Investigators looking for a missing 7-year-old girl now believe the second-grader was kidnapped from her home, and yesterday they conducted a rare search using police dogs targeting all 184 residences in the child's neighborhood.
Michael Ebert, a lawyer in the appellate division of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and an expert in search-and-seizure issues, said forcing residents to submit to a search of their homes may cross constitutional boundaries.
Police said they hoped residents would let them in voluntarily. Ebert said officers would need to obtain search warrants for those who balk.
Police can search a home without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that someone inside the home is in immediate danger.
David Westerfield, a friend of the van Dam family who lives a few doors down, said his house was one of the first police dogs searched.
If the public won't stand up for their own rights, then the police would obviously believe they could violate the rights of a "potential suspect".
Which they did, to the collective yawn of most of San Diego.
It's like the "pro-choice" people ignoring that there is, in fact, a choice, though they use the term to apply to abortion on demand, the other choice, obviously, is to have the baby.
Well, like the pro-choicers using their term deceptively, so you use the concept of "the public won't stand up for their own rights", when what you mean is that you expect all citizens to never cooperate with the police because they have the right to not be forced to submit to warrantless searches, etc. Or the right to remain silent OR what you say can and WILL be used against you.... See, people have the right to cooperate voluntarily.
Anyone else support or disagree with this?
What I don't know is if the LE's were able to get into the empty house or if they didn't search it because it was 'supposedly' empty and if that is where Danielle was 'kept' until someone could move her body somewhere else?