Warrantless search case involving gun confiscation

[DMK]

I would say that was legal . It’s her fault for not checking with him or simply saying no .

I'm going to guess that since they lied to her about him giving consent (and who knows what else), they certainly were not about to let the two compare notes. Verifying the cop's story was not an option open to her.

I don't think it matters. Cops are allowed to lie in the course of an investigation.

However, she was not under investigation nor a suspect in any crime. She was simply a law abiding citizen that the police literally manipulated to get their way. There is a big difference morally and ethically between that and trying to get a confession from a person suspected of a crime.

Think about this: The police come to your house and say/lie "we have a warrant to search your house. Will you allow us to search?" Think that would fly in court?

How is that different from "we have permission from your spouse/landlord/etc to search your house. Will you allow us to search?"


The unfortunate moral of this story is of course, never volunteer consent to the police or government agents. If they legally don't need it, it won't matter. If they do need your consent and are trying to sweet talk you into it, it's possible that it is not in your best interest.

 

[JohnKSa]

There is a big difference morally and ethically between that and trying to get a confession from a person suspected of a crime.

Who's defending the morality or ethics of what happened? I'm certainly not.

The legality of what happened is the issue, not the morality or ethics of it. I don't think what happened was right/moral/ethical, but I don't get to make binding rulings on the legality of LE actions, and neither do you.

Furthermore, if I did have the ability to make binding rulings of legality, that would make me a judge and such rulings would need to be made based on the law, not on my personal opinion of right and wrong.

Think about this: The police come to your house and say/lie "we have a warrant to search your house. Will you allow us to search?" Think that would fly in court?

How is that different from "we have permission from your spouse/landlord/etc to search your house. Will you allow us to search?"

Here's a good rule of thumb that one should ALWAYS keep in mind when dealing with the police.

If they ASK you, you can always say no. If they have the legal right to do something, they will just do it--why would they bother asking?

The unfortunate moral of this story is of course, never volunteer consent to the police or government agents. If they legally don't need it, it won't matter. If they do need your consent and are trying to sweet talk you into it, it's possible that it is not in your best interest.

I don't know that it always makes sense to say no, but it is extremely important to understand that it's always an option.

It's also very important to understand that saying no doesn't mean it won't happen or that you have some kind of right to prevent it from happening. But it does mean that you will have a lot more recourse down the road when it comes to trial or when your civil suit spins up.

 

[DMK]

The legality of what happened is the issue, not the morality or ethics of it.

I think morality and ethics are at issue here.

This is a supreme court case. They are deciding whether the actions of the police in this case are a violation of the 4th amendment rights. The bill of rights are based on what is morally and ethically right. We have inalienable rights and the bill of rights outlines them.

It is unethical what the police did. In a previous case, they were allowed to access a vehicle that was in an accident on a public road because it constituted a safety hazard and they had to remove it.. They have now pushed that limited emergency infringement of a citizens 4th amendment rights to include a citizens home. They did that by lying to and coercing both parties.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think morality and ethics are at issue here.

This is a supreme court case. They are deciding whether the actions of the police in this case are a violation of the 4th amendment rights.

You realize that the first sentence and the second two are contradictory, right?

The second two sentences correctly note that this is a 4th amendment case, not a question of "morality and ethics".

Furthermore, to reiterate, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that what was done is moral or ethical--so yes, I think it clearly is an issue. But that doesn't mean that's what the ruling will be based on, it isn't even the crux of the case.

The bill of rights are based on what is morally and ethically right.

That's how they originated, but now judges rule based on what they say, not based on the underlying morality and ethics that generated them.

When you go to the courts for a ruling, a legal ruling results. It may or may not be moral or ethical--that's the nature of the law.

I think everyone agrees with you that what was done was wrong--immoral and unethical. But the law isn't what we think it should be, it's what it is.

 

[101combatvet]

Cops lie? That's a good one.

It's dishonest, but she shouldn't have any authority to give someone else's property away.

Since when do Cops or, for that matter, politicians know anything about the law? Hardly, ever.

 

[Metal god]

Isn’t morality subjective especially depending on your religion . In my humble opinion what you are talking about is one of the biggest political problems we have in the United States . There are some that think they can legislate morality and it’s just simply impossible . Morality starts early in life and is taught to you by your environment as you grow . Therefore everybody’s morality is slightly different than the next . There’s really no place for it in law . A group can start there to work on making the law but it can’t be based strictly on morality .

 

[101combatvet]

Isn’t morality subjective especially depending on your religion . In my humble opinion what you are talking about is one of the biggest political problems we have in the United States . There are some that think they can legislate morality and it’s just simply impossible . Morality starts early in life and is taught to you by your environment as you grow . Therefore everybody’s morality is slightly different than the next . There’s really no place for it in law . A group can start there to work on making the law but it can’t be based strictly on morality .

The problem is that WE reward bad conduct. WE allow people to get away with doing stupid things. The way it should work is when you screw up, you get held accountable, and you get slapped down.

 

[Metal god]

Again who gets to choose what is wrong and why is there morality superior to mine ? FWIW Ii’m trying to play devils advocate . What I’m saying and/or asking questions about it’s not necessarily how I personally feel or support .

 

[101combatvet]

Again who gets to choose what is wrong and why is there morality superior to mine ? FWIW i’m trying to play devils advocate . What I’m saying and/or asking questions about it’s not necessarily how I personally feel or support .

If you have to ask the difference between right and wrong, you might be part of the problem.

 

[Metal god]

If you have to ask the difference between right and wrong, you might be part of the problem.

Interesting , so you're saying there is nothing debatable about morality or right and wrong ? Hmm lets see ....

Some but not all believe lying is immoral while others don't have an issue with lying and believe they are just as moral as the next guy/gal ...

Some but not all believe it's immoral to own an "assault" weapon ..

Some but not all believe cheating on your spouse is immoral while others don't seem to have a problem with it ...

Some but not all believe it's there moral obligation to behead you if you're not a true believer ....

Some but not all don't think it's immoral when killing the unborn child ...

For thousands of years it was moral to own other people and in some places in the world still is ....

I could go on and on about morality but there's no need because it's completely subjective . As stated above by others . There's a difference between right and wrong , morality and allowing others to create laws to regulate morality . In CA there was a law proposed and was actually on the ballet in 2020 to allow businesses to discriminate based on race and sexual orientation . It was wrapped up in a nice pretty sparkly equality bow but it was clear what it was IMHO . Even the left coast knew that was not a good idea and it was shot down .

Something I was told long ago . Be careful what you wish for , you just might get it .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If you have to ask the difference between right and wrong, you might be part of the problem.

Some acts/actions are morally and ethically wrong under pretty much any and all religious or ethical systems, others are not so clear-cut. The Firing Line is a firearms discussion site. In this discussion area, we allow (and encourage) civil discussions pertaining to laws and civil rights. Let's not get into criticizing other members' morality based on your own. If that starts to happen, don't be surprised if the moderators shut off the discussion.

I think we have established that something can be legal even tough most people would view that something (e.g. the police lying go gain access to this man's firearms). That's about as far in that direction as we need to go. Let's get back to discussing the law and the arguments in the lawsuit.

 

[DMK]

Isn’t morality subjective especially depending on your religion . In my humble opinion what you are talking about is one of the biggest political problems we have in the United States . There are some that think they can legislate morality and it’s just simply impossible . Morality starts early in life and is taught to you by your environment as you grow .

Since you are playing the devils advocate, I'd say that if everyone always acted morally and ethically, we wouldn't need laws at all. They are a framework that keeps people within a boundary that society accepts.

Since this thread is based on a constitutional dispute, let's just look at the bill of rights.

Why do we have a first amendment? What about the fourth amendment? How are these in the government's best interests? They are in the citizens best interest. Many functioning governments do not allow their citizens these rights.

Much of the BOR is there to protect the citizen from the government. Why? Because humans have innate rights. To criticize the powers that be. To protect themselves. To have privacy in their personal matters. These are rooted in morality and ethics. The framers wanted a government that was limited to protect the citizens' freedom. Why? Because it was right and ethical. Joe Stalin or Pol Pot would have wrote it more than slightly differently.

 

[JohnKSa]

...I'd say that if everyone always acted morally and ethically, we wouldn't need laws at all.

That assumes that everyone agrees on what 'moral' and 'ethical' mean.

It is, in reality, the very fact that not everyone agrees on the definitions of 'moral' and 'ethical' that necessitated laws in the first place.

These are rooted in morality and ethics. The framers wanted a government that was limited to protect the citizens' freedom. Why? Because it was right and ethical.

Yes. It is true that the basis of law is generally someone's idea of morality/ethics.

But the laws take on a life of their own once they are codified and from that point on, what is important is what the laws say and how the courts interpret them.

The fact that laws, at some level, generally spring from a sense of what is right and wrong in NO way implies that a person can assume that just because a thing is immoral or unethical it is automatically illegal.

There are many things that people believe are immoral or unethical that are not illegal.

There are many things that are illegal that are not immoral or unethical. Cutting off a shotgun barrel at 15.98" instead of 16" is illegal without the proper paperwork, but there is nothing immoral or unethical about that act. Selling a firearm to a law-abiding adult in another state who is not a prohibited person is illegal if an FFL isn't involved, but there's nothing immoral or unethical about it.

The law is not what we want it to be. It is not what we think it should be. Legality is not equivalent to morality. Acting legally is not a guarantee that a person is acting ethically.

Look, discussions about legality are complicated enough without people getting wrapped around the axle of what they think the laws should be. It's hard enough to figure out what is legal and what is not without the additional complexity of people getting upset because they think that they should be able to dictate what the laws should be based on their own opinions.

The law is what it is--not what we want it to be. Period.

 

[5whiskey]

If they ASK you, you can always say no. If they have the legal right to do something, they will just do it--why would they bother asking?

Just to hit on this, I ask all the time even if I know the answer, have a legal demand (search warrant or court order), or if I have another probable cause basis. I just do, mostly because I would rather be polite in how I conduct business. I also ask when I’m simply asking and don’t have any legally binding way to conduct the business I’m trying to conduct. If I get told no, then I chalk it up to that’s their right. If I ask and am told no, while still having a legal way to do what I was going to do, I inform them I wanted to ask politely first and then I serve whatever process I have and conduct my business.

The point remains... you do have the right to say no and don’t be afraid to exercise that right. I like calling people’s bluff. I also don’t like bluffing because I don’t like being called. And I maintain that I wouldn’t dream of behaving as these officers did. Of course I’m from a very pro 2A area so most cops here don’t care to mess with a law abiding citizens firearms. I guess it’s a culture thing. There are places (the northeast, the west coast, Illinois, etc) where I would not fit in in LEO culture.

 

[DMK]

There are many things that people believe are immoral or unethical that are not illegal.

There are many things that are illegal that are not immoral or unethical.

You are absolutely right of course. There are many, many cases of both.

I was trying to keep narrowly to the bill of rights though and not general law or US code.

Specifically the 4th amendment which this case involves. It's kind of a thorn in the government's side (as are the first, second and fifth). The executive branch especially, keeps pushing the boundaries. Their arguments usually involve trampling an individuals rights for the greater public good and almost as often, the ends justifying the means.

In this case it was lying to both parties (neither were even suspected of committing a crime) in order to get around the need for a warrant in order to confiscate property that was neither contraband nor evidence.

 

[DMK]

Just to hit on this, I ask all the time even if I know the answer, have a legal demand (search warrant or court order), or if I have another probable cause basis. I just do, mostly because I would rather be polite in how I conduct business. I also ask when I’m simply asking and don’t have any legally binding way to conduct the business I’m trying to conduct. If I get told no, then I chalk it up to that’s their right. If I ask and am told no, while still having a legal way to do what I was going to do, I inform them I wanted to ask politely first and then I serve whatever process I have and conduct my business.

The point remains... you do have the right to say no and don’t be afraid to exercise that right. I like calling people’s bluff. I also don’t like bluffing because I don’t like being called. And I maintain that I wouldn’t dream of behaving as these officers did. Of course I’m from a very pro 2A area so most cops here don’t care to mess with a law abiding citizens firearms. I guess it’s a culture thing. There are places (the northeast, the west coast, Illinois, etc) where I would not fit in in LEO culture.

Exactly. I would assume that if you had a warrant and asked politely, that you would in fact state that you had warrant and were just being respectful.

On the other hand if an LEO politely asked me if he could search my property, I would also politely ask if if he had a warrant. If he did not, I would say "No, I do not consent to a search". If there were some other extenuating circumstances, I would still make it clear that "No, I do not consent", but then they would do whatever they are authorized to do anyway and we would look into that later with my lawyer.

The red flag is when they start spinning stories, doubletalk, and saying that they don't need consent but then keep asking for it. That's just manipulation and quite frankly a con. That's where it is dipping into unethical territory.

 

[eastbank]

a man i knew shot himself due to having cancer bad, the police who came told the wife she should get rid of any other firearms in the house for the safety of others, as she was in shock about the death of her husband they told her they would take care of them for her and she agreed. later when her son ask where the family firearms were she said the police took them, that started a legal battle that took over a year to get them back, guess where they were? in the officers HOMES. if the son had not raised a stink they would still be there.

 

[ghbucky]

in the officers HOMES. if the son had not raised a stink they would still be there.

Were the officers who stole the property disciplined in any way?

 

[eastbank]

not the i know of, but the guns were in ex condition for being told they were in a police locker at the sub station for the whole time. for sure they should not have been taken and he was very lucky to get them back. i think things like that happen more than we would think.

 

[4thAmendmentLawyer]

No, they didn't lie and say they had a warrant. They lied and said that Edward had given his consent -- which he had not.

[Edit to add] This amicus curiae brief is a good read:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...210115163831475_Caniglia GOA amicus brief.pdf

I filed an amicus brief in this same case, arguing that the lower court's expansion of the community caretaking doctrine violates the peoples' right to be secure in their persons and property. (I'm the last dude quoted) [[Edit: Oops, second to last]]:

https://ij.org/press-release/ij-urg...s-expansion-of-community-caretaking-doctrine/