So in the OP’s example, is it your contention that the police think everyone in the neighborhood is truly a suspect? They think everyone in the neighborhood might have done it? Even if as is quite likely they don’t know fuck-all about them, including their names?
That kind of thinking leads to situations like the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, where everyone on the team was considered to be a suspect, when Mangum’s own lying testimony ruled out most of them, and several could prove that they weren’t even there.
No, aiding the police in such outrageous behavior is absolutely the wrong thing to do. If their reason for searching my house is because I am on their suspect list, then let them say so, get a warrant while I get a lawyer, and we all respect the United States Constitution.
OFFS. Fine, they’re not violating your rights, they’re asking you to voluntarily surrender them, and making veiled threats about the the consequences if you choose not to.
Then I stand by my response, and your complaint of cherry picking is invalidated.
Which says exactly fuck-all about whether anyone is a suspect. Just because I am as likely as you to be a suspect doesn’t mean that there is any reason to suspect me of anything.
It involves blanket accusations, i.e. that the police suspect individuals of being involved in a crime without any justification whatsoever.
Naming scores of people as suspects in a kidnapping when they have absolutely nothing to base it on.
I never claimed they were violating rights. However, in order to protect my rights, I would not allow the camel’s nose into the tent, so to speak. If they suspect me of a crime, let them say so. I can then demand to see the evidence against me, require a warrant if they want to search me, and hire a lawyer.
I’d let them in. Just because I can say no doesn’t mean I should. I have no motive to keep them out, other than to just prove I can. And that would make me kind of a dick, especially since they’re just trying to find a missing girl.
Edit: I’d like to add I’m always very uncomfortable being on the same side as Diogenes, but in this case I think he’s absolutely right.
No advice, but let’s see if I can offer some information (IAA Canadian L).
If I understand the situation outlined in the OP correctly, the police are attempting to look through a neighbourhood in order to find something that might help them locate a missing girl. They are asking for the public’s cooperation. Part of their request includes a door-to-door campaign in which they will ask questions of the dwelling’s occupants, and ask to be invited in to see what they can see.
So far, there’s nothing in that scenario that would send any red flags up. Under these circumstances, police cannot compel citizens to answer questions or open their homes to police–without anything else, such as a court order or a warrant, citizens are fully protected by the rights granted them under s. 8 of the Charter. If citizens refuse to answer police questions and/or open their homes, the police can do nothing about it on the spot and at that time. Citizens can cooperate, but they don’t have to.
So would the police go to the trouble of getting a warrant? My guess would be no, they wouldn’t. Without a reasonable suspicion that the holdout homeowner has something in his or her home regarding the missing girl, I would imagine that police would find a warrant difficult to obtain–I doubt very much that any justice-of-the-peace or judge would authorize a warrant just to let the police have a look in Joe Citizen’s place because Joe didn’t cooperate with them. There must be more than Joe’s refusal to their request; there must be a reasonable suspicion that Joe is hiding something to do with the missing girl (i.e. they cannot ask for a “blanket” warrant to look for anything wrong Joe might have or be doing). The circumstances outlined in the OP are important, and simply refusing to cooperate in these circumstances does not, at least in my view, create a reasonable enough suspicion that the homeowner has something he or she is trying to hide.
I don’t know this girl, never saw her in my life. She is not in my home and has never been. Our home is secure, there have been no unauthorized entries. There is absolutely nothing helpful to be found in my home.
If police spend twenty minutes uselessly poking around my house… x 6,000 other homes… Unless my math is faulty, that’s 2,000 man hours wasted!
Actually, my allegation of cherry picking is invalidated because the quote you picked still contained the relevant qualification of “anybody who could have done.” You have not located an inconsistency.
Not to suspect you more than anyone else, maybe, but “suspect” is the default starting point. Everybody’s a suspect until there’s a reason to eliminate them. It doesn’t mean that they genuinly think there’s a high probability that you did it. It just means you’re part of a field that has to be narrowed.
Being suspected is not an accusation, and the only justification required is that the cops think you might have done it. Where does everybody keep getting the idea that they have a right not to be a suspect?
Should they all be immediately ruled out with no investigation? If not, then they all start as suspects. It does not violate any of their rights to do so.
They don’t need any evidence to call you a suspect. They need probable cause to arrest you, but not just to suspect you, or investigate you or ask you questions.
A number of people have said they wouldn’t let the cops in their house, but that they would answer questions. They don’t have to answer questions. They have a right to remain silent. Why is temporarily waiving that right (subject to re-assertion of said right at any time) more acceptable than temporaily waiving the 4th Amendment right, again, still subject to reassertion at any time. If you tell them they can’t look in the closet, they can’t look in the closet. Anytime you tell them to leave, they have to leave. It’s not a big deal. You aren’t getting rousted, and you aren’t Rosa Parks.
In the original Star story, the lead investigator was a bit mealy-mouthed and raised eyebrows with what could be construed as a threat/intimidation for not co-operating: “While people have the right not to answer questions from police or let them into their homes, those who do not co-operate may find themselves subject to a search warrant.”
After the CCLA, responded with “Oh, no you di’n’t!” the police have since clarified with: “Certainly you have the right not to allow the police into your apartment or your place. We’ll just have to move on and we’ll work it out.”
Assuming that the police are not on a fishing expedition for evidence of other criminal acts, they must not believe that the search is not a waste of time. I’m going to yield to their opinion of the situation since they are more knowledgeable about such matters.
Then you should call the cops post-haste to let them search your house so they can rule out the possibility that Natalee Holloway is buried in your basement. It’s the only way to be sure.
I do exit my home, observe what happens nearby, hear what’s happening outside, and even on occasion walk around the neighborhood. So it’s feasible I might have seen something relevant, even if I didn’t realize it at the time and don’t realize it now - such as a particular vehicle parked at the curb at a pertinent time.
However, we have a small lot, and our house is locked unless we are letting people in or out. There is no chance a teenage girl is lurking in my house without my knowledge. Therefore, letting the police search the house actually wastes their time and cannot help, except in the incredibly dilute way of checking my house off a list of 6,000 in the vicinity of her disappearance.
Again, if I refuse, tell me exactly what the police will then proceed to do to eliminate my house as a possible location for the victim? My contention is that they will do precisely nothing, and therefore my letting them in or not has no impact on the police investigation.
I believe, in good faith, what they really hope to accomplish is talk to everyone in hopes that someone’s memory will be jogged. They are probably more interested in getting access to things like garages, garden sheds, or buildings with common areas like laundry rooms where someone could gain unauthorized access and camp out.
ETA: I don’t believe the police intend it as a fishing expedition.
My house is already eliminated simply by virtue of the fact that it isn’t in fucking Aruba. If a kid goes missing in the Battle Creek neighborhood of St. Paul, my door is wide open.
