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.
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?
My guess would be political pressure.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No.
If they care, probably one of them waits around while the other gets a new or updated warrant.
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…
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).
Eh, don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll let you off the hook.
Excellent distinction, eh.
**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.
Updateon the particular investigation that prompted this OP, along with this interesting bit:
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.
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.
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.
When it is voluntary, there is no violation. And that’s all the police are asking for here: voluntary cooperation.
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
In this case morals and law are equivalent in my eyes. That’s why I’m arguing.
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 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.
That’s why I label it coercive. No request of 6000 individuals, no matter what it is, meets with universal acceptance.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.