RE: Warrantless searches -- A sign of things to come?

[GERSTEIN@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU]

On Sun, 17 Apr 94 13:39:39 
paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>A Page 1 story in The Washington Post Sunday (94.04.17) reads,
>"Clinton Lets Police Raid Projects," "Warrantless Searches Said to Be
>Needed For Tenants Safety."
> 
>For those who haven't been following this ludicrous story, the USG has
>now decided that Chicago Housing Authority-sponsored, and warrantless,
>searches of dwellings within the CHA, is "A Good Thing" (tm) and
>specifically geared towards uncovering weapons of criminals (or
>would-be criminals) for the safety of law-abiding Housing tenants.
> 
>Personally, I find this mentality alarming and indicative of a growing
>trend within the government. "Big Brother knows best."
> 
>Vile and Nauseating.
> 
>This is another absurdity in the "War on Drugs" and "War on Crime."
>More government-sponsored "wars" are undoubtedly on the horizon,
>perhaps even a war on non-escrowed crypto.
> 
>I suppose things will get worse before they get better.
========
While I don't agree with these searches either, you have to understand the 
situation that the people in the CHA buildings are in. Did you see the show that 
was done on it? (I think it was Nightline, they did a whole hour on it)

Anyway, the point is, these people aren't safe in their own homes. The parents 
keep their children home from school because they are afraid that they will either 
get shot (which happens quite a lot, one child was shot by a "gangsta" with a 
sniper rifle while his mother was walking him to school- the kid was about 5 years 
old) or that the kids will get involved in the gangs.

For a while, the Chicago PD were unwilling to enter the buildings until after the 
shooting had stopped, and would then go in to tag and bag the bodies. IT WAS BAD!!!

The landlord of the little kid who got shot decided he wasn't going to put up with 
that, and started the CHA PD, and they were kicking ass until the ACLU got 
involved.

Slightly related is the fact that I live on my school's campus in the residence 
halls. If the resident advisors feel there is probable cause for something and 
decides to do a room search, I can do nothing about it but hope they don't find 
what ever it is their looking for (usually because I don't do anything bad >:)). 
Anyway, if they find something (drugs, beer in excess of the 6 can limit, 
firearms, PGP, etc.) they can call the campus police (real, live, actual cops) in 
to bust my ass and nail it to the wall. 

BUT NO WARRANT WAS SERVED! Does that mean I can get the ACLU up the school's ass? 
If the school says they can do that because I pay to live on their property, then 
why can't the CHA do what they want?

Just my 0.02�.....

adam

"After this, nothing will shock me."
----------
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone
calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 4, 1994