In fairness, you neglected to quote the Preamble, which specifically exempts teenagers.

Well, they’re poor, and probably brown. Constitutional rights aren’t meant for them.

I’m normally with you guys, but “unconstitutional”?
Last I knew, my house is my house. If I let police search it, that’s my decision. My kids don’t get a vote.
Not commenting on whether this is a good plan, or an effective one.
Do kids have constitutional rights? Sure. They don’t extend into my house, for the most part, though. I am free to ban speech, enforce a religion\nonreligion, ignore due process, etc.
My house is my house. I can tell the Feds No if I want.
What is the problem here?

This is also the initial step on the slippery slope to gutting the Second Amendment. Obviously most of the guns found will be illegal & unregistered, but if this goes over well it’s a only a matter of time until some Blackwater son of a bitch is breaking your door down. And of course every Mme. DeFarge who wants you to mow your lawn more often will be calling the squeal-like-a-pig tip line, & even if you don’t let them in or they don’t find any guns, anything else will be fair game, & you can bet your name will be on a list or seven somewhere.

And how long will this remain in “high-crime” neighborhoods? Who defines a “high-crime” neighborhood?

First they come for the poorer, darker peoples’ guns. Then they come for yours.

Oh crap. Just noticed. Some of you may remember there was an Ed Davis who was Chief Oinker in L. A. during the ’70s. He was best known for advocating on the spot, set up a gallows at the airport executions of aircraft highjackers. He’s dead now, but it seems his namesake is filling his shoes well.

Wow, sal. You can’t see any problem with this program? You wouldn’t be bothered by cops ‘asking’ to search your home on the strength of your neighbor’s gossip (or say later that they ‘asked’ when what they really did was ‘push their way in’)?

But if you need more, just imagine this scenario:

You’re a hard-working single-mother, finally relaxing at home after a day at work. It’s nightime. The doorbell rings. Three or four beefy, menacing-looking guys are on your porch and one says, “We heard your kid has a gun in his room. We’re gonna come in and search for it — and the rest of your home. ‘K?”

*I’m assuming you didn’t just leave off the ‘u’; you sound a little more rational than saul!

I see how this is a slippery slope, but sal is right. Cops can ask if they can ask your search your house now, so this doesn’t really change any laws or anything. You can still say no at any time, forcing the cops to go get a warrant or get bent.

I see how this is a slippery slope, but sal is right. Cops can ask if they can search your house now, so this doesn’t really change any laws or anything. You can still say no at any time, forcing the cops to go get a warrant or get bent.

I’m mostly with red on this one. Yeah, This could definitely be a slippery slope, and parents should be thoroughly informed that they do NOT have to say yes. Plus, Doodle Bean’s scenario sounds all too plausible to me.

But…I can allow the police into my home if I want to, even if they don’t have a warrant. After all, it’s my place. That isn’t unconstitutional in the slightest. I can also believe that there are parents who are legitimately scared of what their kids are up to.

So it really depends on how it plays out.

As for “high-crime neighborhoods,” that’s usually pretty easy to figure out. In Boston, we’re talking about Dorchester and Roxbury.

Now they can’t just barge into your house, or ask to come in, w/o probable cause, at least, preferably backed by a warrant, or in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Under this thing they can invade your house under virtually any excuse. They can call the tip line, then use the “anonymous” call as a pretext. Then they say you acted “real funny,” or you “threatened” them by telling them to fuck off & read the Constitution, & they’re inside. At best you’re on the list of people who might have guns & a “bad attitude.”

The point is, even if there were specific guidelines to define a high crime area, the police (who are not your friend) can juggle stats to make any area worthy of this sort of thing.

The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention[.]

So instead of saying “Look, here come some cops,” people will say, “Look, here come some cops in street clothes.” Negative attention avoided!

I also fail to see how this is unconstitutional.
“The officers will… ask the teenager’s parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.”

This is perfectly constitutional, and perfectly legal. Unfortunately, I suspect that police officers will do an awful lot more than “ask.”
“Do you mind if we come in and take a quick look around?” is cop-speak for “may we search every nook and cranny as thoroughly as we like for as long as we like?”

“If we have to go back and get a warrant, we’ll won’t be as nice on our return” is one good way to scare them into consenting, and is technically true, even if they couldn’t actually get a warrant.

“I’d hate to see you be arrested for something your kid brought into the house, ma’am” is another.

Indeed, a group of three(!) cops, standing in the doorway or in the living room, triple teaming some poor woman with every trick of persuasion and intimidation at their disposal to get her to consent to a search based on nothing but the merest whiff of suspicion is a bad idea.

The idea of them doing it over and over, essentially door to door as neighbors and other kids give them “tips” is an authoritarian’s wet dream. it’s a terrible idea, and frankly, UnAmerican.

But it’s not unconstitutional, or illegal.

Yeah, not a great idea, but also not unconstitutional.

You’ve got to appreciate the desperation of the police and their desire to fight crime and a truly intolerable level of teenagers being shot and killed. This isn’t the best way to do it.

Once they’re in the house, it’s extremely hard to get the cops to leave voluntarily, or not to look any place they like.

And if they find a gun or anything else illegal? Well, then the whole house gets a real good tossing and charges get filed. If a gun is found will the teen get charged? How about the parents for permitting the unregistered firearm to be in the house? I don’t think the outcome is handing over the gun, shake hands and everyone goes on their merry way.

At the very least the kid and the family is now known to the police to have been illegally in the possession of a firearm. Next time the police show up to that house it will be with a no-knock warrant and a swat team at dawn.

This sounds like an accidental shooting in the making. Kids in “high crime” areas have been shot carrying brushes, wallets and even candy bars.

And of course every Mme. DeFarge who wants you to mow your lawn more often will be calling the squeal-like-a-pig tip line….

I take your point, but the cops are not total morons, and they don’t have a whole lot of spare time on their hands. As a practical matter, I don’t think they can pay much attention to the Mrs. Grundys who call the police every time a guy in a do-rag wanders by with his hand in his coat pocket. If twelve people call them about some guy who’s staggering around mumbling about someone who’s gonna get shot, that’s a different story.

That raises another question, though. Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but would neighbors really know if a kid has a gun in his room? I don’t have the slightest idea if any of *my* neighbors do, and I don’t think I would know unless I started peering through windows. I don’t get it.

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.

The program, which is already raising questions among pro-choicers, is based n the premise that women are so fearful of regretting their abortion and the possibility of turning to drugs, slutting themselves or committing suicide that they will turn to crackpot organizations for help, even if they never believed in Jebus.

It’s nice to hear people care so much they try to save you from yourself.

Aren’t they kinda going at this a bit bass-ackwards? OK, let’s root out all those illegal firearms the kidlets are hiding…but, why not go more agressively after those who are PROVIDING these weapons? It’s the old BNDD/DEA thing all over again: ignore the source, try to cure it from the user end.

If twelve people call them about some guy who’s staggering around mumbling about someone who’s gonna get shot, that’s a different story.

…different enough that they might be able to get a warrant?

Great idea! Now, lets include Stoneham and Brockton and the other ‘burbs and see how this is received.

I don’t like the hot-line, anonymous tip aspect–or even the “I live next door,
my name is (real name provided), and they have guns there” aspect.

If a parent wants to call the cops and invite them in, either to search in ways the parent wouldn’t think of, or just to send the teenager a message, that’s one thing.

As soon as you trigger (sorry) it via third parties–even with the “right” to deny entry–it’s authoritarian and bogus.

And J–‘s line is perfect. “We’re not in uniform! We’re just three adult men who happen to walking around the ‘hood. Like Mormons, essentially.”

I also fail to see how this is unconstitutional.
“The officers will… ask the teenager’s parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.”

Exactly how many people in this country, do you suppose, know enough about the Constitution to be aware that they won’t have to let those officers in?

No, I am not slamming residents of “high-crime” neighborhoods, I am slamming the general public that watches “American Idol” and eats sausage-wrapped-in-pancake-on-a-stick.

Probable Cause.

Warrants.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

How does this program not fail to conform to these aspects of the Fourth?

Blatantly unconstitutional, playing upon suburbanites fears to further create an occupied territory mentality in minority and poor areas.

And you know what? does anybody doubt that the Republicans would be happy to use these teams to intimidate people and keep them home during elections?

If a parent wants to call the cops and invite them in, either to search in ways the parent wouldn’t think of, or just to send the teenager a message, that’s one thing.

As soon as you trigger (sorry) it via third parties–even with the “right” to deny entry–it’s authoritarian and bogus.

Yep. I still maintain that unless the parents come to the officers FIRST- rather than having the officers approach them at their homes based on anonymous tips- then those searches are unconstitutional. If you have legit probable cause to search someone’s home, then get a damn warrant.

Great idea! Now, lets include Stoneham and Brockton and the other ‘burbs and see how this is received.

Folks in Wellesley and Newton as well. They’d probably find a lot more expensive drugs in those homes than the odd dimebag they’d find in most Dorchester homes.

Well, if you actually have consent from someone in the house, you can search constitutionally. There was a supreme court case about two years ago that said if there was a split among residents of the house, one “yes please officer come in” is enough to get the officers in.

Of course, there are all kinds of issues. First of course is intimidation. Second is knowledge (not just in “high-crime” areas, but pretty much everywhere). There are also evidence issues. What happens if the illegal gun is not in the kid’s room, but in the hall? What if the police find drugs in the kid’s room? Is that probable cause to search the rest of the house without consent?

This is a bad, bad plan.

“MrWonderful said,

November 17, 2007 at 18:16

I don’t like the hot-line, anonymous tip aspect–or even the “I live next door,
my name is (real name provided), and they have guns there” aspect.

If a parent wants to call the cops and invite them in, either to search in ways the parent wouldn’t think of, or just to send the teenager a message, that’s one thing.

As soon as you trigger (sorry) it via third parties–even with the “right” to deny entry–it’s authoritarian and bogus.”

Nailed it!

That feeling of discomfort any sensible citizen feels regarding this policy is righteously due to police suspicions derived from third-party, often anonymous tips that are too sparse to create probable cause.

As any Criminal Procedure 101 class will teach: the most constitutionally warranted search has a solid basis (ie, known, reliable informant or first-person, eyewitness affidavit by an officer) and solid corroboration by follow-up investigation.

Weak basis can be compensated by strong corroboration and vice versa, but in this instance, you have very weak basis being corroborated by a purported consensual search.

If the basis is the homeowner/parent, who then invites the police to search his or her child’s room for guns is perfectly sensible and no basis for labeling the police as overly authoritarian.

However, if the basis is third-party/anonymous and the corroboration is an intimidating, sudden visit from three cops, that is clearly an abuse of authority.

Anyone who thinks just because we all reserve the right to not consent to an unwarranted search, that makes police pressure to conduct such searches poses no threat to the spirit of the 4th Amendment has not read many unwarranted drug search and seizures cases (particularly in car trunks) that were wholly consented to by citizens who knew that contraband would be found there.

And if you think that just because the guy or gal had contraband in their trunk they deserved what they got, you don’t really appreciate the spirit of the 4th Amendment, which is meant to protect the stupid as much as the intelligent citizen from unlawful searches and seizures.

I see how this is a slippery slope, but… this doesn’t really change any laws or anything.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of slippery slopes.

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.

That’s reassuring. I know that here in Texas, law enforcement officials have always used their discretion wisely.

thanks, jlo. It helps to have someone chime in who’s actually taken a law class (or sounds like they have).

And I see Dan’s concern here- for domestic abuse cases where one party clearly wants to let the cops in while the other does not, it does make sense to have a one-person consent rule.

Random thoughts:

1. To say this is unconstitutional is true but I don’t think anyone had an institutionalized system of random, wide-scale requests to search based on “tips” in mind when they wrote the 4th. Think about it, you’re reading this when someone knocks on the door. It’s three local police officers who ask to come in and look around. Because you know your rights you say no. Do you just go back to the computer or do you call a friend and rant for a few hours?

2. I hope to hell the local ACLU is going door to door reminding people that they can say no to the cops.

3. I think cops in uniforms would be a better idea. Does anyone remember the Land Shark skits from SNL? I guarantee various criminals are salivating over the idea of people who’ll open their door to someone says “BPD” in an authoritative voice.

4. I guess making guns much harder to get is out of the question?

Arky- yes, taking illegal gun dealers off the street would help. But it’s not exactly easy.

Look, as somebody who has had a LOT of dealings with street-level law enforcement, let me offer a bit of perspective.

With cops, its a game. The whole consent to search thing? They are trained, both in classrooms and by highly experienced training officers to coerce consent. And they are DAMN good at it. You’d be surprised how hard it is for most people to stand up to them and say “NO”.

Plus, they do tend to develop excellent instincts. You do what they do long enough, you can “just tell” if there’s something there. Now, that ain’t a warrant, and that ain’t a legal search, but if they decide they’re coming in, they’re coming in, and typically will find SOMETHING and then you try to tell your attorney it was a bad search and he’ll agree, but unless you have a couple credible witnesses (which you won’t, because the cops know how to separate you to keep that from happening) he won’t even offer it as a line of defense.

Lastly, and I know this will AMAZE you, but cops will also lie. Lie to support their actions, and lie to support each other. My best example of this is some drug possesion cases against me. We all know how good we get at hiding our controlled substances, but on several occasions when I was searched OVER MY VOCIFEROUS OBJECTIONS, illegally, and when they finally found the stash the police report stated it was “in plain sight”.

And how does the doper argue with the nice men in uniforms?

Nope. It’s just another part of the game, and they will always win, because to them, the rules are not something to be followed, but something to be gotten around…

mikey

Mikey nails it again.

This reminds me of racial profiling in traffic stops, followed by “I’m going to take a look in your car, ok?” sort of consent.

Reliance on anonymous tipsters and focusing on teenagers is similar to the profiling aspect. Asking for consent to search under extremely intimidating circumstances? Fahgeddabowdit.

And, like he says, they can always just lie. Fake the tip, claim to consent that was explicitly refused, declare hidden contraband to be in plain sight, etc.

As it is, warrants are minimal protection from such tactics.

The “neighborhood sweep” aspect of this really sucks too. Does anyone really think that rural or suburban teenagers don’t have AT LEAST as much a problem with both drugs and guns? If so, you’re living in a dreamworld.

But let cops pull this kind of shit in a gated community and watch the righteous indignation flow, never mind that virtually all of the highly-publicized school shootings have been in middle-class white ‘burbs. Let them pull it in rural areas and watch the bullets fly, ala Ruby Ridge.

1. Lets add a little more fear and intimidation to the people who live in the targeted neighborhoods. I am sure they all trust authority and Johnny law. Watch the “no snitching” sales go through the roof. The concern troll cops.

2. A program like this will cost money. So anyone suspecting a neighbor or a local business of cheating on their taxes and possibly stuffing the money into their mattress and home safes should contact the local authorities to subject these people to voluntary searches and audits. I know I am suspicious if I see a new Volvo sitting in the driveway of McMansion Village. Probably probable cause, what say you? I know that family restaurant owners never pocket every 6th bill or just leave the register open during the lunch crowd, so I might be talking crazy here. Also, say for example Aunt Tilly is in town dog sitting and they ask her if it OK to search the premises and audit the fiscal accounts of the home owners or business owners, I don’t see why Aunt Tilly would assume you have anything to hide from these nice officers. Please come in I am sure the Smiths would not mind a bit.

I hate the “fuck em it won’t be no skin off my nose” guys.

Mikey nails it, again, and he’s got the personal experience to back it up too. I’ve got a relative who’s trained in this “how to get someone to confess/give permission, etc” stuff, and they have it down to an art. It works extremely well, and if you are ever on the receiving end you will be shocked at just how well it does work. Come on folks, how far have we been pulled to the right that we can’t immediately see the HUGE potential for authoritarian abuse by this?

Yeah, well, they take a little bit at a time, set the precedents, look for soft targets, use red herrings and before you know it, you’re living in a fascist’s dream.

Same crap they used against dog owners but we were all just worried about the poor doggies, they said.

Sadly, no!

Interacting with cops is one of the few times I’m glad to be a rich white male. I give them a respectful yet annoyed ‘tude, and they never fuck with me. Best defense is a strong offense. Only time I’ve ever had handcuffs on me, they came off, cuz I kept my head and knew better than they did where the weed came from in the car, as I’d put it there myself moments earlier.
Even got a money quote from one of the state task force douches that was in the unmarked that stopped us. “At least I have job security”, he said, in response to my questioning the seriousness of a task force that involved stopping white boys and searching a car after finding a couple grams of pot, audibly hoping to find coke so they could seize it.
But yeah, this program is all kinds of bad.

I, for one, can’t believe all the militia-type rhetoric in this thread. Besides that, you are just selling out your friends whose pet issue is gun control.

I think you’re all white, privileged, a bunch of David Horowitzes in embryo!

Wait, I know how they justify it!

Black people being counted as only 3/5 of a white person, they also get only 3 out of every 5 rights. Therefore, the 4th doesn’t apply.

Do I get a prize?

God damn it.

Considering the original intent of the founding fathers, that makes perfect sense to me, Jon.

[…] Others: Just Barking Mad, Sadly, No!, Don Surber, LewRockwell.com Blog, Liberty Papers, Free Constitution, Bob Krumm, Traction Control, […]

This is abnormally simple for me.

Anything that gives more power to the sort of bullying, stick-up-the-ass, jackboot person who wanted to become a cop is a bad thing. So of course the people who are chickenshit support it. Here’s a surprise for you, kids have rights. I know you spent many years being told you didn’t have them, and you treasured the day you’d get to deny them to your own kids, but the Constitution doesn’t fucking work that way.

Your kids have rights, they don’t have to put up with this authoritarian bullshit from you or the pigs.

I’d like to add that the whole “plain-clothes” thing just reeks of secret police tactics.

Some anonymous guys show up on my neighbor’s porch at midnight. I look through my window as I pass by on the way to the bathroom, and see my neighbor let them in. The next day, the neighbor’s house is dark and I don’t see them again. We live in a rough neighborhood, I don’t know my neighbor well. I just shrug my shoulders. Who knows? I don’t want to get involved.

[…] lefty Sadly No site posted: “This is an utterly preposterous program. I hope the ACLU shuts this down right […]

Arky- yes, taking illegal gun dealers off the street would help. But it’s not exactly easy.

Sure. And doesn’t it creep you out a little that door-to-door search requests is the “easier” solution?

Nice use of Bob Dylan’s phrase… esoteric in application but clever!

Believe me, I do not defend this endeavor. But it must be said that as described it simply is not unconstitutional. It is 1L black letter law that consent to a search is by definition reasonable, and thus not violative of the 4th Am. — and that has been so for a loooong time, and not as a result of authoritarians on the SCOTUS bench.

That said, anyone with the slightest knowledge of how cops operate is aware that they can make it seem awfully disadvantageous to withhold consent. Like saying if they have to return with a warrant they’ll leave the place torn up and in shambles.

Further, if the minor has a gun in a locked box or something, s/he is evidencing a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the cops likely need a warrant for that even with parental search permission. But otherwise, if mom and dad say go ahead and search, that is legal.

To be fair, if the home owner LET’S them in and gives them permission to search around, I don’t think they’re required to have a warrant.

What Sal said.

I still don’t like cops. On the plus side, this program will probably be unpopular with the police there, as well, as it takes away from valuable time writing traffic tickets.

Well, they can knock and go away.

But even if they get permission, it’s unlikely to hold in court.

Still, not sure that having police available for parents to access to confiscate stuff doesn’t seem all that untoward…

…Tho I remember when my mum stole my computer while I was out at work, in order to ‘get me to find more work’ instead of ‘staying on that computer’ and the police wouldn’t help.

I couldn’t even move out and take my computer with me. Argh. I lost a good paying publishing job because of it, too.

No, I was over 18.

Nifty stuff. Say, how does that Fourth Amendment thingee go again? Oh yeah, something like this …

Why don’t you read what you’re cutting and pasting? The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It has never been understood to prohibit consensual searches.

The police will not ever enter my home without a warrant. But that’s my decision, not yours. I pay the mortgage here. You don’t decide who enters my house. I do. And if I take a notion to invite the police into my home, I will. If you don’t like it, tough.

I’m stunned by the number of people, left and right, who think it their prerogative to get up in everyone else’s business.

the cops are not total morons, and they don’t have a whole lot of spare time on their hands.

total morons. But they are, by and large, pretty fucking moronic. And a violent authoritarian jackoff always makes time to fuck with other people for fun and profit.

Sorry, the beginning of my reply should be “I agree, they’re not total morons.”

I thought there had been cases where the DA argued that denying requests for searches gave the police probable cause to perform the search. Basically the ONLY possible reason anyone would ever have to refuse a search is that you must be hiding a crime and therefore the cops have probable cause to find what you are hiding. Hadn’t the SCOTUS upheld that view?

But that was back in the old Ed Meese days. For you youngsters out there, Ed Meese was AG under the first Bush president (1981- 1992, under Acting-President Reagan who was never actually president). Meese said the the Miranda law (where cops read you your rights) should be abolished because the police only arrested you because you MUST have been doing something wrong anyway.

Ah, Ed Meese.

In a way, he’s responsible for all these jag-off AGs Bush the Second foists off on us. He not only did that, but he was also the one responsible for the anti-pornography witch trials, and I’m pretty sure held some of the bag in the “parental warning label” witch trials.

Basically, if the kids liked it, Meese wanted to fuck with it.

Also, all this “king of the castle” macho bullshit.

Who decides who gets final say? My dad makes the money to “pay” the mortgage on his house. On the other hand, my mother is the one who actually pays the bills, as in, goes through the paperwork and sends the checks. And, the house is on a second or third mortgage (I’d have to check), so the bank probably has a say in ownership at this point as well.

So who lets the cops in?

Can the landlord of an apartment complex let in the cops? After all, it’s his building, and everyone else is just paying for the privilege of living in the shit boxes he rents out.

The ONLY thing Meese ever did that I could agree with was to personally order security to let a bike messenger in wearing a t-shirt that read “Experts agree: Meese is a pig!”

Anyway, on topic here,

Denouncing freinds and neighbors to the authorities is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian police states, going all the way back to at least the middle ages.

The ‘neighborhood watch’ program is the friendly US version. There was that chilling scene in 1984 where the main character Winston Smith meets a neighbor in jail. His kids had turned him in for Thoughtcrime. And the parent was defending his kids (who are awful brats!), saying ‘I must have been saying something against Big Brother in my sleep. I don’t know what I did wrong, but my kids must be right about me.’

It is out constitutional duty to resist the authoritarian police state.

I am reminded of the great Dead Kennedys:
“Feeling bad?
Don’t bother to nag.
Just pick up the phone
and turn in a fag!”

Oh, and ‘king of the castle’? The bank owns your house, if you have a mortgage on it, and if not, then the state owns it, but both let you live there as long as you pay them for the priviledge.

Yeah, not a great idea, but also not unconstitutional.

But wouldn’t you agree that the cops are counting on a percentage of people to not know any better, and/or be intimidated by plainclothes cops flashing badges? Most people wouldn’t have the backbone or the knowledge to say, “Please come back with a warrant, describing what you are searching for / extect to find.”

Sound like an opportunity for the ACLU to pass out literature to remind Bostonians what their rights are. If cops searched apartments in my building, I might be one of the only people wise enough to tell them to come back with a warrant. And my building is up on a hill full of educated white and Hispanic people in Manhattan.

I was a plaintiff in the NYCLU case against the NYPD to stop the random bag searches. That was similar in that the citizen could refuse to be searched at the turnstiles. But the penalty would be that the citizen would have to find another subway entrance to use. The NYPD tells people who refuse to be searched to turn their ass around and not enter the system at that location.

Now that has to be unconstitutional. Not to mention it proves that entrance to the system is easy. All you have to do is find another nearby unguarded row of turnstiles.

But the courts took the NYPD’s word that it was OK. Really. The NYPD said ‘trust us’ and the courts caved. Years from now, we might see NYPD checkpoints in front of movie theatres, restaurants, nightclubs, or any other locations their corrupt ex-CIA terror expert believes is a ‘potential target.’

The bank owns your house, if you have a mortgage on it, and if not, then the state owns it…

Listen, Libertarian scum, if you own the title of your home, then it is yours. Paying property taxes does not mean that the state owns your home. This is not the Soviet Union. This is still a capitalist country.

Whether the cops are relying on people not knowing their rights is somewhat irrelevant. If I give permission to a police officer to search my house then it is not an unconstitutional search. If they pressure me into allowing the search then it could be an illegal search and anything found would not be permitted in court. Personally, I think the plan is rather silly and the police have lots of better things to do than use three officers to search a kid’s room on some vague suspicion.

I thought there had been cases where the DA argued that denying requests for searches gave the police probable cause to perform the search.

Certainly a DA can argue that. A DA could argue that you smell funny and therefore must be hiding M16’s in your underwear drawer. Nothing found in a search on those circumstances would ever be allowed in a court, however.

Mikey is absolutely corrrect. Police are trained in getting you to agree to a search.

For examples, just watch a few episodes of COPS. Time after time, some dummy gets stopped for not using his signal and the ever-friendly-I’m-just-trying-to-help-you officer will say something like, “You’re not carrying any guns, knives or bazookas in your car, are you? You don’t mind if we take a look do you?” And the next thing you know, off to jail the driver goes for that joint in the Marlboro pack under the seat. You know, that Marlboro pack that the officer was searching just to protect himself from the possibility that it contained a gun? Every episode contains a few instances of people being talked into a search that they know they will fail.

Mikey, next time a cop says, “You don’t mind if we take a look do you?” just smile back and say, “Gee Officer, I’d love to but I was taught to never waive any of my rights, sorry”. It may not stop the search but it definitely makes the appeal morre winnable.

I don’t see what you’re getting all worked up about. If you invite police officers into your home, they can basically search your house without a warrant.

If the head of the household doesn’t allow officers (plainclothes or otherwise) into their home, no search takes place. No violation. If the head of the household allows them in, they have forfeited their rights and police can search at will. It’s always been this way.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor it it a defense. And your hyperventilation about this violating the Fourth Amendment is comical. You’re crying wolf over nothing.

“If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried by our search?”
Because I don’t need every government DH up in my business.
If you refuse they will be back with a warrant because you refused the search and that is “suspicious” thus giving “probable cause”.