Police to search for guns in homes
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."
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."
0
-
Another "feel good" program.
If you find a gun in a gangbangers parents home, and confiscate it,.......how long before they have replaced it?
Less than 24 hours I would say, and a good chance that it would be through burglary of a decent persons home.
Just another joke, and waste of resources.[xx(]0 -
Well, I don't agree with the program or believe in its efficacy, but it's still legal. A search with the consent of the occupant is as legal as it gets. 0 -
quote:"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.' "
WTH? This sucks...parents have no backbone anymore if they need the police to come in and help them "get a hold of the household". My parents (and grandparents) sure had no problem making sure we all knew who was in charge.
This country is circling the porcelain pool at a very swift rate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Another "feel good" program.
If you find a gun in a gangbangers parents home, and confiscate it,.......how long before they have replaced it?
Less than 24 hours I would say, and a good chance that it would be through burglary of a decent persons home.
Just another joke, and waste of resources.[xx(]
Yup, this is not the answer. These criminals are going to have guns regardless. Sounds like this could create more crime. Illegal gun sales on the street, burglaries, etc. Let them have it. Lets concentrate on getting rightful citizens the tools necessary to protect themselves.0 -
Warrantless searches eh? Sounds familiar. [:(!] 0 -
quote:WTH? This sucks...parents have no backbone anymore if they need the police to come in and help them "get a hold of the household". My parents (and grandparents) sure had no problem making sure we all knew who was in charge.
This country is circling the porcelain pool at a very swift rate.
BINGO!!! Doc, I agree with you 10000% Whatever happened to people doing what needed to be done?0 -
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
Warrantless searches eh? Sounds familiar. [:(!]
Smells like the "NAZIS" to me ...0 -
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
Warrantless searches eh? Sounds familiar. [:(!]
Gues what? Police don't need warrants IF THEY HAVE THE OCCUPANTS' PERMISSION AND CONSENT TO SEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY COULD ALWAYS SAY "NO" AND THE POLICE WOULD HAVE NO RECOURSE BUT TO GET A WARRANT. Get a clue.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
Warrantless searches eh? Sounds familiar. [:(!]
Smells like the "NAZIS" to me ...
Which shows just how much you DON'T understand about Nazi Germany.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
Well, I don't agree with the program or believe in its efficacy, but it's still legal. A search with the consent of the occupant is as legal as it gets.
+1
Anyone is free to give up their right to be free of a government search without a warrant.
Throughout my career, it has never ceased to amaze me that so many are willing to do so without any hesitation. Just toss out the old "if you have nothing to hide, why would you not consent" line and people trip all over themselves to give away their rights.
Pathetic to me, but to each his/her own.0 -
Totally agree with Medic, maybe it's time parents take off "a layer of skin" from their wayward children before they get to the stage where the 'loving' Moms and non-existent Dads loose control. It's easy to make babies, being a responsible parent takes the time. 0 -
Slippery slope.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Slippery slope.
Doug
Yep Doug.
Action such as this shouldn't be tolerated by American Citizens, but they are and will continue to be tolerated unless some miracle awakening occurs among the populace.
Setting all that aside, it IS legal AND constitutional. A "consensual" encounter with an agent of the government merely asking for permission to do something is not out of bounds of law, just out of bounds of reasoned, knowledgeable and good citizenship.0 -
wth the parents should be the ones searching the bedrooms.
besides the cops are only going to find hipoints what a waste of tax money0 -
Well when the Police find Crack Cocaine in Jr's room guess who will be charged? 0 -
So the cops won't mess with stolen property, reefer plants, or loud stereos? Not just no, but hell no to any consent search. A GD fishing expedition is all it is. 0 -
Just a logical step, after all...
Remember the 'logic' used by the supporters of the freedom destroying "Patriot Act".."If you have nothing to hide, why worry" ??
Used as an excuse for ALL the sneaking and prying by the meglomanics and their supporters...so gosh..whats the beef here ?
At LEAST...you have the option of denying access...UNLIKE the snakes that may enter you house without a warrant...OR a judges consent..under the laws today...all they got to do is declare you a "terrorist"...0 -
--
-"if you have nothing to hide, why would you not consent"
Answer: "You don't know, do you? Now get the F%$# OUT!"
All I can say is that if your door gets busted down and these black suited Nazi-types come charging in, aim high.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
All I can say is that if your door gets busted down and these black suited Nazi-types come charging in, aim high.
Or punch through....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
--
-"if you have nothing to hide, why would you not consent"
Answer: "You don't know, do you? Now get the F%$# OUT!"
All I can say is that if your door gets busted down and these black suited Nazi-types come charging in, aim high.
Read the article....... It says if the parents say "NO" to a search, the cops will leave. Its basically voluntary. No ones busting down doors.0 -
Kennedyland [:(][:(]
0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Slippery slope.
Doug
Yep Doug.
Action such as this shouldn't be tolerated by American Citizens, but they are and will continue to be tolerated unless some miracle awakening occurs among the populace.
Setting all that aside, it IS legal AND constitutional. A "consensual" encounter with an agent of the government merely asking for permission to do something is not out of bounds of law, just out of bounds of reasoned, knowledgeable and good citizenship.
but it will be tolerated by a large majority of American citizens especially the type that choose to stay in these type areas as they are the type that wants the government to do everything for them from parenting to welfare paychecks and socialized medicine because it just easier for somebody else to do it, that way all you have to do is go out and kick the mailbox once a month and voila!, there's a check for you0 -
[:o)] 0 -
Real parents, if they suspected their child was up to something, would simply search the room without any suggestion from the police. Then, if they found anything, they could turn it over.
I have a feeling that the non-parents who raise these hoodlums will not consent to a search for fear the cops will find their illegal possessions as well.
Even so, a consent search is legal, and a parent has a right to search, or allow a search, of his minor child's room.0 -
Legal consent search?
Yes.
Do I feel I need it or would allow it?
No.
If I feel the need to search my kids room, I open the door and look. I'd more likely be looking to get some of my socks back.[:D]0 -
If I still had children at home, and if the police showed up at my door and said they had reason to believe that my child was involved in XXXX activity, and may have XXXX type of contraband in his room, I would tell the officers something like this:
"No, you may not come in and search. Thank you for your concern, but I will check his room, and if I find anything interesting, I will call you. May I have your business card?"
MY HOUSE, MY RULES.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
If I still had children at home, and if the police showed up at my door and said they had reason to believe that my child was involved in XXXX activity, and may have XXXX type of contraband in his room, I would tell the officers something like this:
"No, you may not come in and search. Thank you for your concern, but I will check his room, and if I find anything interesting, I will call you. May I have your business card?"
MY HOUSE, MY RULES.
Precisely.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
Warrantless searches eh? Sounds familiar. [:(!]
Smells like the "NAZIS" to me ...
It appears that some lose comprehension beyond the first paragraph. This story is about people who are inviting searches of their homes.
We have the constitutional right to be free from illegal searches, but we also have the constitutional right to invite anyone we wish into our home to paw through it's contents-including the gov't. Whether you agree with it or not, the ability to give such consent is another example of freedom.
I don't see this story as an example of how intrusive our gov't is becoming. Instead it shows the inevitable result of people's lack of personal responsibility. Years of people seeing the gov't showing up and taking care of their problems has led to some becoming so comfortable with this that they're willing to abdicate authority within their own homes. It's reached the point that people are actually requesting the authorities to come look under their kids beds for them.
This is a story about a nanny state, not a Nazi state.0 -
quote: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. . . .
Don't they understand that it is the person that is the dangerous object?0 -
If every house they visited politely said "no you cannot search" this program will be gone in a week.
If its a miserable failure, it wont last long. If someone is stupid enough to let them in to search, they deserve whatever trouble comes their way.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments