Replies

>> Would you rather they come with a warrant...

Uh, well yeah. I thought that's what I said.

Of course I have to presume that a warrant would only be issued if there is probable cause to issue one, and that if there is no warrant, there's no probable cause, no bona-fide reason to conduct a search, and no moral or legal obligation for me to consent.

In Oregon, our state laws spell it out exactly that way - they are written such that when a law enforcement officer is acting properly, he or she must practically encourage you to refuse consent, and I'm only too glad to oblige.

For only about ten years now it's been set up that way, and there were good reasons for making those laws. An officer without a warrant is, by default, in a no fishing zone, and we citizens in our respective domains, as they exist in our present circumstances, own the sole discretion to change the rules as we please. The law is very clear in this regard.

>> ...and toss your house looking for whatever....

Here's the deal. That's what they were doing anyway with "consent" searches, "interviews", and the like. I have been there, had my belongings scattered hither and yon, and subsequently "hauled in" and given the third degree, to be cut loose after some hours to make my way home and clean up the mess. This all because I had called in to provide information about a petty crime that I had witnessed, and I drew this whackjob deputy who hightailed it to my home, put a gun in my face, and did all this. It ain't fun.

That's been a long time now and it has taken a long time to change the status quo. The law is now written to give fair warning that this is exactly the sort of thing one can expect. I would advise anyone given such warning to heed it.

Dave in Eugene