Boston police to search homes for guns

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by rowdyredneck, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. rowdyredneck

    rowdyredneck New Member

    Jul 28, 2005
  2. dcd_enterprises

    dcd_enterprises New Member

    Oct 14, 2007
    Wheatland, Iowa
    --I'm Sorry, Detective, I can read. can you? Read through this and get back to me.



    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
    and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
    violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
    by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
    searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    History and Scope of the Amendment

    History.--Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly
    out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment,
    embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the
    ``writs of assistance.'' But while the insistence on freedom from
    unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained
    expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience,\1\ there
    was also a rich English experience to draw on. ``Every man's house is
    his castle'' was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated
    in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603.\2\ A civil case of execution of
    process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the
    homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's
    agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate
    officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute
    the King's process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v.
    Carrington,\3\ one of a series of civil actions against state officers
    who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other
    places in search of materials

    [[Page 1200]]
    connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only
    governmental policies but the King himself.\4\

    \1\Apparently the first statement of freedom from unreasonable
    searches and seizures appeared in The Rights of the Colonists and a List
    of Infringements and Violations of Rights, 1772, in the drafting of
    which Samuel Adams took the lead. 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A
    Documentary History 199, 205-06 (1971).
    \2\5 Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604). One of the
    most forceful expressions of the maxim was that of William Pitt in
    Parliament in 1763: ``The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to
    all the force of the crown. It may be frail--its roof may shake--the
    wind may blow through it--the storm may enter, the rain may enter--but
    the King of England cannot enter--all his force dares not cross the
    threshold of the ruined tenement.''
    \3\19 Howell's State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. 807 (1705).
    \4\See also Wilkes v. Wood, 98 Eng. 489 (C.P. 1763); Huckle v.
    Money, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (K.B. 1763), aff'd 19 Howell's State Trials
    1002, 1028; 97 Eng. Rep. 1075 (K.B. 1765).

    Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly
    broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized
    many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in
    terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized
    subversive ``of all the comforts of society,'' and the issuance of a
    warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only
    those alleged to be criminal in nature ``contrary to the genius of the
    law of England.''\5\ Besides its general character, said the court, the
    warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause
    and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v.
    Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ``great judgment,'' ``one
    of the landmarks of English liberty,'' ``one of the permanent monuments
    of the British Constitution,'' and a guide to an understanding of what
    the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.\6\

    \5\5 Eng. Rep. 817, 818.
    \6\Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 626 (1886).

    In the colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded
    the leading examples of the necessity for protection against
    unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue
    laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were
    general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other
    place to search for and seize ``prohibited and uncustomed'' goods, and
    commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. The writs once
    issued remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and
    six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the
    authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs,
    opposition was led by James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian
    grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes
    because they conflicted with English constitutionalism.\7\ Otis lost and
    the writs were issued and utilized, but his arguments were much cited in
    the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to
    judicial review.

    \7\The arguments of Otis and others as well as much background
    material are contained in Quincy's Massachusetts Reports, 1761-1772,
    App. I, pp. 395-540, and in 2 Legal Papers of John Adams 106-47 (Wroth &
    Zobel eds., 1965). See also Dickerson, Writs of Assistance as a Cause of
    the American Revolution, in The Era of the American Revolution: Studies
    Inscribed to Evarts Boutell Greene 40 (R. Morris, ed., 1939).

    Scope of the Amendment.--The language of the provision which
    became the Fourth Amendment underwent some modest

    [[Page 1201]]
    changes on its passage through the Congress, and it is possible that the
    changes reflected more than a modest significance in the interpretation
    of the relationship of the two clauses. Madison's introduced version
    provided ``The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses,
    their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches
    and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable
    cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing
    the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.''\8\
    As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on
    the floor,\9\ the section was almost identical to the introduced
    version, and the House defeated a motion to substitute ``and no warrant
    shall issue'' for ``by warrants issuing'' in the committee draft. In
    some fashion, the rejected amendment was inserted in the language before
    passage by the House and is the language of the ratified constitutional

    \8\1 Annals of Congress 434-35 (June 8, 1789).
    \9\The word ``secured'' was changed to ``secure'' and the phrase
    ``against unreasonable searches and seizures'' was reinstated. Id. at
    754 (August 17, 1789).
    \10\Id. It has been theorized that the author of the defeated
    revision, who was chairman of the committee appointed to arrange the
    amendments prior to House passage, simply inserted his provision and
    that it passed unnoticed. N. Lasson, The History and Development of the
    Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 101-03 (1937).

    As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure
    in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants.
    There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches
    incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus,
    the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be
    read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are
    ``reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second
    clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed
    safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches
    under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are
    ``reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply
    with the second clause.\11\ This issue has divided the Court for some
    time, has

    [[Page 1202]]
    seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the
    resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most
    consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to
    search incident to arrest.\12\ While the right to search the person of
    the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into
    areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range
    is an interesting and crucial matter.

    \11\The amendment was originally in one clause as quoted above;
    it was the insertion of the defeated amendment to the language which
    changed the text into two clauses and arguably had the effect of
    extending the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
    beyond the requirements imposed on the issuance of warrants. It is also
    possible to read the two clauses together to mean that some seizures
    even under warrants would be unreasonable, and this reading has indeed
    been effectuated in certain cases, although for independent reasons.
    Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886); Gouled v. United States, 255
    U.S. 298 (1921), overruled by Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967); but
    see id. at 303 (reserving the question whether ``there are items of
    evidential value whose very nature precludes them from being the object
    of a reasonable search and seizure.'')
    \12\Approval of warrantless searches pursuant to arrest first
    appeared in dicta in several cases. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S.
    383, 392 (1914); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158 (1925);
    Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 (1925). Whether or not there
    is to be a rule or a principle generally preferring or requiring
    searches pursuant to warrant to warrantless searches, however, has
    ramifications far beyond the issue of searches pursuant to arrest.
    United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 320 (1972)

  3. Bruce FLinch

    Bruce FLinch New Member

    Aug 27, 2005
    Bay Point, Kali..aka Gun Point
    I don't agree with the premise of the searching, but any parent who is dumb enough or scared enough to let the cops come in & search for guns, is probably in need of more help than the cops are going to give. :(
  4. BobMcG

    BobMcG Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Nov 27, 2005
    Somewhere in the Twilight Zone.
    It's really very simple.

    They have to ask permission first. Sooo...

    Nancy Regan started a nice little slogan once that could still be used today in Boston but for an obviously different reason of course. JUST SAY NO!
  5. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Jan 31, 2001
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    I'd let'em....................turn around & get the he** offa my property without a warrant.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Gun range for visiting tourist / Stamford CT/ Boston MA Jun 22, 2015
General Discussion Whirlwind Trip. Boston to Berlin Apr 17, 2014
General Discussion Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston Jun 19, 2013
General Discussion Bombs go off at Boston Marathon. Apr 15, 2013
General Discussion Hello from Boston Jan 15, 2011