Trading Liberty for Safety

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- Benjamin Franklin

Boston police — in a program called “Safe Homes” (that someone is sure to suggest be tried in cities that have been plagued by violence like Cleveland) — have launched an initiative that will ask parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow police to come into their homes and search their children’s bedrooms for guns... without warrants.

The logic behind the program is that these parents are so afraid of their children getting caught up in gun violence they’ll temporarily trade their liberty — their protection under the Constitution against searches of their homes without a warrant — for perceived security. Before even getting to the question of the loss of civil liberties, the question of “why don’t parents just search their children’s rooms themselves?” has to be answered. This was the “Duh!” response I got from a high-ranking officer on the Cleveland Police Department when I asked him what he thought about the Boston program.

“Are parents in Boston that afraid of their offspring that a police officer has to be brought into the home to search for firearms?” he wanted to know. “If so, then things are even worse than we had imagined. But I’m against it.”

Certainly guns in the hands of young people are a serious problem in inner-cities, and innovative methods of crime and violence reduction need to be considered. With that said, why not try it this way: Have the police contact the parents of youths suspected of possessing firearms, train them in search techniques in necessary (how hard can it be to find a gun in a kid’s bedroom?), and then have the parents conduct the searches. The police can even wait outside (or in the living room for that matter) while the search is being carried out.

In this manner the Constitution is not trampled under foot and the same goal is accomplished. In fact, this method could prove far superior if the parent is brought into the process and made to understand that a weekly sweep of the at-risk youth’s bedroom is in the best interest of everyone. If the police were to find a gun one week, what’s to say that the youth won’t have another one by the next week? In other words, instead of police doing the parents’ job, they’d be encouraging the primary caregiver to do what they should have been doing all along.

The Boston plan, as it now stands, smacks of a kind of government intrusion that frightens most liberty-loving people ... and evokes the fear of initiating that slide down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism. History is replete with examples of how those least able to resist government pressure are the first to have their rights abrogated. The so-called “War on Drugs” sparked no-knock warrants, which resulted in numerous deaths of innocent people at the hands of overly zealous — and oftentimes frightened — police officers.

Even with the best safeguards in place it probably would not be too long before the jackbooted question of “What have you got to hide?” is asked of a parent who resists giving up their rights. Additionally, to not involve parents in essence makes true the statement, “We don’t trust your kid, or you either.”

The question put forth in this situation of unequal power can all too quickly morph from “May we search your house?” to “We need to search your house,” and ultimately to “We’re going to search your house, OK?” Police officers know that folks living in marginal neighborhoods don’t understand their Constitutional rights as well as some others in society, and the temptation for them to act in an oppressive manner is far too great. There is potentially a better way, what’s wrong with at least trying it?

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com
(:divend:)