RE: Warrantless searches -- A sign of things to come?

On Sun, 17 Apr 94 13:39:39 
paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>A Page 1 story in The Washington Post Sunday (94.04.17) reads,
>"Clinton Lets Police Raid Projects," "Warrantless Searches Said to Be
>Needed For Tenants Safety."
> 
>For those who haven't been following this ludicrous story, the USG has
>now decided that Chicago Housing Authority-sponsored, and warrantless,
>searches of dwellings within the CHA, is "A Good Thing" (tm) and
>specifically geared towards uncovering weapons of criminals (or
>would-be criminals) for the safety of law-abiding Housing tenants.
> 
>Personally, I find this mentality alarming and indicative of a growing
>trend within the government. "Big Brother knows best."
> 
>Vile and Nauseating.
> 
>This is another absurdity in the "War on Drugs" and "War on Crime."
>More government-sponsored "wars" are undoubtedly on the horizon,
>perhaps even a war on non-escrowed crypto.
> 
>I suppose things will get worse before they get better.
========
While I don't agree with these searches either, you have to understand the 
situation that the people in the CHA buildings are in. Did you see the show that 
was done on it? (I think it was Nightline, they did a whole hour on it)

Anyway, the point is, these people aren't safe in their own homes. The parents 
keep their children home from school because they are afraid that they will either 
get shot (which happens quite a lot, one child was shot by a "gangsta" with a 
sniper rifle while his mother was walking him to school- the kid was about 5 years 
old) or that the kids will get involved in the gangs.

For a while, the Chicago PD were unwilling to enter the buildings until after the 
shooting had stopped, and would then go in to tag and bag the bodies. IT WAS BAD!!!

The landlord of the little kid who got shot decided he wasn't going to put up with 
that, and started the CHA PD, and they were kicking ass until the ACLU got 
involved.

Slightly related is the fact that I live on my school's campus in the residence 
halls. If the resident advisors feel there is probable cause for something and 
decides to do a room search, I can do nothing about it but hope they don't find 
what ever it is their looking for (usually because I don't do anything bad >:)). 
Anyway, if they find something (drugs, beer in excess of the 6 can limit, 
firearms, PGP, etc.) they can call the campus police (real, live, actual cops) in 
to bust my ass and nail it to the wall. 

BUT NO WARRANT WAS SERVED! Does that mean I can get the ACLU up the school's ass? 
If the school says they can do that because I pay to live on their property, then 
why can't the CHA do what they want?

Just my 0.02.....

adam

"After this, nothing will shock me."
----------
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone
calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 4, 1994

Slightly reformatted, but the content is faithfully reproduced:

<My computer told me that GERSTEIN@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU said:>
> 
> On Sun, 17 Apr 94 13:39:39 
> paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> 
> >A Page 1 story in The Washington Post Sunday (94.04.17) reads,
... [warrantless searches of housing project] ...
> Anyway, the point is, these people aren't safe in their own homes.

  Then the cops need to sting/watch these guys until they catch them
  committing these felonies and throw them in jail, not invade the
  privacy of a citizen cuz they think it's right.  If the cops were
  watching that neighborhood then the child couldn't have been sniped
  without the shooter getting bagged.  It is a poorly chosen solution to
  the police force's inability to do their job well due to fear and/or
  underfunding.

> Slightly related is the fact that I live on my school's campus in the 
> residence halls. If the resident advisors feel there is probable cause for 
> something and decides to do a room search, I can do nothing about it
   ...

> BUT NO WARRANT WAS SERVED! Does that mean I can get the ACLU up the school's 
> ass?  If the school says they can do that because I pay to live on their 
> property, then why can't the CHA do what they want?

  Ah, but you see, you moved into the dorm (and signed a paper) saying you 
  would follow the school's rules.  These rules included uncool search and
  seizure and are allowed since you are not in a home... it's similar to a
  hotel's right to do room service when you're out at the pool.

  The people of CHA didn't forfeit the right to being secure in their homes.
  (Apartments count as a home) They moved in with no such waivers.  Therefore 
  they are afforded the same rights as a person with a house or living in an 
  apartment owned by, say you.  They may fall under tenant / landlord laws, 
  but they are very protective of the tenant.  EX:  Unless there is imminent 
  damage to the place (broken water pipe or such) then the landlord must give 
  2 days notice to do an inspection or pest control or whatever he thinks he 
  needs in there for.

  Take care
	 Jim

-- 
   Tantalus Inc.        Bringing people together     Jim Sewell-KD4CKQ
2407 N. Roosevelt Blvd.   to have a little fun.  Internet: jims@mpgn.com
Key West, FL  33041                               	  CIS: 71061,1027
  (305) 293-8100    "We keep coding and coding and coding..."

The easiest solution is to include a provision in the rental agreement 
stating that you won't possess firearms in the apartment.  In addition, 
include a provision that indicates that the tenant wil consent to any 
search requested by the landlord.  You could even make these provision 
optional, such that any tenant can decline to agree to them by checking 
the appropriate box. 
 
(Most tenants in such projects probably won't bother to read them anyway).

Once agreed to, if a tenant refuses to consent to a search, they can be 
evicted for breaching the rental agreement.  If they consent, and guns 
are found, they can likewise be evicted.  No criminal prosecution need
ever be initiated....

I'm not sure that all states would permit searches even under these 
circumstances, but its a basic rule of 4th amendment law that you can 
consent to warrantless searches.  Getting the consent up front, 
especially where it could be refused, would eliminate the problem of 
warrantless searches.  Of course, if you refused consent, the landlords
might just watch you a little more closely...

Comments?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence, Inc.       |   The Internet Cops are watching, 
Evidence@Nowhere.Nil |       aren't they?                
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Mon, 18 Apr 1994, Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 94 13:39:39 
> > paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> > 
> > >A Page 1 story in The Washington Post Sunday (94.04.17) reads,
> ... [warrantless searches of housing project] ...
> > Anyway, the point is, these people aren't safe in their own homes.
> 
> 
>   The people of CHA didn't forfeit the right to being secure in their homes.

But they could by signing a waiver, as discussed above..

Adam writes:

> Anyway, the point is, these people aren't safe in their own homes. The parents 
> keep their children home from school because they are afraid that they will either 
> get shot (which happens quite a lot, one child was shot by a "gangsta" with a 
> sniper rifle while his mother was walking him to school- the kid was about 5 years 
> old) or that the kids will get involved in the gangs.
> 
> For a while, the Chicago PD were unwilling to enter the buildings until after the 
> shooting had stopped, and would then go in to tag and bag the bodies. IT WAS BAD!!!

Ok, now let me get this straight.  The police who are supposed to 'serve
and protect' weren't willing to go in there to protect their
constituents because it was too dangerous, but in the same breath they
want to remove these people's ability to protect themselves.

Just wanted to make sure.

Ben.
____
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral.
 		-James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine"