See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Police To Search For Guns In Homes
Source:
boston.com
URL Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar ... e_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/
Published: Nov 17, 2007
Author: Maria Cramer
Post Date: 2007-11-17 12:23:54 by JiminyC
Keywords: None
Views: 245
Comments: 20
Police To Search For Guns In Homes City program depends on parental consent By Maria Cramer Globe Staff / November 17, 2007 Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms. more stories like this The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households. In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave. If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide. The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders. "I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that." Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search. "Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found." But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people. "This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . . "I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case." But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street. more stories like this A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week. "There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said. The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out. Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute. "In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable," Davis said. Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square. If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges. "A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion." The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks. One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting. "What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' " Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said. Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched. St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program. "We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said. But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice. Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said. Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared. "I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us." Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did. "We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said. Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: JiminyC (#0)
??? I doubt it.
The next step is to require such searches before the child is allowed to enroll in public school (or use vouchers). Ultimately all parents will be rquired to allow theses searches or they will lose custody of their children. The irony is that the parents who allow this now are the ones that really have no business having children.
"Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." - William S Burroughs
ping
Fox News Channel is the television version of Free Republic
What a friggin' pantload. I'm so sick of the steady stream of lies. Sheesh.
What the hell difference does it make? Whether the "potential" exists for this "object" to be dangerous is irrelevant. The FACT is that unless a gun was used in a criminal activity, it is NOT ILLEGAL to own or possess it, and seizure of it IS a criminal activity - it is THEFT.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. There actually isn't anything new here. If people are dumb enough to agree to let the police search their homes, it's perfectly legal. Dopey, but legal.
Knock Knock..We know you are in there Jethro Tull.
That's right - no warrant necessary if consent is present. But it IS ILLEGAL to seize something which ISN'T ILLEGAL and then keep it, unless it can be proven that the LEGAL object was somehow used in an ILLEGAL activity. Right? If it were me, and I had something which was LEGAL confiscated and then kept, and there are no charges filed for anything, I'd be filing criminal charges with the grand jury against the confiscator for theft.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Just the facts, Cyni....
Knock Knock Whos there? Your friendly local Gestapo. Come out Jethro Tull with your thumbs in your ears and in a bent over posture... hehehehehehehe
That's what they're doing. The story says no charges will be filed unless the gun was used in a crime.....so.....the cops are obviously taking the gun, vouchering it, running ballistic tests, etc. which no doubt takes years and years and years to complete.
WHAT?!?!? You mean they probably AREN'T putting a rush order on it to expedite service???
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Yep…….those pieces will be buried so deep into the black hole of bureaucracy that they’ll never see the light of day.
Seems like all the young peoples names are in some database....in order for them to get a 'tip' and then 'check to make sure there is no ""active"" investigation' going on. And just where the hell are the parents that if they are concerned and don't want 'that thing' in their homes? They hafta call a cop? What is preventing them from removing 'that thing' from their home and threatening to break their kids neck or beat his ass if they find anymore of 'that thing' in their home!!! Sheesh........stoopid peple!
Doncha just love their concept of a 'very dangerous object'...a car is a dangerous object; as is ia knife; as is scissors; as is a baseball bat; as is a piece of metal pipe; as are the fists of a boxer; hell, even a glass can be a dangerous object as can a bean!! It just all depends on how it is used or abused, or the accident that is waiting to happens happens. Just last night my very elderly father, who uses a walker, and even with that stumbles and falls, was walking around with a pair of sharp-pointed scissors in his hand-- with the sharp point aimed towards his body! Had he taken a fall at that moment, there are any number of very serious injuries that could have been sustained--some even fatal. You're absolutely right--guns are NOT illegal so long as they are not used for illegal purposes. These dipwads!
How do you know when they're lying? Whenever it's corroborated by Fox, Msnbc, Cnn, AP, Reuters, the MSM mags, mainstream radio...in short, the globalist owned propaganda machine.
Damn. This really shakes my faith in the system! How will I ever be able to trust them again???
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Child Protective Services Can't be abusing the state's kids.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Like you say, just about ANYTHING can be a "dangerous object". A gun is just about as safe as anything else I know of - especially if there ain't any bullets in it. The real "dipwads" are the so-called parents that would give permission to let the cop in without a warrant in the first place.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Yippe Kayea MFers.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibitionwhen 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.
#2. To: JiminyC (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: JiminyC, *libertarians*, *Jack-Booted Thugs*, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#0)
#4. To: JiminyC (#0)
"We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said.
What's important is if you win or lose.
But even that doesn't matter much.
#5. To: JiminyC (#0)
"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .
Steven Wright
#6. To: JiminyC (#0)
#7. To: Jethro Tull (#6)
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#6)
If people are dumb enough to agree to let the police search their homes, it's perfectly legal.
Steven Wright
#9. To: Cynicom (#7)
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
#11. To: innieway (#8)
But it IS ILLEGAL to seize something which ISN'T ILLEGAL and then keep it, unless it can be proven that the LEGAL object was somehow used in an ILLEGAL activity. Right?
#12. To: Jethro Tull (#11)
the cops are obviously taking the gun, vouchering it, running ballistic tests, etc. which no doubt takes years and years and years to complete.
Steven Wright
#13. To: innieway (#12)
#14. To: JiminyC (#0)
#15. To: innieway (#5)
"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .
#16. To: Esso (#4)
I'm so sick of the steady stream of lies.
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
Yep…….those pieces will be buried so deep into the black hole of bureaucracy that they’ll never see the light of day.
Steven Wright
#18. To: rowdee (#14)
What is preventing them from removing 'that thing' from their home and threatening to break their kids neck or beat his ass if they find anymore of 'that thing' in their home!!!
Steven Wright
#19. To: rowdee (#15)
These dipwads!
Steven Wright
#20. To: JiminyC (#0)
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms. more stories like this
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest