the slippery slope and the thin edge of the wedge

[electricland]

I'm all for catching the Parkdale killer, but I'm not comfortable with this tactic.

A team of 20 officers is going door to door, asking residents to sign a consent form allowing a search of closets, basements and freezers, looking for evidence linked to the discovery of a woman's dismembered torso in an alleyway three weeks ago.

...

Almost everyone in Parkdale who has been asked has let officers in. But police confirm that saying no will land a resident on a list of potential murder suspects.

By the sounds of it, they are pressuring people fairly strongly. Call me selfish, call me lacking in public spirit, but I'd be inclined to say "No. You want to consider me a suspect? You want to search my house? Fine. Come back with a warrant."

Of course, I'm a white, educated, Canadian-born female, which is likely to put me at the bottom of a list of suspects and means I have more resources for standing up for my rights. If I were an immigrant from a police state, I suspect this would freak me right the hell out.

(I'm also quite surprised by the number of people on toronto who are saying "Sure, I'd let them in.")

Comments

[lostvoice.livejournal.com]

This really upsets me. And that they're justifying this by citing their success using this tactic to find Holly Jones' murderer...I'm just disgusted. Particularly since they don't know where this poor woman was murdered. I want to know who she is, and I want to know who did this to her, but I really not sure this is the best way to be going about that.

And this is going to do NOTHING to foster good relations between the police and Parkdale residents - and they have enough problems in that area already.

Gah.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

So how would you go about investigating?

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly - standing up for your legal rights puts you on a list of murder suspects? Ridiculous. And who says it stops here? The next time a kid disappears, or a pregnant woman, or someone else turns up dead..... it's a bad, bad precedent.

[monkeycommando.livejournal.com]

I would feel slightly differently about the whole thing if they were searching for evidence about someone who might still be alive. Time is of the essence, etc.

Still not an ideal tactic, but at least there's a competing "good" in saving someone's life.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

If you haven't committed a crime, what's the problem?

[lostvoice.livejournal.com]

Well the problem is that the police are actually rifling through people's lives, making messes, and then putting people on a "suspect" list if they feel that this is perhaps a violation of their civil liberties, or even less controvesial - they don't want to clean up after them.

I wouldn't want some strange cop rifling through my underwear drawer, just because I lived in the neighbourhood of a crime.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't want some strange cop rifling through my underwear drawer, just because I lived in the neighbourhood of a crime.

While I can understand the desire not to have to clean up after some cop -- and I'm fairly confident that they're not making too much of a mess in this search, since it is voluntary -- the cops are trying to find the person or persons responsible for killing and dismembering a woman and leaving her torso in an alley. If the police had any leads on her identity or suspects in her presumed murder, they wouldn't be conducting this search. It's costly, both in terms of time and personnel, as well as in PR. However, it's a tactic that was effective in finding Holly Jones' murderer on Bloor West, who was, in fact, one of the few people who refused to allow the police to search his home.

For me, there's no question that I would rather give up a share of my privacy than allow the victim, this person, to go on nameless and her story untold, the person or people responsible for mutilating and dumping her body in an alley like trash go free.

Everone does have the option of refusing to give up there privacy to allow the police to search and, yes, the police will take note of this and potentially investigate why you chose not to let them search your home, assuming they receive no other leads from their search of the neighbourhood. Which brings me back to my original question: if you're not involved, why is that a problem?

[lilactime.livejournal.com]

However, it's a tactic that was effective in finding Holly Jones' murderer on Bloor West, who was, in fact, one of the few people who refused to allow the police to search his home.

Actually, in that case, they were asking for DNA samples.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely.

[lostvoice.livejournal.com]

For me, there's no question that I would rather give up a share of my privacy than allow the victim, this person, to go on nameless and her story untold, the person or people responsible for mutilating and dumping her body in an alley like trash go free.

Well, that's your right and your opinion. And I would probably do the same, if an officer came to my door. However, Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that no one should have to be subjected to an unreasonable search or seizure.

And for a lot of these people, these searches are unreasonable. Particularly when yes, the police don't give a rat's ass about doing it neatly or cleaning up after themselves (and the underwear drawer comment was just to give an in jest example of the myriad of reasons WHY someone might not want to have some stranger go through their home), they come from areas of the world where this sort of thing is commonplace, and they came to Canada to get away from treatment like that, or they may have other reasons to be afraid, or they may just not understand.


I want this woman to have a face, I want the person who did this to her to be found. But, I don't want it to be done at the expense of others, who in some cases don't understand, or are in general afraid of law enforcement officials.

The police are again grasping at straws, they have no leads, and are invading these peoples' privacy in the hopes that it will give them some clue. They don't have anything substantial to go on, and they've even admitted they don't know if Parkdale was where this woman was murdered. And just because it worked in their favour in finding Holly Jones' murderer doesn't mean that it'll get them anywhere in this case.

"Why should they be worried if they have nothing to hide" (or some variation thereof) is a poor argument which has been used throughout history to justify the trampling of civil and human rights.

[raithen.livejournal.com]

it is a problem because it is a tactic that is much closer to those used by a police state, or a state under martial law, than it is to tactics used in a country that ostensibly adheres to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, that means that SOMETIMES bad people (murderers, kidnappers, rapists, shoplifters) go free. But seriously, me? I'd rather see that happen in rare cases than the vast majority of people being denied rights.

It is indeed a slippery slope issue, as Ell and numerous others related to other issues have pointed out. There are many, many people in the US who felt that it was OK to traipse on a few previously inviolable rights in order to "protect" the country post-911. Which brings us to today....

I udnerstand the desire to catch this murderer, to identify this woman. But if THIS search is successful, then who knows what will happen next time....

[electricland.livejournal.com]

That does seem to be the reaction of many people on toronto.

The problem is that it can very easily become a tool for intimidation. We're supposed to have certain rights, including privacy and not being harassed by the police without cause. I'm not even sure what they expect to gain. I mean, if they knew -- for example -- that the body had come from a certain building, that would be different. But they don't even know that it came from that neighbourhood.

The police have plenty of power already, and this kind of tactic is simply an infringement of civil liberties that has the potential to be used against vulnerable people.

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

...if someone used luminol in my bathroom, they'd think I was a mass-murderer from all the blood they'd find.

Yay, menstrual_cups!

[electricland.livejournal.com]

I think this comment may actually win the whole debate.

Hee.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

The police have plenty of power already, and this kind of tactic is simply an infringement of civil liberties that has the potential to be used against vulnerable people.

Oh, bullshit. C'mon, let's get beyond this kind of rhetoric: you make it sound like the police have been granted some sort of special dispensation to randomly search houses in Parkdale without the occupant's consent, which is not the case. The police are knocking on doors, asking questions, asking to search kitchens and workshops and look at tools and providing the occupant with a waiver to sign prior to entering. Where's the infringement of civil liberties? Where's the "unreasonable search"? No one's rights are being infringed -- the police still have to go before a JP and get warrants if they want to search a house over the occupant's objections. There's not even any Charter infringement in the event that an individual's name ends up on a police short list.

Supposing that you operated a crack house and the police discovered your crack stash while examinging your power tools for traces of human flesh or bone and arrested you for possession, then you might have a case for Charter infringement, since arguably the police gained access to your dwelling under false pretences. Are these the "vulnerable people" you're talking about? Because again, I'm trying to see where an innocent person has anything to worry about here.

I appreciate that some residents of Parkdale may have reasonable fears about the police searching their homes based on their experiences in another country but this is Canada, not Syria, and there are protections in place to protect people from unreasonable police search and seizure, which are zealously defended. But those fears are not justifiable in this instance. The police believe that this woman was killed or dismembered somewhere in the Parkdale area -- they wouldn't be conducting this kind of search if they didn't believe that it had a reasonable chance of success.

You may believe the search to be inappropriate but the argument that there is some sort of infringement of civil liberties going on is fatuous and simply untrue.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Without getting too much into a debate whose source material I don't have the time to research fully, I'll just say that it is a fairly coercive tactic (being told you will be considered a murder suspect if you don't open your door - that'll hang heavy on a *lot* of people's heads, particularly, as electric points out, immigrants or minorities who already tend to be racially profiled into becoming targets). You may be innocent, but being a murder suspect certainly can be a pain in the butt, to say the least.

[monkeycommando.livejournal.com]

"this is Canada, not Syria, and there are protections in place to protect people from unreasonable police search and seizure"

Nice in theory, but the argument is that these searches _are_ unreasonable. If police plan to (or a reasonable person can infer that they will) solicit warrants for all residences to which they are denied entry, then the voluntary nature of the searches is fictitious.

I guess the big problem is the Rogers Cable-style negative option billing. If the police were to set up a web site or central desk where residents could take the initiative to volunteer for searches, that would be different.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Fine, I take back the infringement-of-civil-liberties. I'm still uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons, many of which have been set out more eloquently by others. ;)

I really don't like the "an innocent person has nothing to worry about" argument -- if for no other reason than that sadly, Canadian legal history has a number of high-profile cases where it's since been shown that innocent people did in fact have a LOT to worry about. David Milgaard, anyone?

[raithen.livejournal.com]

Oh, bullshit. C'mon, let's get beyond this kind of rhetoric: you make it sound like the police have been granted some sort of special dispensation to randomly search houses in Parkdale without the occupant's consent, which is not the case.... Because again, I'm trying to see where an innocent person has anything to worry about here.

Obviously, we're not gonna agree on this (which actually surprises me as I expect to generally fall further to the right than you on most issues!). But I DO want to say that when I was living in Kitchener, a woman killed her toddler daughter and then herself across the street from me. The cops questionned me, with my consent. I knew NOTHING about what had happened and the whole thing WAS rather innocuous. And REALLY FUCKING SCARY. It was HORRID having a cop in my house, not knowing WHY exactly he was there, beyond the fact that there had been police and ambulances around since I returned from the uni at 3PM. I let him in and I answered his questions because I was scared for my security - I didn't know if there was someone dangerous in the neighborhood (Which had a fairly large number of drug-related homes - crack houses etc - in close promiximity) or what. But when I thought about it later, I realized that even though I was perfectly innocent, and it WAS ok, it was also potentially insidious.

So I understand people's concerns regarding SEARCHES of their houses and THREATS that they are a suspect (there is a long-proven history in Canada of INNOCENT people being convicted for crimes they didn't commit, so don't give me the Bullshit of people who are innocent not having to worry -ask David Milgaard, for example) seem valid to me.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

It's a shame that enough people are letting them in that the ones who don't *can* be relegated to a list of suspects. Call me idealistic, but it would be pretty awesome if all those white people with resources and a profile that's not likely to be deemed "suspicious" would refuse them entry - not for their own sake (I can understand why an innocent person might not care one way or the other) but in order to make the point that these sort of tactics aren't acceptable and to protect those people who *don't* want their privacy invaded from being targeted unfairly.

But I'm a crazy liberal. I know the opposing argument is "what does it matter if your privacy's invaded if you're not doing anything wrong?" Problem is, it does matter. Imagine the mess if a couple who happened to be into bondage play had their house raided for no reason except that they lived in the same city where murders had been taking place. Or if another family had an autistic child who'd react with terror to that kind of sudden invasion. Or if the homeowner were OCD and couldn't stand to have his things disarranged. Or if someone just doesn't freaking want policemen poking around in their jewelry box. The list is endless, but the bottom line is that just because *you* don't feel particularly attached to your right to privacy doesn't mean that no one else should feel attached to theirs.

[lilactime.livejournal.com]

Your description makes it sound as if these searches are being done by a SWAT team with a battering ram. My understanding is that it's a pair of officers who ask you to sign a waiver first, and then ask you to show them around your house, looking for specific items like power tools and large freezers - they're not conducting a full search they way they would if they had a warrant where the person is made to wait outside.

I'll probably be able to give an exact account either later today or tomorrow - I'm three blocks away from the location where the torso was found, so it's only a matter of time before they get to my house. But I don't expect they'll be digging through my underwear drawer or tearing apart my wrapped Christmas presents.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

I'll be interested to hear your take on it!

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where that perception came in, because I wasn't implying that. Just that some people, for reasons mentioned above and for a zillion other reasons, may not want police officers in their home, especially since they may not trust that the officers *won't* be harsh or rough. I'm not saying they would be, but only that a person might reasonably wonder if they wouldn't be. And that it seems unfair to assume that that kind of doubt is reason enough to put someone on a list of murder suspects.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there are a lot of reasons why a person might not want police searching their home, and that it's not really fair to dismiss those reasons as irrational or suspicious when that person has a right to privacy. Turning a police officer away shouldn't mean anything more than that that right is important to them. The police can always get a search warrant if there's reason to suspect something's fishy. But it does seem coercive to say "Let us in, or you're a murder suspect."

::shrug:: I'm sure there's a strong case to be made from the other side, too, but this is just my perspective.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Very very good points.

And I dunno, maybe under circumstances I would say "Sure, go right ahead!" But the point is, everyone has a right to say "No, you can't come in." And they shouldn't have to defend that right. I'm sure what the police are doing is legal and I'm sure many residents even welcome it, but for the exceptions, the police shouldn't be standing there saying "Please? Pretty please? C'mon, let us in." Just go away, and come back with a warrant if you can get one.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

One thing I don't understand about any of this is what good it does. They're publicizing that they're doing this, which means that any murderer with half a brain, unless he has some serious and seriously specific disordered compulsions, is going to take the body out of his basement, bury it somewhere, and then let the police search. So unless they're doing some pretty seriously invasive searches - i.e., LumiLighting* any space that could have held a dead body - the odds are better than even that they're going to come up with potentially exculpatory evidence, right? That some defense attorney will just say "They searched my client's house with his consent, Your Honor, and found nothing?" Assuming they catch anyone at all.

It just seems sort of pointless.

*Or whatever it's called.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Also, why am I pretending I'm on Law and Order? I just realized I was basically envisioning this all as a L&O episode, as that is all I know about this sort of thing. ::hides, far far away::