WWYD: Missing Child, Cops Searching Neighborhood (1 Viewer)

[krista4]

Damn - that’s horrible.  Considering he wasn’t missing that long are they suspecting foul play.  God, I can’t imagine.

Found by a dive team in a pond, so probably just a horrible accident.

 

[krista4]

This is a very interesting thread to me in that I was one of the "of course I would allow it" people, but reading more of the posts I realize that was pretty naive.

 

[Murph]

Found by a dive team in a pond, so probably just a horrible accident.

I hadn't seen about the pond yet but that makes sense. First thing they did yesterday was search pools and bodies of water

 

[krista4]

I hadn't seen about the pond yet but that makes sense. First thing they did yesterday was search pools and bodies of water

I got the info here.

 

[Jobber]

This is a very interesting thread to me in that I was one of the "of course I would allow it" people, but reading more of the posts I realize that was pretty naive.

Well at least you didn’t have Woz basically call you a dumb***.

 

[krista4]

Well at least you didn’t have Woz basically call you a dumb***.

  He wouldn't dare!

 

[Kanil]

I'd be 100% fine letting them search my property outside of my house.  Inside I'd be hesitant and set boundaries (specifically that A) no guns come into the house, and B) I have a dog that gets super excited to see people and could possible jump up onto you, proceed if you're comfortable with that happening).

This did bring up a memory for me though.  In 2012 we had a young (I think 8 or 9 year old) girl go missing near our neighborhood.  At the same time I was in the process of gaining a high level security clearance which meant people with badges and suits were going to all my neighbors asking questions about me.  It was not a great time.

 

[Gally]

I'm honestly envious that your life experiences have led you to this conclusion. 

In this particular situation what should I be worried about?

 

[brun]

I think many people, if asked without any warning, would say yes because wanting to be helpful is instinctual.

As Lewis Black would say, "That's how they getcha!"

While a tragic outcome, at least the "not knowing where kid is" part of the ordeal is over. I hope the family gets through it as well as possible. 

 

[Murph]

In this particular situation what should I be worried about?

I don't keep guns in my home. I wouldn't let a guest bring a gun into my home. If an armed officer wants to come in my home there better be a damn good reason.

 

[Gally]

I don't keep guns in my home. I wouldn't let a guest bring a gun into my home. If an armed officer wants to come in my home there better be a damn good reason.

Isn't a missing kid a damn good reason?  That didn't really answer my question unless you mean the sole concern is that they carry guns and that's why I shouldn't let them into my house

 

[Murph]

Isn't a missing kid a damn good reason?  That didn't really answer my question unless you mean the sole concern is that they carry guns and that's why I shouldn't let them into my house

Not unless they actually have reason to suspect him to be in my home. Which they don't, as all my doors are locked, I work from home, and I have a dog that barks her head off if you even look at one of our doors and I live a quarter-mile from where he was last seen.

Why should I interact with an armed individual if I don't absolutely have to?

 

[Gally]

Not unless they actually have reason for him to be in my home. Which they don't, as all my doors are locked, I work from home, and I have a dog that barks her head off if you even look at one of our doors.

Why should I interact with an armed individual if I don't absolutely have to?

I have been around guns all my life.  I don't have an aversion to them or people that have them unless I have reason to have issue with it.  In this scenario I wouldn't have an issue with it.  

 

[AAABatteries]

Isn't a missing kid a damn good reason?  That didn't really answer my question unless you mean the sole concern is that they carry guns and that's why I shouldn't let them into my house

I voted yes but I definitely get the concern - several have been listed:

• armed officers in my home
  
• dogs
  
• possibility of having something illegal be found (say marijuana in a state that doesn't allow it)
  
• one I listed which would be my biggest concern - what if somehow the kid managed to get in my house without me knowing.  It wouldn't look too great if it appeared as though he were abducted.
  

Now everyone has to weigh for themselves whether that outweighs the benefit of letting them in.  I do think people make a really good point that there's little chance the kid is in there without you knowing (at least for most folks).  So in that scenario you are only opening yourself up to bad things.  The downside there is they possibly think you are a suspect and/or an #######.

It's not a black/white situation and honestly I can see how people's previous interactions with police, where they live and possibly even their race/gender could be factors in whether someone would allow this.

 

[Chadstroma]

two scenarios i can think of

1) Jacob Wetterling - police didn't search every home nearby, didn't question all the neighbors. turns out the most obvious suspect of all the neighbors is the one who did it and we had no idea for..... 30 years?

2) a girl in northern WI recently went missing on her walk to school. police didn't search all the local houses.. she turned up alive, having escaped a local home where the kidnapper was holding her as a sex slave.

i'm not a policeman but i would think searching as many houses in the area as possible is on their checklist & anyone who says "no" will be on their suspect list. if you haven't kidnapped a 3-year old and you say "no" to them searching your house at the very least they're going to look a little closer and your neighbors are going to think differently of you.

i would.

you aren't doing anything that the cops are worried about unless you have kidnapped that kid (or some other kid).

Knocking on doors and talking to the neighbors seems like an automatic police work thing. Asking to search is fine, if given permission then it just helps cross off the list. 

That being said, a cursory search could lead to a false sense of "they are ok, they don't have the kid". I mean, weren't cops in John Wayne Gacy's house several times before they realized there were a bunch of dead kids buried in the crawl space?

 

[Murph]

From the news conference:

The child, Harry, was found in a pond ~ 650 feet from the yard where he was last seen.

Was missing for less than 15 minutes before police were called. 

Pond was searched yesterday AM and nothing found.

Found in the clothes he was last seen in. No evidence of trauma.

 

[Hawks64]

From the news conference:

The child, Harry, was found in a pond ~ 650 feet from the yard where he was last seen.

Was missing for less than 15 minutes before police were called. 

Pond was searched yesterday AM and nothing found.

Found in the clothes he was last seen in. No evidence of trauma.

So damn sad

 

[The General]

I voted yes but I definitely get the concern - several have been listed:

• armed officers in my home
  
• dogs
  
• possibility of having something illegal be found (say marijuana in a state that doesn't allow it)
  
• one I listed which would be my biggest concern - what if somehow the kid managed to get in my house without me knowing.  It wouldn't look too great if it appeared as though he were abducted.
  

Now everyone has to weigh for themselves whether that outweighs the benefit of letting them in.  I do think people make a really good point that there's little chance the kid is in there without you knowing (at least for most folks).  So in that scenario you are only opening yourself up to bad things.  The downside there is they possibly think you are a suspect and/or an #######.

It's not a black/white situation and honestly I can see how people's previous interactions with police, where they live and possibly even their race/gender could be factors in whether someone would allow this.

I don't see the point of allowing them into my house. The more I think about it the more bizarre i think it is that they would go home to home asking to look in houses. 

 

[shadrap]

sick to my stomach when something bad happens to a kid.  just doesn't seem right.

 

[steeler6]

If the police came to my house and asked to do the search, being a parent,  my response would be to let them do the search. 

 

[Rustoleum]

Many people around here leave their garage doors open all day, and more than a few have finished basements etc. that probably don’t get a lot of traffic during a normal day. I don’t fit either of those conditions, but nonetheless:

I can easily see where a child, especially one on the spectrum, could get into one of those houses and amuse themselves for hours with little chance of discovery.

I would  probably tear my house apart looking on my own and spend hours in the woods with a search team, but that is such a jarring, invasive request to have made of you that I wouldn’t have  a problem declining either, even though my house makes Ward and June Cleaver’s place look like a crackhouse.

 

[Rustoleum]

• one I listed which would be my biggest concern - what if somehow the kid managed to get in my house without me knowing.  It wouldn't look too great if it appeared as though he were abducted.
  

Gotta imagine that’s not the best look, regardless,  though infinitely preferable to the tragic outcome this story had.

Can’t exactly spin them around in circles a few times until they’re dizzy and send them on down the sidewalk.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

You are though because if you don't consent then you are immediately on top of the list of suspects and they will waste time pestering you because they think you have something to hide.  That is taking away time and resources they should be using to really find what happened to the kid.  So you would actually hurting the search by not consenting.  

This is nonsense.  How is some kid getting into my house?  Why on earth would I let randos into my home to search it?  And searching silly places takes away from searching places that the child is actually likely to be.

And if the cops want to suspect me of being smarter than a june bug, let them.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

This is a very interesting thread to me in that I was one of the "of course I would allow it" people, but reading more of the posts I realize that was pretty naive.

It's not naive;  it's a dangerous way to think.  "People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."  Nope.  That leads to things like McCarthyism and genuine witch hunts where refusing to comply equals guilt.

Not in my house, partner.

 

[belljr]

I feel like I'm in bizzaro world....this is a 100% yes easily

 

[Murph]

For the 100% yes without hesitation crowd, what scenario would be a bridge too far?

If you lived 10 miles away? 20?

If they were looking for a lost cat instead of a lost child?

Is there ever a scenario where you would refuse a search?

 

[fruity pebbles]

Of course I would and I’d hope my neighbors would agree to the same if it were my child missing. 

 

[belljr]

I'll spin it back..... What if you decline and a day later you found said child in your house/yard and you could have saved them

 

[Zow]

You are though because if you don't consent then you are immediately on top of the list of suspects and they will waste time pestering you because they think you have something to hide.  That is taking away time and resources they should be using to really find what happened to the kid.  So you would actually hurting the search by not consenting.  

That's irrational thinking that's contrary to law on behalf of law enforcement so that's on them. Your point is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing to scandalous. 

 

[Zow]

I'll spin it back..... What if you decline and a day later you found said child in your house/yard and you could have saved them

Then that's a tragic situation that is unfortunate but not at all your fault. 

Your post also suggests that the homeowner wouldn't independently look. I think I would in that situation and I would have to assume others would do the same. 

 

[Zow]

This is a very interesting thread to me in that I was one of the "of course I would allow it" people, but reading more of the posts I realize that was pretty naive.

Interesting. The legal advice any criminal law attorney would give here is to not do it. 

 

[Murph]

I'll spin it back..... What if you decline and a day later you found said child in your house/yard and you could have saved them

I had no objection to police searching the yard. There is absolutely no reason to believe the police would do a better job locating a toddler in my home than I would.

 

[-fish-]

This is a very interesting thread to me in that I was one of the "of course I would allow it" people, but reading more of the posts I realize that was pretty naive.

Interesting. The legal advice any criminal law attorney would give here is to not do it. 

zero  chance I allow police to search my house for any reason without a warrant.   I'd be happy to search my house myself to help out.

 

[Gally]

That's irrational thinking that's contrary to law on behalf of law enforcement so that's on them. Your point is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing to scandalous. 

I agree it's irrational and that law enforcement shouldn't thibk that way but you cannot have the arguments both ways.  Much of the reasons people are stating why they wouldn't let LE in is because they don't trust them and worry that they will fabricate things or do something they shouldn't be doing.  So if that leap is made why isn't possible to leap the other way?

I personally think all of it is  crock.  Saying no shouldn't lead to anything extra and letting them into look for a missing kid isn't some nefarious plan to plant evidence of me doing something bad.

Really it is all irrational.

 

[Murph]

Much of the reasons people are stating why they wouldn't let LE in is because they don't trust them and worry that they will fabricate things or do something they shouldn't be doing.  So if that leap is made why isn't possible to leap the other way?

The Constitution 

 

[krista4]

It's not naive;  it's a dangerous way to think.  "People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."  Nope.  That leads to things like McCarthyism and genuine witch hunts where refusing to comply equals guilt.

Not in my house, partner.

It's not really "people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."  I see this very differently than if I were arrested for a crime I didn't commit (or did, actually).  In that case I wouldn't say a damn thing or let them search.  This is trying to find a kid.  It's not a "I have nothing to hide" moment; it's a "how far will I go on even the 0.000001% chance that it will help."  Big difference to me.  Like I said, though, my initial "no hesitation" has been swayed a bit by people like you posting legitimate reasons not to.

 

[krista4]

For the 100% yes without hesitation crowd, what scenario would be a bridge too far?

If you lived 10 miles away? 20?

If they were looking for a lost cat instead of a lost child?

Is there ever a scenario where you would refuse a search?

10 miles, yes a bridge too far.  20 miles obviously the same.  Cat the same.  Obviously there are scenarios where it wouldn't be reasonable.  Slippery slope arguments are garbage.  But my instinct on this was, given the actual fact pattern, I'd allow it.  I'd give pause to that now based on some posts here, especially the ones about just not wanting people with guns and potentially itchy trigger fingers in my house.

 

[krista4]

Interesting. The legal advice any criminal law attorney would give here is to not do it. 

I'm posting as a human, not an attorney.   

 

[krista4]

If the police came to my house and asked to do the search, being a parent,  my response would be to let them do the search. 

By the way, I don't think "being a parent" is relevant here.  I'm not and had the same instinct as you.  We're talking about a three-year-old child, man.

 

[Murph]

10 miles, yes a bridge too far.  20 miles obviously the same.  Cat the same.  Obviously there are scenarios where it wouldn't be reasonable.  Slippery slope arguments are garbage.  

Not suggesting that those are the reasonable boundaries. Just wondering where others would draw the line. 

 

[The General]

By the way, I don't think "being a parent" is relevant here.  I'm not and had the same instinct as you.  We're talking about a three-year-old child, man.

I’d lean the same but police going door to door asking to look around in houses instead of letting people know to please look around themselves then going to more likely areas where a child might be seems like a much better plan.

 

[Gally]

The Constitution 

What does that have to do with the scenario and the reasons why people would or would not allow LE to look for a missing kid in your house?

The Constitution allows you to say no but that wasn't the question or reason why not to.

 

[Murph]

What does that have to do with the scenario and the reasons why people would or would not allow LE to look for a missing kid in your house?

You asked why police are not allowed to jump to conclusions about civilians when the reverse is allowed.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

 

[simey]

Maybe lawyerguys can chime in. My understanding  is if they did find a pile of coke on my coffee table, since they weren’t explicitly searching for drugs when you let them in, I think they couldn’t cite or arrest me.

Many states have a plain view doctrine. 

 

[krista4]

I’d lean the same but police going door to door asking to look around in houses instead of letting people know to please look around themselves then going to more likely areas where a child might be seems like a much better plan.

Oh, I understand and am not saying anything about whether to comply.  I was only making the distinction that there wouldn't be a dividing line between "parent" and "non-parent."  

 

[belljr]

Maybe because I have/had lots of friends in LE and FD and grew up in a tight community and currently live in a larger suburb but in a tight neighborhood, but still a no brainer

 

[belljr]

I’d lean the same but police going door to door asking to look around in houses instead of letting people know to please look around themselves then going to more likely areas where a child might be seems like a much better plan.

Don't disagree with this but I'm just answering the question asked

 

[Gally]

You asked why police are not allowed to jump to conclusions about civilians when the reverse is allowed.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

You misunderstood.  My comment was about people jumping to conclusions about what the cops will do on both sides of the yes or no to letting them in.

 

[Murph]

I’d lean the same but police going door to door asking to look around in houses instead of letting people know to please look around themselves then going to more likely areas where a child might be seems like a much better plan.

I mostly agree with this. Although I just want stress again how massive this search was. The contingent going door to door was relatively small. I don't think the resource issue was really material here.

 

[BobbyLayne]

What would you do?

Just what you did. Then I’d ask if they need volunteers to help comb the woods.

Didn’t read through the thread but hoping for a good outcome. How terrifying for the parents.