# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/61 "2009-11-11T05:33:37Z")
Though filled with hyperbole and fairly far-fetched (in a slippery slope sort of way), some aspects of 1984 are unnervingly mundane. **Dio** is clearly arguing for the installation of viewscreens in people’s homes. Not quite as draconian as the novel, but quite close nonetheless. They should be voluntarily installed (perhaps with a property tax incentive). Not installing one isn’t a crime per se, but it _will_ get your name added to a list of uncooperative suspects — people who should be looked at first or subject to higher scrutiny whenever a law has been broken. Similarly, they should have a “privacy” button to disable their operation. This too won’t have negative repercussions, save a quick, polite phone call to ensure that everything is OK, to inquire why the viewscreen was disabled, to ask when it will be back on, etc. Until those questions are answered satisfactorily, the same higher scrutiny would apply. Of course, given the overwhelming amount of incoming data, they won’t be monitored at all times, but everything would be saved for later review if necessary. Because, according to **Dio** , everyone is a suspect in every unsolved crime, I dare say that “necessary” would constitute investigation into any major felony. I suppose that an email alert could go out giving homeowners 24 hours notice to redact time caught on the viewscreen (in case someone forgot to hit the privacy switch), but of course that last-minute editing would necessarily subject you to the aforementioned higher scrutiny for that case — all other non-redacted footage would be screened a bit more carefully. The rather unsettling thing is that this is not being absurd. Save some very minor technological hurdles, this is exactly what **Dio** is arguing for. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/62 "2009-11-11T05:41:26Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > That doesn’t really answer my question. If they’re going to put me on this list for no reason at all, I want to know why it would matter to me in the least. If they have some _reason_ to suspect that I committed a crime, then suddenly their attention on me is significant: they’ll get a warrant, I might be arrested, and so on. But if all they have is “well, you happen to be in the same general geographic area as the crime,” well that’s great for them. I don’t care. > > You’re basically saying that they can decide to consider me a suspect (along with countless other people) for no reason. I’m not disputing that. I’m saying that it matters to me about as much it matters what a hummingbird thinks about my haircut. > > So again, what’s your _point?_ The point, as I’ve already said, is that it’s specious to deny that you’re a suspect. There is no legal minimum standard for you to be a suspect. Being suspected deprives you of no rights. Cops always work by elimination. Anyone who could have done it is a suspect until they are eliminated. That’s how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/63 "2009-11-11T05:44:54Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > So when a police department announces that they have “identified a suspect” in any given criminal case, they actually they’ve just “broadly defined a demographic?” Nope. It means they have a suspect. > [@](#): > > And I suppose them talking about a “possible suspect” is merely a redundant exercise in redundancy, since any group identified as “_possible_ suspects” are _ipso facto_ “suspects”, full stop? I’ve never heard the phrase “possible suspect.” If a police department has used it, they were using a phrase with no legal meaning. > [@](#): > > Be interesting to see if Dio has any capacity to let a point go, now that we’re not slanging mud about religion or politics but rather highlighting a matter of simple common sense. All I did was fight a little ignorance. It’s you guys that can’t accept correction and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/64 "2009-11-11T05:48:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If a police department has used it, they were using a phrase with no legal meaning. And what, pray tell, is the “legal meaning” of the word “suspect” as you’re using it? > [@](#): > > All I did was fight a little ignorance. It’s you guys that can’t accept correction and move on. Mmm-hmmm. You tell 'em, baby. ---
**Author:** ![C3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/c3/32/3108_2.png) [@C3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C3)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/65 "2009-11-11T05:50:26Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > This smells to me of public perception policing. They’re not doing this because they have any reason to believe it will be useful, they’re doing this so that they look like they’re working very very very very hard, going to Every!Single!House! trying to find this girl. They took that “henhouse, farmhouse, outhouse” speech from the movie “The Fugitive” too literally. To me, this sounds like they have someone in particular in mind and they’re hoping, by broadcasting their “intentions”, they’ll draw him to remove something from his house or take some other telling action while they’re watching. Of course, I probably watch entirely too much crime drama on tv. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/66 "2009-11-11T05:51:56Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Though filled with hyperbole and fairly far-fetched (in a slippery slope sort of way), some aspects of 1984 are unnervingly mundane. > > **Dio** is clearly arguing for the installation of viewscreens in people’s homes. Not quite as draconian as the novel, but quite close nonetheless. > > They should be voluntarily installed (perhaps with a property tax incentive). Not installing one isn’t a crime per se, but it _will_ get your name added to a list of uncooperative suspects — people who should be looked at first or subject to higher scrutiny whenever a law has been broken. Similarly, they should have a “privacy” button to disable their operation. This too won’t have negative repercussions, save a quick, polite phone call to ensure that everything is OK, to inquire why the viewscreen was disabled, to ask when it will be back on, etc. Until those questions are answered satisfactorily, the same higher scrutiny would apply. > > Of course, given the overwhelming amount of incoming data, they won’t be monitored at all times, but everything would be saved for later review if necessary. Because, according to **Dio** , everyone is a suspect in every unsolved crime, I dare say that “necessary” would constitute investigation into any major felony. I suppose that an email alert could go out giving homeowners 24 hours notice to redact time caught on the viewscreen (in case someone forgot to hit the privacy switch), but of course that last-minute editing would necessarily subject you to the aforementioned higher scrutiny for that case — all other non-redacted footage would be screened a bit more carefully. > > The rather unsettling thing is that this is not being absurd. Save some very minor technological hurdles, this is exactly what **Dio** is arguing for. This is all complete horsehit, of course. I know you think you’re being satirical, but you’re satirizing an attitude I have not epressed. The problem seems to be that you guys think the word “suspect” actually has some kind of specific legal significance. It doesn’t. It just designates somebody who hasn’t been eliminated as a possible perp yet. I have not said that being suspected means a person does not still have the same full battery of civil rights as anyone else. No one is talking about any kind of illegal or warrantless searches in this case. We’re only talking about voluntary searches which violate no civil rights. Being a “suspect” is not even probable cause for arrest. Lighten up. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/67 "2009-11-11T05:56:03Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > And what, pray tell, is the “legal meaning” of the word “suspect” as you’re using it? There isn’t one. That’s the point. You guys are whining about being put into a categorization that has no legal status or formal meaning at all. It just means the cops think it’s possible you might have done it. It doesn’t mean you lose any rights or anything, but you don’t have a right to not be suspected or investigated. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/68 "2009-11-11T06:20:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is all complete horsehit, of course. I know you think you’re being satirical, but you’re satirizing an attitude I have not epressed. The problem seems to be that you guys think the word “suspect” actually has some kind of specific legal significance. It doesn’t. It just designates somebody who hasn’t been eliminated as a possible perp yet. I have not said that being suspected means a person does not still have the same full battery of civil rights as anyone else. No one is talking about any kind of illegal or warrantless searches in this case. We’re only talking about voluntary searches which violate no civil rights. > > Being a “suspect” is not even probable cause for arrest. Lighten up. Speaking of horseshit… No, I’m not being satirical. I don’t care if you want to play semantic footsies with the word “suspect,” it’s not germane to your desire to have communities install viewscreens. I was very careful to account for what you _did_ express: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > **I’d let them in. I have nothing to hide, nor am I any longer a teenager who feels the need to argue with the cops about my “rights.”** If a kid is missing, I’m doing to do what I can to help find the kid. That doesn’t violate my rights. Let’s keep our on the ball. \*\*The goal of the cops is not to oppress you, but to find a missing kid. \*\* You have nothing to hide, so why not a viewscreen? You put rights in quotes, clearly indicating that they are specious under these circumstances. No longer a teenager, you don’t want to argue with its installation. What “rights” do you want to preserve at the cost of a safer society? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > \*\*Eliminating suspects is normal police methdology. \*\*All they’re trying to do is remove you as a suspect. Acting like a butthurt civil rights crusader at the door not only impedes the search for a missing kid, but it does not even eliminate you as a suspect. \*\*Why not just be a grown up and put a more important goal ahead of your self-absorbed terrorialism? \*\* If the police have no leads on a felony, then door-to-door searching is justified to eliminate suspects. It’s normal police methodology. This is a grown up method, putting the more important goals of a safer society ahead of other’s self-absorbed territoryialsm. In fact, it’s a much more effective method than walking door-to-door, as they can reach a much wider range with dramatically less expenditure of resources. \*\*\*A policeman walking up to your door, knocking, and looking about your house is no different than a police using your pre-granted permission to look about your house. \*\* \* > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > **The _right_ thing to do is help the cops** eliminate you as a suspect so they can narrow the search for the kid. \*\*Just because you _can_ say no, doesn’t mean it’s the ethically preferable thing to do. \*\* You’re saying that the right thing to do is install viewscreens, since it will help the cops narrow the search for the actual perpetrator. You’re saying that it’s unethical to deny the police this tool to protect society. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yeah, actually, you are. Everybody’s a suspect until there’s a reason to eliminate them. > > It’s not a witch hunt, it’s a hunt for a missing child, and \*\*there is certainly no ethical high road to impeding that kind of investigation just to assert some sophomoric sense of privilege. \*\* Again, you marginalize the concept of privacy and desire to exclude the police from your home without sufficient cause. You are saying that there is “no ethical high road to impeding” this kind of investigation “just to assert some sophomoric sense of privilege.” How does the Chief of Police’s request that you install a viewscreen any different? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What rights are being violated if you voluntarily allow a search? and > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No it isn’t. It’s a search you’re giving permission for. Since no rights are violated because you want to _voluntarilly_ install the viewscreen, there is no problem. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > \*\* It’s not for you to decide if there’s any reaspon for your name to be on it. \*\* If the cops think it’s possible you did it, then you’re a suspect. That’s all there is to it. You have no right to not be a suspect. and > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The point, as I’ve already said, is that it’s specious to deny that you’re a suspect. There is no legal minimum standard for you to be a suspect. Being suspected deprives you of no rights. > > \*\*Cops always work by elimination. Anyone who could have done it is a suspect until they are eliminated. \*\*That’s how it works. Accepted: in any unsolved felony, everyone is a suspect until the police deem otherwise. Installation of viewscreens will not only increase the police’s closing rate, it will make your life easier as you will be eliminated as a suspect much earlier. Not hyperbole. Not satire. Your words. You have nothing to hide, and consider the reluctance to install a viewscreen to be based on a childish and sophomoric concept of a “right,” clearly unethical, and a by-product of self-absorbed terrorialism. The recently deputized folks from Geeksquad will be by shortly. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/69 "2009-11-11T06:20:44Z")
> [@C3](#): > > To me, this sounds like they have someone in particular in mind and they’re hoping, by broadcasting their “intentions”, they’ll draw him to remove something from his house or take some other telling action while they’re watching. . If so, it’s never actually worked. Here’s the problem with ideas like that- sure it’s more probable that it was someone near. But how near? So they search 4 blocks, and it turns out to be 5 blocks\*- it’s just as likely to be in the next block over. Or the next. .Or… So, the search area is bogus. It has not worked once (except for in the limited sitrep I talked about). It’s unlikely to work this time. The Chief knows that full well, and there’s a 100% chance he’s not trying to get any results for it. He either wants some political exposure, or as suggested earlier- by a Chief needing to show he’s doing \*something. \* It’s a waste of time, police resources and taxpayers money. They may well be allowing the killer to get away by taking away police resources from real investigations. In other words- it’s \*worse than useless. \* \*(or she ran away and is living in Chicago) ---
**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 11, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/70 "2009-11-11T06:25:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The problem seems to be that you guys think the word “suspect” actually has some kind of specific legal significance. It doesn’t. It just designates somebody who hasn’t been eliminated as a possible perp yet. Alright, alright. I’m going to go ahead and ask for a cite that any law enforcement officer or other legal professional has ever regularly used the word “suspect” to mean, without qualification, “someone who hasn’t been eliminated as a possibility yet.” Because, from where I’m sitting, that word just means “everybody in the state” to you, in which case it seems to me that the police would have to then conduct some form of specific investigation of _everybody_ to narrow down the “suspect” pool. In fact, I am pretty sure that the police do not do this. They identify as “suspects” people who could have committed the crime _and for whom there is some reason to consider them more likely to have done it than any other random person on the street._ If I’m wrong about this, I await your well-supported correction. But in any case, I’m pretty sure the original objection was only to the way you suggested that it would be a good idea to allow the cops into your home just so they could eliminate you as a suspect. But the way you’ve defined “suspect” is so uselessly broad that there is zero benefit to being removed from the police’s suspects list, and thus no reason to allow them into your home. That was my main point, quibbles about the meaning of “suspect” notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/71 "2009-11-11T06:40:17Z")
:: waits for that one guy to show up who always shows up with the link to the HOUR LONG youtube video from some defense attorney explaining why you should never ever help the police :: ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/72 "2009-11-11T12:09:13Z")
> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > :: waits for that one guy to show up who always shows up with the link to the HOUR LONG youtube video from some defense attorney explaining why you should never ever help the police :: obviously missed [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11764351&postcount=27). I’m part of the slippery slide crowd. Let the cops do a massive search for this cause, then next week it’s looking for another, lesser crime. It’s a farce. There’s 60 cops, not even experts as they are being pulled from all sorts of jobs, searching 6,000 homes, so each one searches 100 homes. ---
**Author:** ![delphica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@delphica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/delphica)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/73 "2009-11-11T12:32:23Z")
I would most likely let them in and search, mostly depending on whether it was convenient for me at the time. I’m okay with letting them in, but I don’t feel any obligation to change my plans to accommodate them. But I’d also support my neighbor who said “no, come back with a warrant.” Rock on, 4th Amendment Neighbor. The real reason I would let them is because I would be madly curious to see how they will search and what they are searching for. Would I be able to tell from watching them if they are looking for a particular type of thing? It seems like such a crazily inefficient plan for finding anything, it makes me wonder if they have some specific item in mind that they are looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/74 "2009-11-11T13:30:01Z")
All of this presumes the police are honest and have good intentions, a premise I reject. I have been ridiculed on this board for relating incidents about the Burbank, CA police department where they have lied and attempted to frame a friend of mine. Now, the FBI is investigating the department, one of their officers who was under investigation shot himself, and the chief has resigned. Yeah, the department here is soooo clean. The police are nothing more than the largest gang of thugs in the United States. Fuck the police, and fuck the people who fellate them. The policeman is NOT your friend, he regards you as a suspect at all times, and is just looking for anything he can use against you, and will be happy to make crap up and perjure himself in court to throw your happy ass in jail. It happens every day. A large number of LEO’s are of the philosophy that there are two kinds of people in the world, people that work in the criminal justice system, and people who should be in jail. Prison planet, here we come. The fact that the piggies would even propose this kind of outrageous fishing expedition should clue even the dumbest into their real outlook on how things oughta be. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/75 "2009-11-11T14:10:06Z")
I wouldn’t let them in, either. The way I look at it is that if this is such a good idea then they should be able to convince some judge to sign a warrant for the whole neighborhood. That they won’t do this makes it a fishing expedition. Plus, with my sense of humor I’d get arrested from just watching them going through the motions of a search. “Cold…Colder…Oh, you’re really freezing there!” “Marco?” ---
**Author:** ![shantih](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f6c823/32.png) [@shantih](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shantih)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/76 "2009-11-11T14:11:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not a witch hunt, it’s a hunt for a missing child, and there is certainly no ethical high road to impeding that kind of investigation just to assert some sophomoric sense of privilege. But it’s not sophomoric and it’s not a sense of privilege, it’s a right so fundamental to the laws of the United States of America that it’s in the Bill of Rights. (I do realize that we’re talking about Canada, but I don’t know enough Canadian law to make a contribution.) The police may not enter your home without your permission (or an extremely good, legally defensible reason), and if they hold it against you that you don’t grant that permission and thus waive one of your rights, then it isn’t really a right, is it? This isn’t a small thing. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/77 "2009-11-11T14:13:12Z")
No LEO is allowed in my house without a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/78 "2009-11-11T14:15:08Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > No LEO is allowed in my house without a warrant. Mine either. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/79 "2009-11-11T14:17:23Z")
I’d never let a cop in without a warrant. No real distrust of cops, but it’s better to be safe. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107/80 "2009-11-11T14:35:31Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Speaking of horseshit… > > No, I’m not being satirical. > > I don’t care if you want to play semantic footsies with the word “suspect,” it’s not germane to your desire to have communities install viewscreens. > > I was very careful to account for what you _did_ express: > > You have nothing to hide, so why not a viewscreen? You put rights in quotes, clearly indicating that they are specious under these circumstances. No longer a teenager, you don’t want to argue with its installation. What “rights” do you want to preserve at the cost of a safer society? > > If the police have no leads on a felony, then door-to-door searching is justified to eliminate suspects. It’s normal police methodology. This is a grown up method, putting the more important goals of a safer society ahead of other’s self-absorbed territoryialsm. > > In fact, it’s a much more effective method than walking door-to-door, as they can reach a much wider range with dramatically less expenditure of resources. \*\*\*A policeman walking up to your door, knocking, and looking about your house is no different than a police using your pre-granted permission to look about your house. \*\* \* > > You’re saying that the right thing to do is install viewscreens, since it will help the cops narrow the search for the actual perpetrator. You’re saying that it’s unethical to deny the police this tool to protect society. > Again, you marginalize the concept of privacy and desire to exclude the police from your home without sufficient cause. You are saying that there is “no ethical high road to impeding” this kind of investigation “just to assert some sophomoric sense of privilege.” How does the Chief of Police’s request that you install a viewscreen any different? > and > > Since no rights are violated because you want to _voluntarilly_ install the viewscreen, there is no problem. > > and > > Accepted: in any unsolved felony, everyone is a suspect until the police deem otherwise. Installation of viewscreens will not only increase the police’s closing rate, it will make your life easier as you will be eliminated as a suspect much earlier. > > Not hyperbole. Not satire. Your words. You have nothing to hide, and consider the reluctance to install a viewscreen to be based on a childish and sophomoric concept of a “right,” clearly unethical, and a by-product of self-absorbed terrorialism. > > The recently deputized folks from Geeksquad will be by shortly. You’re not making any sense. Voluntarily helping the cops does not involve giving up any rights. _Refusing_ to help the cops out of a sophomoric sense of indignation is your prerogative, but the question in the OP was what would YOU do. _ **I** _ would have the decency to prioritize the search for a kidnapping victim over my desire to act like a self-righteous teenager. Your attempts at satire are completely off the mark since I’ve only talked about what I’d be willing to help the cops with, not what anybody should be _forced_ to do. If it makes you feel good to obstruct the search for a missing kid, knock yourself out and sleep well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-want-to-search-my-home-in-murder-investigation/517107.md?page=5)