4 ms·

I think I would rather line the house with smoke detectors and pay the homeowners insurance than grant the cops the right to enter my house at anytime for a "sa

by lujim 11y ago

I think I would rather line the house with smoke detectors and pay the homeowners insurance than grant the cops the right to enter my house at anytime for a "safety check".

nkrisc 11y ago
Ultimately that's what we do and I agree. We don't allow cops to randomly enter our homes for safety checks. That said, the situation discussed in the linked article is similar, but not entirely the same. While the police are entering private vehicles, it's in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime, not the case in the hypothetical situation you posited. I also think the notion that this is all a front for probable cause is a bit far-fetched and cynical. For one, do only criminals leave their cars unlocked with valuables in plain sight? What exactly would the "cover for probable cause" strategy accomplish?
- lujim 11y ago
  My first post was tongue in cheek, my second one a response to your literal interpretation of it. What I was really saying is that I think police are overstepping their bounds on this. I would rather that no one enters my private property to save me from myself over small things. House on fire? Thanks a million for helping. I'm a dirtbag that leaves a dog in a hot car? Smash my window by all means. I forgot my phone in the cup holder and I'm dumb enough to leave my car unlocked? I will learn a moderately expensive lesson and won't do it next time. It's not up to the Federal or State government to treat me like a kid.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > I will learn a moderately expensive lesson and won't do it next time. It's not up to the Federal or State government to treat me like a kid. They don't care about you. They do care about the local crime rate, and the amount of work they have to do when you report your phone as stolen. Don't think of this as them treating you as a kid, think of it as them saving themselves some work and money.
    - sprucely 11y ago
      > think of it as them saving themselves some work and money. Not every unlocked car containing valuables is a guaranteed theft report, so rummaging through every unlocked car with visible valuables sounds to me like potentially more work and money.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        It's only more work at first. Then the constant seizures will annoy people so much that they'll start locking their cars, and the police's workload will decrease. Note that I'm not just interpreting the situation this way to make the police look bad. This is how they actually, explicitly describe it! > Sharp said this plan does two things. > “The bad guy is not going to break into the car and be able to take that item. It inconveniences the person to come down and pick up the property,” the lieutenant said. > That inconvenience is a kind of tough love approach that reinforces the safety message. > “Maybe next time they won’t leave their stuff in plain view,” Sharp said.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > While the police are entering private vehicles, it's in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime The only argument supporting the claim that it is "in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime" is that they are removing attractive, easily stolen property. There's really not a significant difference between the cops wandering through a residential neighborhood, looking into houses from the street, and if they see anything through the windows that looks attractive to thieves, checking if the any exterior doors or windows are unlocked, and, if they are, entering the house, taking the item, and the calling the property owner listed on the deed (who may or may not be the current occupant of the real property, or the owner of the item of personal property removed; similar issues exist in the case of autos) to let them know that if they want to recover the confiscated property, they need to turn up at the police station during limited hours and present ID, and if they don't do so soon enough, the property will be sold and the proceeds pocketed by the government. > I also think the notion that this is all a front for probable cause is a bit far-fetched and cynical. For one, do only criminals leave their cars unlocked with valuables in plain sight? What exactly would the "cover for probable cause" strategy accomplish? Its not so much a cover as a substitute. Since under this policy they can enter the car to "confiscate" easily stolen items, they no longer need the probable cause they would need for a search, but this gives them an excuse for entering the car and conveniently "noticing" items that would not be apparent without entering the car, or for seizing and inspecting items that they would not have had probable cause to enter the car to inspect closely.

by lujim 11y ago

I think I would rather line the house with smoke detectors and pay the homeowners insurance than grant the cops the right to enter my house at anytime for a "safety check".

nkrisc 11y ago

Ultimately that's what we do and I agree. We don't allow cops to randomly enter our homes for safety checks. That said, the situation discussed in the linked article is similar, but not entirely the same. While the police are entering private vehicles, it's in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime, not the case in the hypothetical situation you posited. I also think the notion that this is all a front for probable cause is a bit far-fetched and cynical. For one, do only criminals leave their cars unlocked with valuables in plain sight? What exactly would the "cover for probable cause" strategy accomplish?

lujim 11y ago
My first post was tongue in cheek, my second one a response to your literal interpretation of it. What I was really saying is that I think police are overstepping their bounds on this. I would rather that no one enters my private property to save me from myself over small things. House on fire? Thanks a million for helping. I'm a dirtbag that leaves a dog in a hot car? Smash my window by all means. I forgot my phone in the cup holder and I'm dumb enough to leave my car unlocked? I will learn a moderately expensive lesson and won't do it next time. It's not up to the Federal or State government to treat me like a kid.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > I will learn a moderately expensive lesson and won't do it next time. It's not up to the Federal or State government to treat me like a kid. They don't care about you. They do care about the local crime rate, and the amount of work they have to do when you report your phone as stolen. Don't think of this as them treating you as a kid, think of it as them saving themselves some work and money.
  - sprucely 11y ago
    > think of it as them saving themselves some work and money. Not every unlocked car containing valuables is a guaranteed theft report, so rummaging through every unlocked car with visible valuables sounds to me like potentially more work and money.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      It's only more work at first. Then the constant seizures will annoy people so much that they'll start locking their cars, and the police's workload will decrease. Note that I'm not just interpreting the situation this way to make the police look bad. This is how they actually, explicitly describe it! > Sharp said this plan does two things. > “The bad guy is not going to break into the car and be able to take that item. It inconveniences the person to come down and pick up the property,” the lieutenant said. > That inconvenience is a kind of tough love approach that reinforces the safety message. > “Maybe next time they won’t leave their stuff in plain view,” Sharp said.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> While the police are entering private vehicles, it's in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime The only argument supporting the claim that it is "in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime" is that they are removing attractive, easily stolen property. There's really not a significant difference between the cops wandering through a residential neighborhood, looking into houses from the street, and if they see anything through the windows that looks attractive to thieves, checking if the any exterior doors or windows are unlocked, and, if they are, entering the house, taking the item, and the calling the property owner listed on the deed (who may or may not be the current occupant of the real property, or the owner of the item of personal property removed; similar issues exist in the case of autos) to let them know that if they want to recover the confiscated property, they need to turn up at the police station during limited hours and present ID, and if they don't do so soon enough, the property will be sold and the proceeds pocketed by the government. > I also think the notion that this is all a front for probable cause is a bit far-fetched and cynical. For one, do only criminals leave their cars unlocked with valuables in plain sight? What exactly would the "cover for probable cause" strategy accomplish? Its not so much a cover as a substitute. Since under this policy they can enter the car to "confiscate" easily stolen items, they no longer need the probable cause they would need for a search, but this gives them an excuse for entering the car and conveniently "noticing" items that would not be apparent without entering the car, or for seizing and inspecting items that they would not have had probable cause to enter the car to inspect closely.