Madison mayor demands parents' consent to police searches of homes for guns!

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

It's not illegal with consent.

Click to expand...

True, but where do you draw the line? Many people have stated on here that there is no obligation to consent to search nor is there an obligation to answer questions.

If my child's room needs searching, I'll do it, not some minion of the government who may or may not keep the promise not to prosecute.

Scenario: You allow them to search child's room. They find a weapon that is not legal for the child to have. What is to keep them from drumming up charges against you such as "child endangerment" based on the fact that you also own weapons?

I may be paranoid, but I don't think it is that great a stretch of the imagination to see it happening. Also seems like a wonderful means of camouflaging what could easily turn into a gun grab.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree, just making a point, since KansasMustang above me said it was illegal search and seizure...which it isn't.

imported post

This will get properly shot down by the ACLU, just like a similar proposal in (Boston? Wash, DC?) last year.

If I recall, there is video on YouTube of pro-rights people going door-to-door in the neighborhoods educating people on their rights.

imported post

zer0cool wrote:

RESPONSIBILITY: It's a word they need to add to their parental vocabulary!:banghead:

Click to expand...

+1,000,000

I have no intention of letting an officer into my home, unless I'm the one who called him/her. Heck, someone with a badge showed up on my doorstep last week (apparently, my neighbor is getting some sort of security clearance), and rather than invite her in, I closed my door and we did the interview on my front porch.

If the officers have enough suspicion to get a warrant, then that's one thing. But other than that, no way, no how, are they searching any part of my home.

Besides, I've seen my son's room. No one can find anything in there - even my son.

imported post

Riana wrote:

SNIP I have no intention of letting an officer into my home, unless I'm the one who called him/her. Heck, someone with a badge showed up on my doorstep last week (apparently, my neighbor is getting some sort of security clearance), and rather than invite her in, I closed my door and we did the interview on my front porch.

If the officers have enough suspicion to get a warrant, then that's one thing. But other than that, no way, no how, are they searching any part of my home.

Click to expand...

May I gently suggest reconsidering your tactics?

There are a number of situations where police could legallyenter your home without a warrant, and should you try to stop them, you are open to an obstruction charge.

There are legal exceptions to the warrant clause in the 4A. Remember that the 4A only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has carved out a number of exceptions to the warrant clause regarding a home under the idea that the exceptions are reasonable.

I recommend looking into it. Here is a link to the first google return page to the key words: warrant exception house. http://tinyurl.com/mrr7pa

I might ask for a warrant or the exigent circumstance. I'd refuse consent in all cases. Of course, the maxim, "If he has to ask, he probably doesn't have legal authority" applies.

imported post

I'd like to pick your brains. Personally if I had a kid they would be responsible with guns, and I would not let the POLICE into my home period! But let's pick this apart.... Inner city drug neighborhoods, most adolescent males have no father in the home and are "parented" by gangs and drug dealers. So they go out and shoot and shoot till the "anti's" scream bloody murder for more legislation that hurts YOU and ME, the law abiding citizens and the rural areas with kids who know how to use guns responsibly. Remember every time a kid or anyone else uses a gun in a crime it is more fuel for us to loose our rights. The pro gun group says: punish the criminals, not the law abiding citizens. So should we let these gang banging kids go out and kill more people so we can then after the fact (and someone is dead) send them to prison? Or is is safer for single ghetto mom who is stupid enough (or perhaps smart enough) to let the police in (it is her section 8 castle) to nip the problem in the bud in the first place? Now don't get me wrong I see this as the police once again wanting to push the envelope, but as long as there is no threats and mom wants to let them in that is her business. Like one poster said they are targeting the inner city, but the problem is usually not in rural areas save a fluke like Colubine Co. Anyone have a suggestion how we can get the guns out of the hands of criminals, and that includes youthful offenders. Remember every incident is one more nail in our constitutional rights! Not that I am agreeing with this....

imported post

vermonter wrote:

SNIP I'd like to pick your brains.

Click to expand...

The picture is bigger.

They are going to get societal agreement that police can come and ask consent to search. Definitely the wrong direction. We already have too many people who think they must aquiesce to a police search request.

The scenario is already afforded the police under existing case law. No additional societal agreement is necessary. Police can go to any youth's home and ask his mom's permission to search. No public-relations program, no community leader assistance required.

So, why the program? To reduce community resistance? To gain acceptance? To more infringements on their rights.

Don't overlook how far police have gone with this "consent" business. Its gotten so bad that police seem to have standard replies to a refusal: "I can get the dogs", "If you have nothing to hide...". All designed to obtain consent under minor coercion. Its gone so far that the courts have had to rule on what constitutes uncoerced consent. Its ridiculous how far some police havepushed the envelope on this.

Also, searching won't eliminate guns. Nor willseizing some gunsor reducing violence satisfy the anti-gunners.

When that program doesn't work, what next? Road-blocks and sidewalk-blocks to search backpacks on the way to and from school? With consent from mom, of course.

Also, the goal line on the 2A is farther away. The final nail in the 2A coffin will come when they pry our guns from our cold dead hands.

I imagine this campaign is a reaction to recent violence. With some anti-gunners throwingat the problem a program they heard about earlier in another city.

The correct target is the rights-violating principles established here.

imported post

This program really just highlights the lack of knowledge that some people have on their rights. If a person doesn't know their rights then they will always be at the mercy of others (including the police). If someone is too ignorant to know their rights then they deserve the consequences of not knowing those rights.

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

SNIP If someone is too ignorant to know their rights then they deserve the consequences of not knowing those rights.

Click to expand...

I can see your point.

For myself, I might head in another direction with it.

I might take into account:

Goverment schools that don't really teach rights. I learned the 4th Amendment and "cops need a warrant"--the superficial stuff. Not once did one of my teachers explain consent and the right to refuse it.

Government making rights difficult to meaningfully understand by myriad and sinuous court opinions. How manyaverage citizens have read or even heard of US vs Mendenhall?

Government's utter failure to educate people about their rights. I mean, come on, the purpose oflegitimate government is to protect people's rights (Declaration of Independence). You would think that could and would include frequent publication aboutrights.*

Another angle.A timid person might know he has the right to refuse consent to an ID demand,or a search request. Yet, infrontof the cop, he reflexivelycaves in to the request. Or, maybe the cop spices the"request" with a little forceful tone of voice, or threatens toget thedogs, overbearing the timid person's feeble assertiveness. The timid person, nonethelessstill has rights. Just because he cannot assert them does not meanhe doesn't have them.

In a similar vein, an ignorant person still has rights.More importantly, he still deserves them, I think.A lot of ignorant people have suffered across history for lack of recognition of rights, which is another way of saying "their rights." I don't think they deserved it. I thinktheir rights existedall along, whether recognized by government, or even themselves.

In my mind, its up to people like us to educate them. With knowledge comes responsibility.

*I mean, really.How hard would it be for DMV to include in the driver's manual, or on the back of every title application some simple language about the right to refuse consent to a car search, etc., etc.? Or,include with every property tax bill asummary ofexceptions to the warrant clause? (PS: I am thinking about contacting a few rights-minded legislators about this. Maybe requirethe state attorney general prepare a yearly "State of Rights" address or opinion, like the President or governor makes a State of the Union/Commonwealth address.)

imported post

I understand where you are coming from but where do you stop? Having the state tell you your rights eventually ends up with the miranda-type "reading your rights". Isn't it kind of absurd that the police have to let every suspect know that you have the right to remain silent after they're arrested, even though it is clearly implied in the 5th amendment? Ok so now let's have them read criminals their rights to a fair and speedy trial, a trial by a jury of their peers, the right to not be punished in a cruel or unusual manner, and so on. Where does it end?

I do agree that the courts have made it all too confusing. You almost need a law degree just to understand what it all means.

Ignorance and timidity are no excuse. If one will not stand up for his/her rights or does not know his/her rights then what can he/she expect?

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I understand where you are coming from but where do you stop? Having the state tell you your rights eventually ends up with the miranda-type "reading your rights". Isn't it kind of absurd that the police have to let every suspect know that you have the right to remain silent after they're arrested, even though it is clearly implied in the 5th amendment? Ok so now let's have them read criminals their rights to a fair and speedy trial, a trial by a jury of their peers, the right to not be punished in a cruel or unusual manner, and so on. Where does it end?

I do agree that the courts have made it all too confusing. You almost need a law degree just to understand what it all means.

Ignorance and timidity are no excuse. If one will not stand up for his/her rights or does not know his/her rights then what can he/she expect?

Click to expand...

I agree there are circumstances where it is not only appropriate, but essential to require another to take responsibility for their situation.

I think perhaps you came away from my suggestions on states promoting rights with an unintended message. I was illustrating how government fails to live up to all of its functions in protecting rights.

Miranda v. Arizona is a good exampleto work with. In the opinion, the court does into some depth as towhy they required the warnings. Its too long to quote here, but please take some time to read it.[suP]1[/suP] Its an easy read--very little legalese.

Regarding what to expect if one doesn't stand up for his rights, slavery, of course.

Keep in mind that rights were put there to restrain government, not as a legal demandon citizens of something they must do.

Also, keep in mind that rights are there to protect the innocent, not let the guilty go free.


1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html

imported post

I have a solution.

1. Almost all of the violent crime is in "inner city" neighborhoods.

2. The residents howl when the police are too rough.

I say all the police should refuse to serve such neighborhoods. The supeme court ruled that the police have no duty to respond. I say let the natural selection process take effect in the inner cities.

imported post

Some city has 'been there, done that', maybe Cincinnati or Cleveland tried "depolicing" specific neighborhoods.

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

I may be paranoid, but I don't think it is that great a stretch of the imagination to see it happening. Also seems like a wonderful means of camouflaging what could easily turn into a gun grab.

Click to expand...

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they are NOT out to get you.

The next thing you know they will be enlisting kids to spy on their parents and piers. Oh, I forgot, they are already doing that. Sounds like Germany in the 1930s and 40s.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/456240

Click to expand...

for anyone to submit to something like this--they would have to be totally stupid and completely ignorant...

BOHICA....

I would absolutely NEVER willingly allow any police into my house...and neither should anyone else...

imported post

My point is one of reality and practicality. If you don't know you have something how can you expect to keep it or use it? The same goes for rights as well as tangible objects.

Why is it the state's responsibility to tell you what your rights are?

I didn't read the whole thing, just the first little bit. What I got was that they wanted to put safeguards in. In one case they mentioned (Escobedo v. Illinois) the police didn't stop questioning the man when he tried to assert his rights by telling them he wanted to speak to a lawyer and then they blocked his lawyer from speaking with him.

Even if it was the state's responsibility to tell you what rights you have why not start at an early age and teach you while you're in school? Why wait until you are under suspicion to let you know?

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

SNIP My point is one of reality and practicality. If you don't know you have something how can you expect to keep it or use it? The same goes for rights as well as tangible objects.

Why is it the state's responsibility to tell you what your rights are?

I didn't read the whole thing, just the first little bit. What I got was that they wanted to put safeguards in. In one case they mentioned (Escobedo v. Illinois) the police didn't stop questioning the man when he tried to assert his rights by telling them he wanted to speak to a lawyer and then they blocked his lawyer from speaking with him.

Click to expand...

OK. Do what you thinkis right.

imported post

Just say no.

imported post

Wonder what the response would be if you tell them that they will
need to be blindfolded to stop any possible search outside said
bedroom they wish to search.

Myself as the school principle they do not have permission to enter
school property with weapons. Another great advantage to home schooling.
Bet they would soil there shorts if they came by on gun safety / shooting day.
"Sorry officer, but the room is closed for safety till after shooting is finished"

I am sure ACLU is only upset because of the word search not about what
they are searching for.

imported post

I enjoy looking at scenarios from as many angles as possible. That being said, I think there is definitely something to be gained from viewing this whole fiasco from the eyes of the Mayor and Police Chief.

Both have a very political job - obviously the Mayor does, but so does the PC in some respects. He has to maintain the whole department and attempt to keep morale and unity within the department itself.

Now we all know that with a recent surge of shootings in that area and many sheeple anti's out there shouting for something to be done, the Mayor has to do something to at least make it look as if he is trying to stop the violence.

Remember, the primary goal of a politician is to get re-elected.

So, inevitably, he has a talk with Mr. Wray the Police Chief. "We need something done," he says. They concoct a "program" as I'm sure other areas have tried in the past and cross their fingers that with the proper support from other key politico's in the area they can please everybody.

Do they really expect the "program" to work? Maybe. Do they know/understand the effects it will have on the people's rights if it is put into action? Perhaps. Do they care? Almost certainly not.

You see, politics is much, much different from a normal working man's job. You never hear of scandals of heirarchy at the construction site. Because everybody understands their job and respect one another enough to live and let live.

Take Barack Obama on the other hand... I would venture to say that nearly every action he has taken since being elected was "payback" for all the people who made it possible for him to get into office.

The same can be said for Mayor Cieslewicz. He may not be as crooked as Obama is, but I can guarantee you he has benefactors who are pulling the strings.

I think there is a danger in assuming that all LEO's are out to get us. Would I let a "peace officer" into my house under these circumstances? Absolutely not. However, just like many things in this world, the figurehead is not always in control. The police are doing their job as dictated by their cheif supervisor, and he is doing his job as dictated by the man who tells him what to do, etc...

Most LEO's are not power-hungry brutes out to ruin people's lives. There are definitely those out there, but I know many police officers and I personally believe that the majority of LEO's out there today are honest, hard-working men and women who are just doing their job.

imported post

Double post :?