Wow, I must be one of the last people in North America that still trust the (majority) of cops. I’d let them in to take a look.
The Right to be secure from unreasonable Searches, which this is. The right not to have your tax dollars squandered on a bit of worthless political grandstanding by the Chief.
This brings up an interesting point: If one volunteers to let the police search, and the cops find evidence of any unrelated crime, then obviously there is nothing stopping them from filing charges.
If, on the other hand, one declines to let the cops in, and the cops come back with a warrant, then I believe that would ensure that the police can only search for stuff related to the missing person. If you happened to have a bong on the table, I think you’re probably better off in scenario 2 (search with warrant) than scenario one, though I’m not sure?
Sure, I trust the police- to do their duty and enforce the law. Why do you think that that even a 100% trustful police officer would turn a blind eye to other violations? Let us take a worst case scenario- you are 100% innocent of this kidnapping (if that’s what it is, other than a runaway) but you have a basement full of bodies from other crimes. Should the police just tip their hats and thank you?
How about if they spotted known stolen merchandise? Bomb-making supplies?..
…
Seditious literature?
Where are you sure the Police, no matter how trustworthy, will draw the line?
No it isn’t. It’s a search you’re giving permission for.
There is no such right.
Saying “of course you are” doesn’t make it so. By your definition, every living person within a hundred miles of any crime is a “suspect.” And if the police are using your definition of the word, I honestly don’t care whether they “eliminate” me from their list or not, because their list is – both practically and legally – meaningless.
I would be willing to answer questions, but I wouldn’t consent to the search of my home. I would politely ask the police to come back with a warrant.
Actually, can you do this and let us know what advice they offer?
Police don’t get to come into my house without a warrant. Just like I’m not going to talk to them without talking to my lawyer first.
I have nothing to hide but I also have no reason to stick my neck out for some overzealous officer to use what he may find in my home or what I may say in future prosecutions.
While I know that they would help me if I needed it, I’m not really inclined to call them just to ask about a legal hypothetical from a message board! I’ll try and remember to ask next time I see my cousin, but it might be a while. I’m sure some Doper lawyers can probably give some advice sooner than I can get some!
This, absolutely.
I am almost assuredly not in 100% compliance with all state/local laws regarding the contents of my house. I have had a number of drug users (inlaws) and petty thieves (ditto) in my house, and those are the lawbreakers that I know of; I do not know if any of them accidentally/intentionally left or stashed something in my house for later retrieval. I currently have a large amount of household/personal items stored in my basement that are not my property, and I do not know what all of those items include.
That’s not even mentioning the items that might highly raise suspicion of criminal activities.
I have nothing to hide and want to help, so ya, stay the fuck out of my house. If I’m a suspect, get a warrent. I once “voluntary” allowed police to search my car at a routine stop because I felt intimidated, and will never make that mistake again.
I’ve got news for you, they are.
It doesn’t matter if you care, and it’s meaningless to say the list is meaningless. If you’re on it, you’re on it.
So, everybody in the world is a suspect, at all times. Great. What are you driving at here?
Can you describe for me, then, in what way the list is meaningful if it’s not necessary for there to exist any reason to connect any name on it with the crime under consideration? Why should I care about this list?
That it’s fatuous to say you aren’t a suspect. If the police say you are, you are.
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.
Yes, there is, you have a right to call for the immediate dismissal of any idiot Police Chief that tries this, and if your elected officials don’t go along with it, you have the right to vote the bastards out.
Nobody’s violating your right to vote against them.
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?
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?” 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?
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.
– Ben Franklin
– Fourth Amendment
– Fifth Amendment
When come back, bring pie, and a warrant.