Works for me, but this is a much better article, among other things pointing out the items will be sold in 60 days if not claimed, has a copy of the notice, pictures and comments of the areas's "top cop", etc.: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/...
Well at least they might be able to do this if Connecticut were to secede from the United States. Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government... But in this case it looks like we'll have to use it to protect us from our own states.
> Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government...
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.
the 4th amendment has been incorporated to the states. states can't legislate/constitutionalize less protections than what federal law provides.. you know... because the supremacy clause
this should be killed by a federal court very fast
The supremacy clause is, however, the basis for why state statute can't brush aside the protections in the federal constitution, including those incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendemnt.
Has the practice been tested in federal court in any use substantially similar? Because its not clear to me how it could withstand challenge under either the Fourth Amendment (as applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth) or the bare Fourteenth Amendment due process, nor is the taking of private property for public purposes (presumably, here, the prevention of crime) accompanied by just compensation, as required by the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
A state statute can't generally just brush away federal constitutional requirements.
Wait, yeah, this doesn't sound right at all. Carroll provides exceptions for cars where there is probable cause. I too would be surprised that 'unlocked door' constitutes probable cause.
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).
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 implication is that thieves will break the windows and snatch whatever they can. Since the police can't break the windows and "hold the contents for safekeeping" they have to skip the locked cars.
The article says the police will first run the plate and try to contact the owner before they take the stuff. Will they be doing this for locked cars too?
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."
Not all thieves will break a window, especially if it's in daylight in an open parking lot / or street parking, more likely they might just go around looking for unlocked cars especially in places where people tend to run errands mid day in which case they might leave the car unlocked if they only pop out for 5min.
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.
Because an unlocked car is a situation that can be addressed while a locked car is one that can not, likely reducing the overall number occurrences. Also, an unlocked car is a lower barrier for a potential thief as well. They may choose to pass up a locked car while an unlocked is a much easier target.
> Because an unlocked car is a situation that can be addressed while a locked car is one that can not
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".
I doubt it. From the description of the "caretaker law" presented in the article, it only allows for this sort of behavior for an unlocked vehicle. They wouldn't have grounds to tow a locked vehicle because leaving valuables in plain sight in a locked vehicle, while stupid, isn't a crime.
Probably because they want to "raise awareness" and also on the off chance that the owner's keys are inside the car and if they will be locked out the Police might turn out to be liable.
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.
Boy, as a non-lawyer, it seems to me the two aren't even related. It's one thing for your job to require you to secure an item from a vehicle (don't want police sidearms running around loose in Chicago), and you trip across evidence of a crime. Quite another to just make up excuses (pardon me, laws) to enter any random vehicle ("we were concerned that someone would break into the vehicle and steal that enticing pack of Wrigley's gum.") and search it for other evidence.
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."
Entirely agreed. Not a lawyer though, and it's certainly possible that the other cases on the subject have narrowed its scope. No time to read up on them at the moment.
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".
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?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Like many HN readers, I can't help but speculate about how people could game new systems.
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.
It could also expose police officers to incredible dangers.
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.
I'm pretty sure if some one wanted to blow up or kill cops there would be quite an easier way to do so.
Also the likelihood of someone being deranged enough to want to do it, and be capable of rigging a GPS and Camera to a laptop filled with explosives while being able to get their hands on explosives which could fit in a modern laptop is pretty slim.
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....
See, you made the same mistake the successful deranged person would have fooled the police into making: You said the car would be part of the evidence. But go back and read what I wrote: the psycho puts the bomb into someone else's already open car. The car is a distraction.
> 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. 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?
Had a boss once who lived near a couple of state prisons. A couple of times a year he was awakened by cops handing him his car keys and scolding him for leaving them in the vehicles.
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.
From the other comments here, I think I'm in the minority, but I find this offensive not because of the potential for abuse by the police, but because it legitimates the idea that it's OK to steal from unlocked vehicles. Maybe it's because I'm old and rural, but I'd prefer to live in a society where the societal convention is that "theft is wrong" regardless of whether it requires breaking a window, rather than implying that the victim is to blame for failing to to push a button to properly signify their desire that their belongings not be stolen.
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?
62 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadI'm sure they have the best intentions, but you just can't do this.
they can just do this (unfortunately)
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.
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
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).
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm
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?
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?
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.
(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".
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."
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?
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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?