Disclosing this is only going to draw suspicion on my family and me, but we do happen to own a house on the beach about a minutes walk away from where Natalie Holloway disappeared 
Eventually, if you cannot be eliminated for other reasons. They might get a warrant. Letting them in lets them narrow the search.
This is an irrelevant emotional argument. In that situation I probably would want to tear the whole neighborhood apart, or the whole state if need be, and damn everybody else’s rights! I would most likely not be thinking rationally, and my frantic impulses would be rightly ignored.
No, they won’t get a warrant without some specific fact-based reason to connect you with the crime. If they have facts, let them use those right away and forget about this stupid and useless scattergun approach.
You’re using the wrong default option. They don’t need a reason to remove me from a list, they need a reason to add me to a list. That is, after all, the whole point of innocent until proven guilty, freedom from search and siezure, and the right not to testify against oneself; the police can not intrude on your life because it is easier to eliminate suspects than it is to justify them. It is not the citizen’s job to ease the work of policeman, but the policeman’s job to protect the rights of the citizen.
I don’t think I have anything in my home that violates local laws, but why on earth would I take the chance? I don’t have the general distrust of the police that some do, but even the cops I know wouldn’t concent to this kind of search.
Well, the investigator was technically correct, since “may find themselves” does not mean the same thing as “will find themselves.” Understand, I’m not defending the investigator; but legal cases on s. 8 Charter violations are quite complex, and if the investigator was misinterpreting or misunderstanding what the police could do, I wouldn’t be surprised. (The law in this area can be confusing enough for a lawyer!) Mind, it could be possible that the investigator knew exactly what he was doing, and trying to elicit cooperation from those who didn’t know better; in which case, I’m not impressed with his statement.
You have this backwards. Investigation is a process of elimination. You start on the list by default. “Innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant because you aren’t (yet) being arrested or charged with anything much less convicted. You have no right to not be a suspect.
Oh, I agree with you completely, and I mentioned as much in an earlier post when I underscored the big, fat “may” myself. The statement I quoted was quoted verbatim from the article, including the lack of any other context. Seeing it isolated in the story like that made me go :dubious: because it sounds like a veiled threat, which is what prompted the CCLA to clarify that you can’t be threatened with a search warrant.
I personally didn’t see the statement that produced the questionable quote, in the press conference I saw, the Sgt. sounded totally reasonable, said they’d just carry on if they didn’t ge to go into your home and recommended Crime Stoppers for anyone who thinks they saw anything but feel intimidated or uncomfortable talking to police. All sounded perfectly reasonable to me.
I must admit, I find it unusual that they are dedicating 60 plain clothes detectives to weeks of 12-hour days for a missing 18-year-old. That really is unprecedented.
Never underestimate the power of Missing white woman syndrome.
Yes, but we have literally thousands of kids go missing every year, including teenage white girls, and this is an unusual police response.
Of over 66,500 missing youth reports one year in Canada, over 52,000* were classified as “runaways”, 96% of them were kids between the ages of 12-17. I’ve never heard of this kind of response when there was no evidence to support foul play. When there is no evidence of foul play, kids usually get lumped in the “left home” category. I’m sure her newness to the country and lack of language skills is troubling, but it still seems like a much bigger response than usual.
- 52,000 “reports” does not mean 52,000 kids were runaways. Eg/ One kid could have left home more than once.
It will be interesting to see if there is a wave of warrents to follow the “No, you can’t enter” responses. It will also be interesting to see if there is a wave of warrents following the “Sure, come on in, but don’t mind the hookah” answers.
If a homeowner were to blatently leave a pot plant on their table while the police searched for a missing woman, do the police even have the option to ignore it, long term? Sure, they may chose to not make an arrest right now, but is there anything that says that they have to follow up on a violation that they do happen to see?
As for answering the OP? You are welcome to walk around the outside of my house, to see that all the doors and the shed are locked. I will talk to you and, depending on the questions, answer your questions. But I respectfully decline to let you search through my cupboards, on the off chance that I’m hiding someone in there. If it makes you feel better, I’ll go double check the basement while you wait out here. Would you like a soda while you wait?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s article, ‘Police methods in Mariam search criticized’
Criminal defence lawyer Edward Sapiano calls the technique a dangerous fishing expedition.
Although Nealon said Monday that people “certainly” have the right to refuse entry to the police, Sapiano told CBC News that those who deny police entry will come under suspicion.
The police service’s methods mean “a Canadian citizen is deemed guilty until police are satisfied you are innocent,” he said. “And a Canadian citizen who insists on exercising the rights of [a] Canadian citizen is immediately deemed a suspect.”
Dunno about Canada, but in the U.S., that would likely fall under the Plain View Doctrine, which would allow them to make an arrest/seize the plant on the spot.
No, they won’t. They can’t. Unless they have reason to believe I’m related to this case their hands are for the most part tied. They can follow me around, but that’s an even worse use of their resources than the house-to-house voluntary searches.
As said before, without anything tying me to the case, there’s no need for them to eliminate me from their list of suspects. These kind of dragnet searches are a last ditch effort that has almost no chance of success and I have no interest in cooperating with beyond answering a few simple questions. I’m certainly not allowing cops (who I have lots of respect for and count among my friends) carte blanche to wander through my house based on this kind of sloppy work.
WTF are people still whining about rights for? This case has nothing to do with your rights. The police are asking people for VOLUNTARILY assistance.
You can either agree to let them search, thus inviting them into your home and not losing any rights…
or you can not let them search, in which case they said they will be getting a legal warrant, signed by a judge or a moose (I don’t know how the Canadian court system works :D), in which case it would be legal for them to search your house, thus still preserving your rights.
I feel that if people keep misunderstanding this case, I will have to resort to silly and outrageous examples to prove my point. :dubious:
All this talk about viewscreens and government thugs marching into your home is just an attempt to divert the argument to some asinine path that has nothing to do with the original situation.
I feel that too many people seem to think that even asking to search your home is too much, and they are ready to lawyer up the minute the first pig hoof touches your lawn. This is about an investigation to help find a girl who’s misssing. Save the outrage for something that doesn’t affect anyone.
No, it’s not.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/jones_holly/
In fact, they want to do this because exactly this tactic is what broke the Holly Jones case. You might think “Well gosh, the murderer will hide the evidence.” Most murderers are not geniuses.
That said, I’d say no.
Not likely, at least in the US. They’d need probable cause to get a warrant, and refusing to allow a warrantless search doesn’t count, to the best of my understanding.
As a number of people have stated in this thread, many have things that might or would be considered illegal under federal/state/local laws. That might affect those people directly.
So hide the damn bong before they get there. The cops aren’t really going to care about stuff like that anyway
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
The more I think about this, the more I think I wouldn’t allow the cops to search my home.
There’s no reason to suspect foul play…she may have run away on her own, and so there’s no reason to be searching anyone’s homes at all. As far as we know, there has been no crime, so treating everyone as a suspect for a crime that hasn’t been committed is illogical.
If a crime has been committed, then it would require probable cause (yes, even in Canada!) for a judge to issue a search warrant. If the cops have no cause whatsoever to suspect Joe Citizen, then they have no need to search his home/property. If they do have cause, then let them get a warrant.
Unless the missing girl was standing in my living room, there isn’t much that could be found with a 'quick peek" around my home. DNA, hairs, even blood evidence wouldn’t be noticeable unless the house was searched in fine detail. Opening closets and fridges also, IMHO, doesn’t qualify as a “quick peek”. And if the girl was standing in my living room, as an 18-year old adult in this country, there is damn little the cops could do about it if she chose to be there on her own, and I allowed her to do so. If she’s in my living room because I’m holding her against her will, then I damn well won’t let the cops in, and we are back to them trying to come up with some reason to search my home in the first place.
And I don’t believe that the cops would overlook an unsecured firearm, or drugs, or any other illegal item/activity that they might notice on this quick walk-through. The girl has been missing for a month. There is no urgency in finding her, and so I think the cops would notice a pot plant, for example, and do something about it.
No, I wouldn’t let them in. I may answer whatever questions they may have, as long as they are reasonable and non-threatening. It’s easier to stop talking on the doorstep than it is to get two police officers out of your house if they start examining your gun collection.
That said, I hope they do find out what happened, for her family’s sake. But if she doesn’t want to be found…well, then I think she has the right to not be found as well!
Hide something? They’re going to search the whole house (fridge included, apparently), and if guesses here are correct, they’re going to keep an eye out for/ask neighbors about people transporting stuff out of their houses because clearly one wouldn’t be stupid enough to leave evidence in there before an announced search! And no, I do not believe that the police would or could ignore anything illegal.
I have a basement a quarter-full of crap left behind by my hoarder sister-in-law and I really don’t know what most of it contains. (We’ve been moving it out bit by bit over time.) I have legal homebrewing equipment that could look like a still to an ignorant cop - yay, BATF on my doorstep. If the cops search my bedroom, will handcuffs and other stuff look like we’re torturing people, or will they chuckle about the kinky couple and ignore it? Fuck it, I don’t need that hassle.