Allahpundit has a great post. He cites this article for the background:
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.
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.
The question: An unconstitutional search or not?
You are dealing with the 2nd and 4th amendments
Cases that may be of use to you:
Please cite your sources, I would love to know your thoughts…
Technically, as long as the parents give permission, it’s not unconstitutional. The PARENTS are the heads of the households, not the kids. Now if the police try to obtain a warrant for every household that refuses, that would raise serious questions about constitutionality. Keep in mind, that while the kids may not like it, they are not the heads of the house and have no legal right to deny the police entry to their rooms if the parents do so.
Here we are comming to a police state i mean and BOSTON was the place where america got started i mean wheres the ACLU not doing anything about this the way they protect terrorists and atheists wackos:o
No doubt “Progressives” support this program, and want to expand it to warrantless searches of every household for evil guns. No rights for gun owners, you see.
But asking voters for legal ID?
We can’t do that! Thats TERRIBLE!!!
FAO nailed it in post 1: as long as the parent consents to the search, it is entirely Constutional. It is just like any other search and seizure- the police does not need a warrant if the property owner consents freely.
3, Robert, I have to agree more with Ted than you. The PC Boston cops are looking for the gangbangers and their guns. If they are just looking for guns, then I side with you.
“the police does not need a warrant if the property owner consents freely”
Becareful on that one…read U.S. v. Hudspeth from the above list…
Now, as much as we like to say that kids have no rights, they do. They are afforded the same rights as an adult when facing criminal charges. Cops need to obtain warrants to search a kids home as it is..
If the cops were doing this to just round up the guns and be done with it, I don’t think there would be a problem. BUT, and there is always a big but..
Some of the weapons seized could have been used in a prior crime and therefore the cops will prosecute…also, depending upon the quantity found, drug charges can come up as well.
I am all for the program and feel that it is the parents home and if they give permission, then that is the law. These parents are desperate, and to many, it is a chance to set their kids life on the right path…but that is my wishful thinking..
Instead of coming in and saying we, along with your parents, are taking back the neighborhoods, they offer a half-assed solution to a big problem. Go in seize the guns and drugs and say..there, that’s your last warning, next time you get prison. We are on to you, we now know where to look and who to look for..but no..that would be too easy..
“Becareful on that one:read U.S. v. Hudspeth from the above list:”
Why?
Now, as much as we like to say that kids have no rights, they do. They are afforded the same rights as an adult when facing criminal charges. Cops need to obtain warrants to search a kids home as it is.”
The child is not the property owner, the parents are. Generally, children can not be sole property owners until they are no longer minors. If the parents consent to the police searching the child’s room it is entirely Constitutional.
Well Ted, had you read the case I asked you too, it clearly negates what you said. You keep claiming that the search is constitutional, yet you can’t site cases to back it up..
8.
No- I read it. I don’t see why it backs the arguement that it is unConstitutional.
One can not be denied a right it is isn’t theirs to be denied. Children mostly can not land owners, thus they can not be denied or allowed a right afforded of landowners.
In this case, the parents are the land owners- if they consent to the search it is entirely legal. It is the same reason a parent can go into a children’s room at will and search it. The child has no right to deny it.
Let me be more specific for you Pam:
“Even though Mrs. Hudspeth’s consent was voluntary and not coerced, theconsent to the seizure of the home computer was not valid because her consent cannot”overrule”Mr. Hudspeth’s denial of consent.
In this case, we are talking about co-ownership of property rights. In the case of a child, they do not own the property and thus do not have said rights.
In U.S. v. Hudspeth, one of the property owners did give permission to search a home..the other hadn’t..therefore the evidence was tossed..so just because one owner gives permission freely does not make it a legal search.
11.
See post #10
11, Pam, Ted is right. Juveniles DO NOT have the same rights as adults, and Parental property rights DO override the Juvenile property rights and privacy rights.
Then it should be no problem citing that contention should it…
“Then it should be no problem citing that contention should it:”
No, no dear. That isn’t the way it works.
You are contending that children have the same property rights as adults, and then you cited a precenedent to support your conclusion. I demonstrated that in U.S. v. Hudspeth, you falsely cited said precedent as it does not pertain to the situation as a child is not the co-property owner.
You need to cite a case that demostrates the child is a co-property owner, otherwise your contention fails.
Wrong Ted, let me take you back up to the original post:
So, that is the way it works..Your opinion is great, but you have yet to cite a case that is applicable to your opinion.
Yes you did. You cited a case (U.S. v. Hudspeth,) that in no way supports your contention that children have property ownership rights. U.S. v. Hudspeth in no way supports that contention.
I am not making the assertion- your are. The burdon of proof is yours.
I am not talking about my opinion- I am talking about you mis-citing a case that in no way supports your assertion. If you are continuing to say it supports your assertion, please clarify why it does.
Otherwise, show me a case that says that minor children have property ownership rights within their parent’s houses.
Yes Ted, the above cited cases are all relevant to the discussion. I asked the readers to support their claims of it being a contitional or unconsitutional search. You make a claim, but can not back it up…it was an excercise in proving your assumption..you assumed but are unable to provide proof that it is correct…You are assuming that property rights are what this will be decided upon..
No, I didn’t assume anything. You are talking about personal search and seizure rights, which isn’t relevant to a property seach. You have to establish that the children have property search rights simply because they have residence in the house.
This is a property search, plain an simple:
“Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes.”
And I am still awaiting your explanation of how U.S. v. Hudspeth applies, as I clearly demonstrated that it does not. In that case, they were two adults that were co-owners of the property. Children are not co-owners of the property, as the parent are the sole owners.
The Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Where does this eliminate anyone?
Consent is given by the property owner (the parents) as they waive their rights, there for it is does not fall under the category of an unreasonable search and seizure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches
“In the U.S., the simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent.[1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search.[2]
A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search.[1] The person has the right to refuse to give consent,[1] and except in limited cases may revoke consent at any point during the search.[3] In addition, the prosecution in any trial using the search results as evidence is required to prove that the consent was voluntary and not a result of coercion.[4]
Sources cited in the article.
So the parents can waive their child’s 4th amendment right? Do the parents own the property being seized? Under your logic, it is the parents home, the child owns nothing, therefore the parents, are the ones that should be prosecuted..
22.
Exactly.
The person giving consent is indeed the property owner, which is is the parent as the property is the owned or leased by the parent.
Per your article:
“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.”
Now we are back to square 1: you have to prove the contention that children have co-property ownership rights with their parents.
No Pam- the children do not own their bedroom. If they did, they could deny you the right to enter the bed room, even as a a parent.
That is what I am requesting in the previous post.
If you are asserting that they do own said bedoroom, please cite a case that supports that assertion.
So the parents are the ones that will be prosecuted…not the kids because they can’t own anything..
25.
That is entirely up to the particular authority and their laws, but the search is itself completely legal per the Constitution as the property owner is waiving their 4th Amenedment rights.
The 4th amendment does not state that a parent can waive their childs right..”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It says nothing about a child not having rights..
27.
That’s irrelevant. It is the parent’s property, not the child’s person, that is being searched. Thus the parent can waive their own 4th amendment right if they wish.
First of all, 4th amendment rights are not limited to property owners. The conflict in Hudspeth is not regarding varying consent by co-owners, it is regarding varying consent by co-*tenants*. I have rights against warrantless search of my home, despite that the bank owns it. I have rights against warrantless search of my apartment, despite that my landlord owns it. I have rights against warrantless search of my hotel room, despite that I have only rented it for one night.
That said, USvMatlock says that the consent of a present co-tenant is sufficient, and some other case says “that’s true unless the absent co-tenant has *expressly* refused consent.” I think that would apply in these cases.
HOWEVER, anyone who suspects that there might be contraband in their home would be absolutely insane to allow a warrantless search unless they had secured immunity. Doesn’t mean they’ll know that or have the nerve to refuse. “Voluntary consent to a warrantless search” is not likely to be quite as voluntary as voluntarily going to the corner store for a candybar.