Cops to grab unlocked stuff from cars in East Rock area, for safekeeping
nhregister.com
nhregister.com
One thing being ignored by a lot of the conversation that the police are at least going to be running plates and trying to call people, but I still don't love the idea.
Also have to wonder if once they open your car, can the police can just say "It smelled like weed" and search all your stuff?
The cynical side of me says that this is exactly why they're doing it, under the cover of doing the community a "favor". "Brilliant, Jones, just brilliant. I see lieutenant bars in your future."
In that case, the police searched the car of a Chicago police officer who was in a coma at a local hospital. They were aiming to secure his revolver, which Chicago police were required to carry at all times.
Instead, they found evidence of a possible crime, discovered the body of a murder victim, were able to link the officer to the murder, and he was charged as a result of the warrantless search.
The Supreme Court allowed the search, saying that the officers were engaged in activities completely separate from their crime investigation/enforcement when they searched the car.
Let's pretend what conversations might be like for the two situations. "Man, sucks about Jones. Hope he comes out of it. sigh, let's go get his sidearm. I hate doing this, breaking into a guy's car like this. Oh, shit dude, isn't this the shirt that the murder victim was last seen wearing? I don't like where this might lead. But we've gotta follow up, right?"
Versus: "BMW 3 series, unlocked, left his phone in the cup holder. Let's see what else we can find."
(rolling probable cause is why)
They could, by the same logic by which they steal (er, "confiscate") goods that are visible in unlocked cars, just tow away locked cars that have visible goods in them that are an "invitation to thieves". Or, for that matter, locked or unlocked cars that, by their value and ease of theft are, themselves, "invitations to thieves".
A guy taking something out of the back/front seat isn't as suspicious as some on going around with a crawbar smashing windows.
I've seen individuals going around a parking lot actively looking for unlocked cars couple of times in my life usually a blow of a horn scares them off.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/...
Another interesting tidbit from that: you have to show ID to get your stuff back, and you can only pick it up between 9:30AM and 3:30PM on weekdays. Which is pretty unbelievably shitty.
While there might, somehow, be some arguments that the temporary hold to prevent attracting thieves is neither a deprivation of property without due process (prohibited by the 14th Amendment), nor an unreasonable seizure (prohibited by the 4th Amendment), nor a taking for public use (prohibited by the 5th Amendment) -- though I still think its likely to be at least one of those -- I'm having more trouble seeing even a remote argument for how taking personal property from an unlocked car and selling it, with the proceeds going to the government, can fail to be either a deprivation of property without due process or a taking without just compensation.
Moreover, its exactly the same kind of permanent deprivation of the owners property that the policy is notionally supposed to prevent. "In order to stop your stuff from getting stolen, we had to steal it."
Really?
It was rural area with zero crime. He always figured if there was an escapee he'd much rather have him take the vehicle than break into his house threatening his family to get his car keys. The cops never understood that point of view.
1. Log into a cell phone/computer. 2. See if there are any files with incorrect permissions. 3. Make backups and delete the originals so no hackers can get them?
What are the limits to this approach? Should the police break the window and empty the glove compartment, on the theory that windows are easy to break and one shouldn't keep anything valuable in the car? Should the police try out their bump-keys on empty houses, and pro-actively remove the valuables from the 90+% of houses where these work? Should they "kidnap" the kindergartner who is in public without chaperones so that no one else does?
Or should they figure out ways to punish those who break the law rather than those who are obeying it?
Here's what I came up with for this one: this system allows participants to exchange goods and currency, in broad daylight, with plausible deniability.
Q: What if Jane X. Badgal were to fill a laptop case with explosives and a GPS/camera, then look for someone's open car near a police station and leave the device in it?
A: Police officer grabs device, remote detonation happens, with little evidence to go on.
If any "dangerous" incident will happen it will be more likely if a plain cloths police officer will open some one's car door in sight of the owner and the owner over reacts and lashes out. Some one booby trapping electronics to blow up cops what is this a 90's action film? Next they'll rig a police cruiser to explode if they go below 60....
P.S. I'm sure that if some one puts a bomb in a laptop that would be more than "little to no evidence", the bomb components, explosives used, the car and who ever drove it there, that's a mountain of forensic evidence right there....
> there would be quite an easier way to do so
First, psychos are not rational evaluators. Second, setting a bomb in a public place is a lot easier than sniping cops. There's no need to run, there's no head-to-head confrontation. The weapon can be untraceably manufactured in one's home - you can't just whip together a decent sniper rifle.
> Some one booby trapping electronics to blow up cops what is this a 90's action film?
That was a witty phrase in the Aughts to shut down outsiders in security circles, but since then, there have been growing cases of snipers attacking police. It's reality, unfortunately and this policy increases the attack surface of officer security. [ 1 2 3 4 ].
[ 1 ] http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-pennsylvania-cop-shooting-s...
[ 2 ] http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-headquarters-...
[ 3 ] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sniper-kills-two-officers-later-...
[ 4 ] http://gothamist.com/2013/07/05/police_search_for_sniper_who...
If car is unlocked and laptop is visible - they take the laptop and lock the car. Try to contact owner.
If car is locked and laptop is visible - nothing?
a) lock the car and leave the property intact
b) try to contact the owner
Neither of which they are doing
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure they have the best intentions, but you just can't do this.
they can just do this (unfortunately)
A state statute can't generally just brush away federal constitutional requirements.
Though, here the police are explicitly giving the items back (if the backpack they take doesn't have weed, I guess). Civil forfeiture, as a practice, is legal but really shitty (if the police think you made money from a drug ring, you're never touching that money again, even if you're acquitted).
this should be killed by a federal court very fast
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
This language seems overly patronising, and unlikely to contribute to the important point that the rest of your post makes. I think it doesn't matter whether or not GP is from the US.