Home > The Barr Code > Archives > 2008 > February > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBoston police jump gun with ‘Safe Homes’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Most police officers with whom I have worked over the years —- whether as a United States attorney, a lawyer in private practice, or a member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee —- are men and women of integrity and commitment to the communities they serve. The vast majority of those officers have a sincere respect for the constitutional rights of the citizenry. But then again, I’ve not worked with the Boston Police Department.
The police department in that Massachusetts city has just launched an initiative that exhibits a cynical disregard for the rights of the citizenry, even as it cleverly cloaks the program in language pretending to protect the people toward whom it is directed. I refer to the “Safe Homes Initiative,” with its slick brochures and smooth rhetoric.
On the surface —- as with virtually all government actions diminishing liberty —- the initiative appears benign. The program is “designed” to help parents who have so little control over their children that they cannot —- or do not want to —- search their rooms to discover if their young charges are hiding firearms in their homes. Boston’s police chief, Edward Davis, graciously has agreed to fill this parental void by sending teams of officers to the homes of parents with children the police or other “community members” believe might be harboring hidden firearms. The “search teams” would then ask the parent or “other responsible adult” (whomever that might be) at the home for consent to search for guns.
The program is problematic on several levels. First, of course, is the fact that three police officers showing up on your doorstep makes it very difficult for a parent or “other responsible adult” to say no when asked to consent to a search. This works a serious injustice to the notion that a person’s home is and should remain free from government searches absent a warrant based on probable cause that a crime has been committed. While true, voluntary “consent” can validate an otherwise unlawful, warrantless search, consent born of the sort of police presence contemplated in this Boston initiative would not appear to constitute such grounds.
While the police in Boston promise that any firearm found during such searches will not lead to criminal charges based solely on the possession of that firearm, they cleverly leave open the possibility that if the firearm was used in a crime, charges may be brought.
Interestingly also, literature describing the initiative states that while the searching officers will do their dead level best not to damage property or create an “unnecessary mess” in the searches, there is no guarantee against that. Moreover, if other illegal items are found or seen during the search, this may lead to a resident’s arrest. And while the police in Boston promise they will not “automatically notify schools or public housing” authorities if firearms have been found, they will not rule out notifying them. This could lead to families being evicted from public housing (even if the firearm was in the home for personal protection) or to children being expelled from school —- both results hardly designed to improve the quality of life or education of persons living in the poorer neighborhoods targeted by this initiative.
The bottom line is, if the police in Boston or any other city have probable cause to believe illegal firearms or other evidence of unlawful activity is located in a home, they ought to investigate and —- if armed with a warrant based on probable cause —- search that home. But to go through this charade of searching without securing warrants, under the guise of obtaining “consent” of persons who may or may not be the parents of a child, under the transparently false premise that nothing will happen to them if they refuse or if something unlawful is found, is unfair and constitutionally deficient.
There’s a reason such programs have not been instituted in other cities (a similar program was launched in St. Louis in the 1990s, with very mixed results before it was terminated). Boston’s program is at best disingenuous and clearly corrupting of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees against warrantless searches. Let’s hope Atlanta’s police department relies on measures more constitutionally sound than those being instituted by their colleagues in Boston.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Red
February 27, 2008 8:02 AM | Link to this
This isn’t a program, it’s a serious invasion of privacy and violation of contitutional rights! The citizens of Boston should rise up and oppose this “program” enmasse.
By Ron
February 27, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
Police departments today are pretty much the same.They are definitely not the friend of Joe Citizen.If Kathryn Johnson were alive she could tell you how police departments operate.The Boston Police simply want into your house,they’ll supply the necessary evidence.Innocent citizens are a lot easier to catch than criminals,and safer too.
By Davo
February 27, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
I guess it could be argued that the people who are willing to go along with this program don’t really deserve their civil rights anyway…so what’s the harm? I’ll keep my rights of course; I still enjoy living as a free citizen.
By Bosch
February 27, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Throw some tea in the harbor!
By Chief Wiggum
February 27, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
Bob, glad you’re doing this blog. I’m a reformed Republican, and in a past life, I wouldn’t have been as offended at a program like this. It’s truly the slippery slope, and just another chip away from our liberties.
I sincerely hope the citizens of Boston tell them “Hell no”.
By LB
February 27, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to criticize the abstract idea of this program from a distance. The reality is that youth gun crime in Boston has spiraled out of control and this program is a proactive way to deal with it.
Boston is pinpointing the areas that it needs to literally control and clean out. It has designated high crime zones , as crime mostly happens only in pockets of white and black neighborhoods and Boston is attacking crime at its source.
Y’all can yap about yer freedoms from your suburban porches. Your opinions are irrelevant.
By jabster
February 27, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Rule of law = EVERYONE plays by the rules, the letter and the spirit.
Yes, it really IS that simple.
By Dave
February 27, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Bob I also am a Libertarian this is just crazy. If they want to stop guns in schools. Lock up the kids in the same cells as the parents who take guns to school for a week I bet that stops it from ever happening again in that household.
By Ted P
February 27, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Remember that this is the state that sentences killers to the senate, remember Ted Kennedy? And spawned a marine that got a purple heart for injuring himself, remember John Kerry? It is no surprise that they want to create a new world Gestapo.
By Ed Stone
February 27, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
LB,
Rights are always lost to good intentions and some perceived problem. The Constitution, however, ought not to change with the times. I am quite proud of Bob Barr for standing up for the Fourth Amendment. If you give up the Fourth Amendment for “those people,” LB, as you are so quick to want to do, pretty soon you will have given up the Fourth Amendment for everybody. There is no “gun exception” to the Fourth Amendment, and many people living in high crime communities need a gun for protection, even if the city of Boston would prefer to leave them defenseless.
By LB
February 27, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
There have been five armed robberies in my neighborhood in the past six months. The 4th ammendment isn’t making me feel more free. I’m no fan of MA…I left it to come here, and I’d never go back. I’ve lived in cities all my life, but I’ve never felt as unsafe as I do in the “free” society y’all have built yourselves here. I’m out of here as soon as I can: Georgia is completely unstable in every possible way because all you care about is Freedom without thinking about having a stable and self-sustaining society. This state is darn near anarchy.
Have fun importing your water!
By James
February 27, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
LB, what city will you head to next? Why not try a country without freedoms…maybe there you’d feel safe.
By CobbGOPer
February 27, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
LB,
Delta is ready when you are. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
By jmc
February 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
LB - need some help packing your crap?
By GaMan
February 27, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
By TimC
February 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Ron, not all police officers (or departments) are the same. I have friends who are police officers in rural Texas and Montana. They have both stated that, if ordered to do this sort of thing they would resign. At the same time, most of their department (including their bosses) would resign too. But, they consider themselves police officers more than law officers. This is reflected in the culture of their departments and the policies and procedures of the departments.
By sane jane
February 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
GaMan - you picked a great quote; one of my favorites… but unfortunately, it probably was not actually uttered by Ben Franklin (although most people commonly do attribute it to him). Check out this scholar’s work and interpretation of that famous quote:
Link:[http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605]
By sane jane
February 27, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Let’s try it again:
Link: [http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605]
By Jack
February 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
This initiative will give the Boston Police dept a better reputation than the movie, “The Departed”
By GaLiberal
February 27, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
It’s too bad a program of this type had to be developed, but with the Rethuglicons stripping gun-control laws faster than they give out tax cuts it’s understandable. If only there were better gun-control laws to keep guns out of the hands of children, such a ham-fisted approach would not be needed. The Rethuglicons keep making it easier to get guns (e.g.; gun shows and private sales) without any checks.
There is another problem that Bob ‘Impeachement’ Barr doesn’t discuss. These ‘children’ are US citizens (I presume they are not targeting just immigrants) and as such are Constitutionally able to keep and bear arms. There is no ‘age’ requirement to this right. Therefore, these ‘children’ are being deprived of their rights. Both at home and at school.
This will never happen in backward, redneck, in-bred, hick Georgia where carrying a gun any place at any time is considered acceptable behavior. All you have to do is shoot someone in the back and then claim you felt your life was in danger. What a great state we have!
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And the lack of decent gun-control laws is living proof.
And so is BIB.
By GaLiberal
February 27, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
It’s too bad a program of this type had to be developed, but with the Rethuglicons stripping gun-control laws faster than they give out tax cuts it’s understandable. If only there were better gun-control laws to keep guns out of the hands of children, such a ham-fisted approach would not be needed. The Rethuglicons keep making it easier to get guns (e.g.; gun shows and private sales) without any checks.
There is another problem that Bob ‘Impeachment’ Barr doesn’t discuss. These ‘children’ are US citizens (I presume they are not targeting just immigrants) and as such are Constitutionally able to keep and bear arms. There is no ‘age’ requirement to this right. Therefore, these ‘children’ are being deprived of their rights. Both at home and at school.
This will never happen in backward, redneck, in-bred, hick Georgia where carrying a gun any place at any time is considered acceptable behavior. All you have to do is shoot someone in the back and then claim you felt your life was in danger. What a great state we have!
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And the lack of decent gun-control laws is living proof.
And so is BIB.
By Filster
February 27, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
Folks, this is Boston. You know, Massachusetts, the State the keeps electing Ted Kennedy? Should any intrusion by the police state, anti-gun/anti-individual freedom, we know what’s best for you libs that run that state surprise you? Unconstitutional for sure, but what’s a little old paper right to stop an Orwellian government like Massachusetts?
By Mike
February 27, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
Bob you need to send this to Hilary and Obama so they can take this Federal. This would be good for the Democratic to start…Why should Boston by the only police state?
By Copyleft
February 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
Gee, I coulda SWORN that the past seven years of unprecedented expansion of governmental spying and police powers was done by… let’s see now… oh, that’s right.
The REPUBLICAN administration. But I guess you’re getting back into practice with your old “government is the enemy” cliches, now that the Dems are about to take over again. That’s a nice comfy slot for you to whine and complain from, you’ll be happy there.
By Police Officer
February 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
The outright lies and false statements on both sides of this argument amuse me.
First off, all police departments and all police officers aren’t alike. If I had the ability to do nothing but lock up hard-core felons each and every day, I would love nothing more. For that matter, most of my coworkers would love nothing more. Those arrests are the most satisfying personally and professionally.
There will always be bad police officers just like there are bad people in every profession. It is a fact of life. There will always be scandals from every walk of life.
As far as GALiberal’s statements about gun laws:
The anti-gunners don’t want you to have access to this protection. Their reasons run contrary to common sense and I can’t understand them. If you can explain it with a reasonable explanation and not “blood will flow in the streets” rhetoric, please do GALiberal. I truly would like to understand the liberal logic.
Just to be quite clear, the questions is this: Why shouldn’t people be able to protect themselves and their family from a legitimate threat of serious bodily injury or death?
Also, the following statements are 100% true about Georgia law.
It is a serious felony to merely possess a gun during a felony or drug crime.
It is a serious felony for a convicted felon to purchase or possess a firearm.
It is a serious felony for a person to use a gun in a criminal act.
It is illegal to possess a firearm outside of your home or business without a license. The licensee goes through a background check.
It is illegal for anyone under 18 to possess a firearm except in certain limited (common-sense) circumstances such as hunting and target shooting competitions.
Now with that being said, please tell me what gun crimes can not be addressed by the prosecution of one of the above laws?
If those common-sense laws haven’t stopped gun crimes, why do you think more laws will? Lets prosecute the laws we have instead of worrying about finding more ways to deny people their basic constitutional rights.
By James
February 27, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Police Officer, VERY WELL SAID!
By Craig also
February 27, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
I somehow don’t think I’d have a problem telling three police officers at my door that NO, you can’t enter my home without a search warrant. Why is that so hard, Mr. Barr?
By michelle
February 27, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
GALiberal: just one thing about your post….
do you actually think all of these “children” that have these firearms, have them legally registered? they aren’t constitutionally-protected if they are not of age to even own the firearm. no-brainer.
By Rob
February 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this
GaLiberal. Why did you have to start name calling and insulting those of a different opinion?
Also, doesn’t GA have a lower crime rate then MA? Maybe having guns in our homes is a good thing - I go to sleep peacefully every night knowing my .45 is next to the bed.
By Brill
February 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this
Police Officer, Using rational thought and reason in a discussion are typical “rethuglicon” tactics. GAliberal, time to change your diaper.
By rjm
February 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this
Galiberal,
your logic of this action being necessary because, in your words, the republicans have eliminated gun control laws has one big huge flaw: MA is one of the most LIBERAL states in the US and has THE most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. If the police have to resort to this, obviously all those laws are doing is keeping the guns out of the law abiding citizens that want to protect themselves.
By Edward
February 27, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this
If the people who live in Boston,put up with this crap, it is their fault.
By Copyleft
February 28, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this
“Keeping guns out of law-abiding citizens”? Sounds like a good idea to me!
By myers
February 28, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
What a charlatan Barr is. His old party, with the help of enough spineless, Dems are on the verge of giving away the very right he is moaning about here, which BTW, is the 4 th amendment for those who seem to think he’s talking about our second. So what does Bob “I’m a llibertarian” Barr use this space for: freaking public toilets. Oh the humanity. Shill on Bob.