home related to this little girl you better git rid of it quick!” :rolleyes: Agree. If they have reason to suspect the victim is still in the area and being held, it seems incredibly stupid to broadcast your plan to search the neighborhood. I wouldn’t be thrilled about the police searching my place, and I understand the deal about search warrants and probable cause. But in this case I’d let them in. It saves them and me from wasting time. Come in, look around, and then leave. Just don’t trash the place looking for ummmmm evidience of ummmmm something. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/332 "2009-11-18T06:32:45Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Plus I’ve got a collection of animal skulls. I can imagine the cops taking one look at the cat and deer skulls on my shelf and deciding I’m some kind of twisted deviant. This is the key point. Who knows what the police will interpret as evidence of shady behavior? If they’re on a fishing expedition, they might spot a minnow and talk themselves into believing it’s a nice big catfish. We’ve seen too many examples of people being convicted on flimsy evidence. Look at Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed for a crime he almost certainly didn’t commit. Part of the “evidence” against him was his preference for heavy metal music \_ that shows a propensity toward violence and perhaps satanism, don’t you know. Anything that extreme is unlikely under this scenario. What _isn’t_ unlikely is that police will spot something that makes them suspicious and winds up wasting their time and complicating your life. ---
**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 18, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/333 "2009-11-18T07:02:50Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > But in this case I’d let them in. It saves them and me from wasting time. Uh, how does simply saying no, you can’t come in waste more time than letting them in. Pretty certain odds are that you won’t hear from them again either way, so how is simply sending them away a better use of time? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/334 "2009-11-18T14:15:15Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > [QUOTE=Northern Piper] > > The general rule of the plain view doctrine is that if the police are lawfully on premises and see evidence of a different crime, they are empowered to seize that evidence as well. Evidence is not fact. It is subject to impeachment, and generally cops know that. A printing press in a house is not evidence of a crime. There is nothing exigent about it. If they have concerns, and actually want a court to hear the evidence, they will get a warrant. [/QUOTE] Except in Canadian law, the standard for the plain view doctrine is exactly the same as for the warrant requirement. I take your point - if all they find is a printing machine and nothing more, nothing to show that it’s being used for a counterfeiting operation, then they can’t seize it under the plain view doctrine. However, neither would they have any basis for getting a warrant. Here’s the Code provision for the plain view doctrine in Canada: > [@](#): > > 1. (1) Every person who executes a warrant may seize, in addition to the things mentioned in the warrant, any thing that the person believes on reasonable grounds > > (a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; > > (b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or > > (c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament. And here’s the warrant provision: > [@](#): > > 1. (1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or place > > (a) anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed, > > (b) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence, or will reveal the whereabouts of a person who is believed to have committed an offence, against this Act or any other Act of Parliament, > > (c) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any offence against the person for which a person may be arrested without warrant, or > > (c.1) any offence-related property, > > may at any time issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this Act or any other Act of Parliament and who is named in the warrant > > (d) to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing and to seize it, and > > (e) subject to any other Act of Parliament, to, as soon as practicable, bring the thing seized before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the justice or some other justice for the same territorial division in accordance with section 489.1. Both plain view and a warrant require that there is reasonable grounds to believe that the thing to be seized will provide evidence of an offence. So if the police just find a printing machine and nothing more, the fact that it might be capable of being used to print counterfeit money isn’t enough to seize it under the plain view doctrine - but neither is it enough to get a warrant. On the other hand, if they find it with additional evidence of counterfeiting, such as counterfeit bills already printed, draft attempts at counterfeit bills, and so on, then that would likely be enough to seize it under plain view - or to get a warrant. But since they’re authorised by the plain view doctrine, there’s no need to get a warrant. Your post seems to assume that if there isn’t enough to allow them to seize it under plain view, then they can instead get a warrant. But since the test is the same, that’s not the case. ---
**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 18, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/335 "2009-11-18T16:20:54Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Your post seems to assume that if there isn’t enough to allow them to seize it under plain view, then they can instead get a warrant. But since the test is the same, that’s not the case. Actually, my point was meant to be quite different. Sorry if it wasn’t clear. What I was trying to say was, plain view, or not, evidence seized is always subject to impeachment in an adversarial court system, and this ought to inhibit police simply seizing everything and letting the courts sort it out. The standard of “reasonableness” is not ultimately one for police to decide, it is for courts to decide. But police do themselves no favors by getting it wrong. Even if the standards are substantially the same, police ought to know when they are on the border and that their strength at withstanding impeachment is enhanced with a warrant. Which is all the more reason to not let them in without a warrant - once they are in, you are relying on the police to make the same judgment a judge would otherwise make regarding admissibility of evidence, without any specific training to make sure a fair trial would occur. Which would you rather have making the decision? ---
**Author:** ![Recliner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a88e57/32.png) [@Recliner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recliner)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/336 "2009-11-18T16:34:40Z")
> [@Edward\_The\_Head](#): > > It may very well be legal to ask in the States, but they sure as hell are not just coming in to come in. Just because I have nothing to hide doesn’t mean I want the police wandering around my house just because they want to. Exactly. Also, since when is this an effective tactic? Knocking on doors in a neighborhood? Methinks the police know something very specific that they’re looking for, and this has a clear purpose behind it. That said, since (a) I have nothing to do with said murder, and (b) they might find my…friend’s stash, nah. Or, sheesh, what if something I own looks suspicious? I’d be OCD-ing all over the place. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/337 "2009-11-19T05:34:02Z")
Besides the Fourth Amendment considerations, I have a very good reason for not letting the police search my home without a warrant: I want a piece of paper with the name of the guy who authorized this in case it all goes pear-shaped. I want to know who to put on the hook. I want accountability. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/338 "2009-11-19T09:08:48Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > What I was trying to say was, plain view, or not, evidence seized is always subject to impeachment in an adversarial court system, and this ought to inhibit police simply seizing everything and letting the courts sort it out. > > The standard of “reasonableness” is not ultimately one for police to decide, it is for courts to decide. But police do themselves no favors by getting it wrong. > > Even if the standards are substantially the same, police ought to know when they are on the border and that their strength at withstanding impeachment is enhanced with a warrant. So the police shouldn’t rely on a search power expressly granted to them by the Parliament of Canada, codifying a common law power of search recognized by the courts and applied on a daily basis? seems an odd approach to me. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/339 "2009-11-19T09:18:29Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > [QUOTE=Bookkeeper] > > An additional issue for anyone in the search area in Toronto is that, under Canadian law, anything the police find during an unconstitutional search is not necessarily excluded, as the relevant criteria is whether allowing the unconstitutionally acquired evidence to be included would bring the legal system into disrepute or not. This is a much looser criteria than the “constitutional/not constitutional” bright line criteria used in the US. That is interesting! Do you have a cite for that? Is there a name for that doctrine I could google to find out more? [/QUOTE] It’s from the enforcement section of the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html#codesc:7-bo-ga:l_I-gb:s_24-se:24): > [@](#): > > **Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms** > > **24.** (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. > > **Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute** > > (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Section 24(2) provides that in the case of a Charter infringement, evidence can be excluded, but it is not an automatic rule. The courts will consider a variety of factors in assessing whether evidence should be excluded. The Supreme Court delivered a major ruling on the interpretation of s. 24(2) last July: [_R. v. Grant_, 2009 SCC 32](http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html). Here’s a summary of the majority’s analyisis from the head-note of the decision: > [@](#): > > The criteria relevant to determining when, in “all the circumstances”, admission of evidence obtained by a Charter breach “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute” must be clarified. The purpose of s. 24(2), as indicated by its wording, is to maintain the good repute of the administration of justice. Viewed broadly, the term “administration of justice” embraces maintaining the rule of law and upholding Charter rights in the justice system as a whole. The phrase “bring the administration of justice into disrepute” must be understood in the long‑term sense of maintaining the integrity of, and public confidence in, the justice system. While exclusion of evidence resulting in an acquittal may provoke immediate criticism, s. 24(2) does not focus on immediate reaction to the individual case. Rather, it looks to whether the overall repute of the justice system, viewed in the long term, will be adversely affected by admission of the evidence. The inquiry is objective. It asks whether a reasonable person, informed of all relevant circumstances and the values underlying the Charter, would conclude that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Section 24(2)’s focus is not only long‑term, but prospective. The fact of the Charter breach means damage has already been done to the administration of justice. Section 24(2) starts from that proposition and seeks to ensure that evidence obtained through that breach does not do further damage to the repute of the justice system. Section 24(2)’s focus is also societal. Section 24(2) is not aimed at punishing the police or providing compensation to the accused, but rather at systemic concerns. > > When faced with an application for exclusion under s. 24(2), a court must assess and balance the effect of admitting the evidence on society’s confidence in the justice system having regard to: (1) the seriousness of the Charter‑infringing state conduct, (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter‑protected interests of the accused, and (3) society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits. At the first stage, the court considers the nature of the police conduct that infringed the Charter and led to the discovery of the evidence. The more severe or deliberate the state conduct that led to the Charter violation, the greater the need for the courts to dissociate themselves from that conduct, by excluding evidence linked to that conduct, in order to preserve public confidence in and ensure state adherence to the rule of law. The second stage of the inquiry calls for an evaluation of the extent to which the breach actually undermined the interests protected by the infringed right. The more serious the incursion on these interests, the greater the risk that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. At the third stage, a court asks whether the truth‑seeking function of the criminal trial process would be better served by admission of the evidence or by its exclusion. Factors such as the reliability of the evidence and its importance to the Crown’s case should be considered at this stage. The weighing process and the balancing of these concerns is a matter for the trial judge in each case. Where the trial judge has considered the proper factors, appellate courts should accord considerable deference to his or her ultimate determination. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/340 "2009-11-20T03:45:44Z")
> [@Recliner](#): > > Also, since when is this an effective tactic? Knocking on doors in a neighborhood? Methinks the police know something very specific that they’re looking for, and this has a clear purpose behind it. . Like I said, the clear purpose is almost certainly allowing the Police Chief to give an illusion\*\* SOMETHING is being done \*\*on a very hot media case. He has to do _something_, even if he knows it’s useless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=18)