Boston warrantless searches still on

The "knock and talk" has been a long proven investigative technique. The practice is legal and is NOT a violation of any civil rights. You may not care for it and may not like it but it is legal and is a practice that has been in existence in law enforcement for decades in narotics investigations.

Now...with that being said. I do not feel that this is entirely beneficial and I have my doubts as to whether under these circumstances it is a good investigative tool.

But they are in their rights to do it. If you want to argue whether it will be beneficial as an investigative tool then that is a legitimate argument. But do not say that what they are doing is a violation of civil rights.
 
Half Cocked said:
The "knock and talk" has been a long proven investigative technique. The practice is legal and is NOT a violation of any civil rights. [snip]

But do not say that what they are doing is a violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...
Un-freakin'-believable. [rolleyes]

Tell me, Half Cocked, do you also believe Tom Menino's crap about it being the GUN'S fault that kids are being shot?
 
dwarven1 said:
Un-freakin'-believable. [rolleyes]

Tell me, Half Cocked, do you also believe Tom Menino's crap about it being the GUN'S fault that kids are being shot?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part of my post where I stated that I did not think that what they are doing was a good idea!!!

What I said was that the "knock and talk" has been used for decades in narcotics investigations and is LEGAL!!!!!

Did I ever say that I agree with it?????

Again Dwarven1 you are unable to seperate the law from your personal opinions and you are assuming that when I state that something is legal that I am also in favor of it!

You know what they say when one assumes!
 
Half Cocked said:
That does not make it illegal though...does it!
Click to expand...

I wonder just where, along this slippery slope, might reluctance to talk to the friendly officer (operating strictly within the law) become probable cause for a search ... or, what level of reticence on the part of the owner might convince a judge that this fellow MUST be hiding SOMETHING?

I know that all this is highly speculative, of course. I'm sure no one has ever been subject to a search because he "looks guilty".
 
theGringo said:
I wonder just where, along this slippery slope, might reluctance to talk to the friendly officer (operating strictly within the law) become probable cause for a search ... or, what level of reticence on the part of the owner might convince a judge that this fellow MUST be hiding SOMETHING?

I know that all this is highly speculative, of course. I'm sure no one has ever been subject to a search because he "looks guilty".
Click to expand...


Last I checked, reluctance to talk to an officer and "this fellow MUST be hiding SOMETHING" does not give rise to probable cause.

And no one has ever been subjected to a LEGAL search because he "looked guilty".
 
Half Cocked said:
The "knock and talk" has been a long proven investigative technique. The practice is legal and is NOT a violation of any civil rights. You may not care for it and may not like it but it is legal and is a practice that has been in existence in law enforcement for decades in narotics investigations.

Now...with that being said. I do not feel that this is entirely beneficial and I have my doubts as to whether under these circumstances it is a good investigative tool.

But they are in their rights to do it. If you want to argue whether it will be beneficial as an investigative tool then that is a legitimate argument. But do not say that what they are doing is a violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...

Correct. One may argue - persuasively - that it is a coercive technique which relies upon intimidation for access, but unless and until the officer physically forces his way past the lawful occupant of the dwelling or uses such threat of force or retribution as to overcome the will of the resisting occupant (good luck proving that), the "knock and talk" is not a violation of civil rights.

Not that half the buffoons the technique is applied to have the foggiest notion of just what their rights are.... [rolleyes]
 
Half Cocked said:
The "knock and talk" has been a long proven investigative technique. ...But they are in their rights to do it.
Click to expand...

I really like to use "rights" in reference to individuals. When police act within legal limits, I prefer saying they exercise "powers" granted by the people.

But I'm just fussy that way.
 
MaverickNH said:
I really like to use "rights" in reference to individuals. When police act within legal limits, I prefer saying they exercise "powers" granted by the people.

But I'm just fussy that way.
Click to expand...

As were those who created the Constitution, particularly Madison, who expressly distinguished the government's powers from people's rights.
 
I saw a bit in today's Herald that consenting residents will be required to sign a waiver - it would be interesting to see what is being waived...
 
MaverickNH said:
I saw a bit in today's Herald that consenting residents will be required to sign a waiver - it would be interesting to see what is being waived...
Click to expand...

Consent to search forms are fairly standard. Every police department uses them and generally indicate that the person in control of the property is allowing officers to search the property without a warrant and that they can refuse if they chose and that the officers would be required to have a warrant to search without the consent. They also generally state (if they are well written) that the person can withdraw their consent at any time and that the officers would have to cease with the search. They also "should" state that the person has given the consent freely and voluntarily without any intimidation, threats or coercion.
 
Half Cocked said:
Consent to search forms are fairly standard. Every police department uses them and generally indicate that the person in control of the property is allowing officers to search the property without a warrant and that they can refuse if they chose and that the officers would be required to have a warrant to search without the consent. They also generally state (if they are well written) that the person can withdraw their consent at any time and that the officers would have to cease with the search. They also "should" state that the person has given the consent freely and voluntarily without any intimidation, threats or coercion.
Click to expand...


You can be sure this form will be anything but standard. Don't forget, the deal is that you let the cops search and they won't charge your kid for the gun, unless it has been used in a crime. Lots of nuiances to be dealt with here.
 
maybe I am wrong, but from what I heard about this is they are looking for illegal guns. (ie not registered, ser # removed, sawed off shotgun, stolen firearms) and I have no problem getting NON LICENSED individuals/criminals firearms taken away.... yes, they will prob end up getting another one eventually, but what if they were going to rob YOUR house the next day with the one that was taken away?

that being said, if an officer comes to YOUR door, tell him "no thanks, no illegal guns here, have a good one"
 
Doctordrew said:
maybe I am wrong, but from what I heard about this is they are looking for illegal guns. (ie not registered, ser # removed, sawed off shotgun, stolen firearms) and I have no problem getting NON LICENSED individuals/criminals firearms taken away.... "
Click to expand...

I recollect some figures before and after Lifetime FID cards were revoked, with something like 10s of thousands of guns presumed "disposed of" by their owners or, more likley, no longer legally held. I have personally met such a gunowner and let them know of the revocation - they just said lifetime is lifetime and had no plan to take any further action.

So all guns not legally held are not in the hands of criminals. Or, at least, the only criminal act they committed was not re-upping a Lifetime FID card to continue ownership.
 
theGringo said:
I wonder just where, along this slippery slope, might reluctance to talk to the friendly officer (operating strictly within the law) become probable cause for a search ... or, what level of reticence on the part of the owner might convince a judge that this fellow MUST be hiding SOMETHING?

I know that all this is highly speculative, of course. I'm sure no one has ever been subject to a search because he "looks guilty".
Click to expand...

Actually, they have, in the past, used the "lack of cooperation" to get a warrant. Today, though, is a totally different matter.

I'm sure they could get a judge to sign a warrant for it, as some Judges have been known to sign blank warrants in this country.

And I also know that the search would not hold up in court, during any future criminal case.
 
MaverickNH said:
So all guns not legally held are not in the hands of criminals. Or, at least, the only criminal act they committed was not re-upping a Lifetime FID card to continue ownership.
Click to expand...

At the risk of seeming redundant:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand
 

Similar threads

Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
973
1sern
1
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
327
M1911
M1911
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
761
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
*UPDATE 4/8* Goin on 4 months and still at “local pd”
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
JDL
JDL
Georgia on my mind
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom