They’re not asking you if they can enter without your permission. nor can they do anything to you if you refuse.
The kid is not in my house. How is refusing entry to the cops obstructing the search?
And another question related to your use of the word “suspect.” Since, according to you, everyone is a suspect, do you go down to the police station every time a crime is committed to offer an alibi and eliminate yourself as a suspect? If not, why not? Isn’t that obstructing the investigation?
It’s up to the cops to decide if I’m a suspect, not me.
I didn’t say everyone is a suspect, by the way. I said anyone who the cops thing might have done it is a suspect.
What do you guys think a suspect is? Do you think the word has some kind of formal definition? If so, then what do you think it means?
It prevents the cops from being able to eliminate your house and narrow the search.
Hell, I don’t even let my friends and relatives wander around all areas of my house, never mind complete strangers who are looking for something incriminating! I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to keep the contents of my closet, the titles on my bookshelves, and even the number of crumbs on my floor private.
As to the argument that it’s helpful to let them eliminate me as a suspect, please. I think the point Stealth Potato and others are trying to make is that it can’t be materially helpful for me to help eliminate my name from the list of suspects if the list is made by simply including every person living in a neighborhood. That’s hundreds of random people! If there is no logic or thought in making the list, what real use is it to cull it down like this? The police might as well have every man in town come in to prove his innocence, since almost all violent criminals are men.
On the other hand, if it was a reasonably drawn list of suspects, with evidence to support the possibility of involvement, and my name was on it, I also wouldn’t allow the search, since I’d be in more actual jeopardy!
As others have said, I would be happy to offer what help I could. If there was a possibility she was on my property without my knowledge, I would look. I’d wrack my brain for any knowledge that might be helpful. Letting police wander around my house without rhyme or reason doesn’t strike me as helpful, and it is invasive, annoying, and potentially embarrassing, even if you haven’t done anything illegal.
How would a cursory search eliminate anything? Any search that would eliminate you as a suspect would require tearing your house apart. Is there any way to ensure that once you’ve given permission that they aren’t going to start tearing the fabric from your couch to see what is underneath?
Yeah. You can tell them to stop any time you want.
The right thing to do is to assert your rights as a US citizen. Unless I call them specifically, the police are not entering my house.* This does not increase safety. This does not help them solve the crime. This just erodes at our constitutionally-granted freedoms and protections from governments.
And for the record, I’m not a teenager, nor am I a card-carrying ACLU member. I do, however, believe strongly in Benjamin Franklin’s statement quoted earlier.
*I suspect, though, that my wife and in-laws wouldn’t think twice about letting the police in were they canvasing like this.
The Ben Franklin quote is not applicable since this does not involve surrendering any rights or giving the state any power.
I had my house searched under what I am almost certain where false pretenses.
I live in a remote area. Two sheriffs cars show up. One of them had a drug dog. As my Wife was out and about, I thought that there must have been an accident. I could think of no other reason that they where there. I don’t think I ever been so scared. I was sure my Wife was hurt or dead.
My Wife was OK. The visit had nothing to do with her. They claimed that someone had skipped bail from a town 100 miles away, and they had used my address as their home. They could not give me this persons name, and said it was probably an alias anyway.
It was very, very odd. I was so relieved that my wife had not been in an accident; I invited them in and let them look around for this bail jumper. In hindsight, I’m pretty sure they were looking for drugs. My house is remote and passive solar. LOTS of windows and would probably be a great place to grow MJ.
I can’t tell if you’re being purposely obtuse or are so latched on conversations you’re having with yourself that you’re labelling
what you don’t understand as “satire.”
This is not satire.
I never said that this entails “giving up any rights,” you’re making that up.
I never said anything about what someone should be “forced” to do, you’re making that up.
Again, this is not satire.
You’ve only talked about what you’d be willing to do. Yet you seem to have a problem with viewscreens in your house.
Why?
How do they differ from acquiescing to a police search whenever they deem there to be need?
Why is your reluctance to install a viewscreen not acting “like a self-righteous teenager”?
I trust the police, generally. I like the police, generally. I don’t commit any crimes.
And I would still ask them to come back with a warrant. That particular right is one that is very important to me, and I would stand on it.
I disagree with your contention that preventing the cops from coming into my house does anything harmful to their investigation. It’s my contention that by refusing a search I’m not going on any list, I’m not going to receive any additional attention, and I’m not diverting any resources from the task at hand. By refusing their search I’ve sped up the time they spend in this fruitless task (there’s no evidence in my house) and let’s them get on with more productive endeavors.
Can you explain how not letting them in my house would result in more work for the cops down the road? Specifically, what are they going to do once I refuse that they wouldn’t do otherwise?
Your “viewscreens” are a retarded non-sequitur.
Get a warrant, thus wasting more time and taxpayer expense.
They can’t get a warrant, there isn’t the vaguest suggestion of probable cause. And any cop who tried to get a warrant under such circumstances would bear the burden of guilt for wasting resources and time, not the person who refused the search.
Did anyone else notice this quote from the article:
(my bolding)
Now I know in the USA, that isn’t the case - the police cannot use your refusal to consent to a search as grounds for a warrant. Is it really the case in Canada, that merely exercising your rights is grounds for abrogating them, or is this cop just talking out his ass?
You should really look up words before using them, unless you actually know what a non sequitur is but are hoping that others don’t.
You want to allow the police into your house to search when they deem it necessary.
This allows the police into your house to search when they deem it necessary.
**Why do you find one objectionable but not the other? **Given the things you’ve said in this thread, there is only a trivial difference in functionality, but the end result – allowing the police to look into your home at their discretion – is identical.
Both are voluntary.
Both can be refused.
Refusal has the same intangible repercussions (if any) in both cases.
So other than bandying about random words in a shallow attempt to avoid the question, how are you drawing a distinction between the two?
We can argue legality and logic but this situation does not lend itself to a moral discussion.
What if the authorities requested that we all pray for the victim’s safe return? It’s not an odious request and even though I’m not a pray-er it’s more important to keep our eye on the ball and get the girl back. Of course I’d pray for her.
Except I wouldn’t because like the massive voluntary search, prayer would be illogical and not truly helpful. I don’t even have to rely on my own judgment as to what is a logical course of investigation, we have laws that clearly define reasonable cooperation.
Dragging morals or decency into the discussion is a non-starter. If anything, we have a moral obligation to check the police and force them work form evidence, a course of action that might lead to the victim’s return.
Obviously in the US they cannot get a warrant without probable cause. I can’t imagine a scenario in which a judge would find sufficient probable cause to grant a warrant to search 6,000 homes in a neighborhood (as per the original article). I don’t think the police would spend any time trying to seek such a warrant.
Why do you assume that someone who refuses a search does so with a “sophomoric sense of privilege”? Suppose the police mistakenly brought you in for questioning, or arrested you, in connection with the girl’s disappearance. Would it also be sophomoric to assert your right to speak with an attorney, or your right to remain silent under those circumstances?