
Cops to grab unlocked stuff from cars in East Rock area, for safekeeping - randomname2
http://www.nhregister.com/article/NH/20151101/NEWS/151109969
======
wlesieutre
East Rock resident, saw this in the paper. Apparently it's legal as part of
their "community caretaker" function, with some previous discussion on
r/Connecticut
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/3r7tl5/new_hav...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/3r7tl5/new_haven_police_to_take_valuables_from_residents/cwluai9)

One thing being ignored by a lot of the conversation that the police are at
least going to be running plates and trying to call people, but I still don't
love the idea.

Also have to wonder if once they open your car, can the police can just say
"It smelled like weed" and search all your stuff?

~~~
mikeash
Those comments raise an interesting question: why aren't the police just
locking the cars?

~~~
Zikes
The implication is that thieves will break the windows and snatch whatever
they can. Since the police can't break the windows and "hold the contents for
safekeeping" they have to skip the locked cars.

~~~
mikeash
The article says the police will first run the plate and try to contact the
owner before they take the stuff. Will they be doing this for locked cars too?

~~~
Zikes
One would hope.

~~~
mikeash
According to this article, yes:

[http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/...](http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/east_rock_car_break_ins/)

Another interesting tidbit from that: you have to show ID to get your stuff
back, and you can only pick it up between 9:30AM and 3:30PM on weekdays. Which
is pretty unbelievably shitty.

~~~
chris_wot
And they can sell your stuff after 60 days!

~~~
dragonwriter
> And they can sell your stuff after 60 days!

While there might, somehow, be some arguments that the temporary hold to
prevent attracting thieves is neither a deprivation of property without due
process (prohibited by the 14th Amendment), nor an unreasonable seizure
(prohibited by the 4th Amendment), nor a taking for public use (prohibited by
the 5th Amendment) -- though I still think its likely to be at least one of
those -- I'm having more trouble seeing even a remote argument for how taking
personal property from an unlocked car and selling it, with the proceeds going
to the government, can fail to be either a deprivation of property without due
process or a taking without just compensation.

Moreover, its _exactly_ the same kind of permanent deprivation of the owners
property that the policy is notionally supposed to _prevent_. "In order to
stop your stuff from getting stolen, we had to steal it."

Really?

------
rmason
Had a boss once who lived near a couple of state prisons. A couple of times a
year he was awakened by cops handing him his car keys and scolding him for
leaving them in the vehicles.

It was rural area with zero crime. He always figured if there was an escapee
he'd much rather have him take the vehicle than break into his house
threatening his family to get his car keys. The cops never understood that
point of view.

------
tibbon
This sounds terrible. The same logic could be used where if your house is
unlocked then the police can seize anything they want "for safekeeping".

~~~
chillingeffect
And how about for data?

1\. Log into a cell phone/computer. 2. See if there are any files with
incorrect permissions. 3. Make backups and delete the originals so no hackers
can get them?

------
hotgoldminer
Pure civil forfeiture play on the part of the PD. The ACLU will challenge this
and win.

------
nkurz
From the other comments here, I think I'm in the minority, but I find this
offensive not because of the potential for abuse by the police, but because it
legitimates the idea that it's OK to steal from unlocked vehicles. Maybe it's
because I'm old and rural, but I'd prefer to live in a society where the
societal convention is that "theft is wrong" regardless of whether it requires
breaking a window, rather than implying that the victim is to blame for
failing to to push a button to properly signify their desire that their
belongings not be stolen.

What are the limits to this approach? Should the police break the window and
empty the glove compartment, on the theory that windows are easy to break and
one shouldn't keep anything valuable in the car? Should the police try out
their bump-keys on empty houses, and pro-actively remove the valuables from
the 90+% of houses where these work? Should they "kidnap" the kindergartner
who is in public without chaperones so that no one else does?

Or should they figure out ways to punish those who break the law rather than
those who are obeying it?

------
daveloyall
Like many HN readers, I can't help but speculate about how people could game
new systems.

Here's what I came up with for this one: this system allows participants to
exchange goods and currency, in broad daylight, with plausible deniability.

~~~
chillingeffect
It could also expose police officers to incredible dangers.

Q: What if Jane X. Badgal were to fill a laptop case with explosives and a
GPS/camera, then look for someone's open car near a police station and leave
the device in it?

A: Police officer grabs device, remote detonation happens, with little
evidence to go on.

~~~
dogma1138
I'm pretty sure if some one wanted to blow up or kill cops there would be
quite an easier way to do so. Also the likelihood of someone being deranged
enough to want to do it, and be capable of rigging a GPS and Camera to a
laptop filled with explosives while being able to get their hands on
explosives which could fit in a modern laptop is pretty slim.

If any "dangerous" incident will happen it will be more likely if a plain
cloths police officer will open some one's car door in sight of the owner and
the owner over reacts and lashes out. Some one booby trapping electronics to
blow up cops what is this a 90's action film? Next they'll rig a police
cruiser to explode if they go below 60....

P.S. I'm sure that if some one puts a bomb in a laptop that would be more than
"little to no evidence", the bomb components, explosives used, the car and who
ever drove it there, that's a mountain of forensic evidence right there....

~~~
chillingeffect
See, you made the same mistake the successful deranged person would have
fooled the police into making: You said the car would be part of the evidence.
But go back and read what I wrote: the psycho puts the bomb into someone
else's already open car. The car is a distraction.

> there would be quite an easier way to do so

First, psychos are not rational evaluators. Second, setting a bomb in a public
place is a lot easier than sniping cops. There's no need to run, there's no
head-to-head confrontation. The weapon can be untraceably manufactured in
one's home - you can't just whip together a decent sniper rifle.

> Some one booby trapping electronics to blow up cops what is this a 90's
> action film?

That was a witty phrase in the Aughts to shut down outsiders in security
circles, but since then, there have been growing cases of snipers attacking
police. It's reality, unfortunately and this policy increases the attack
surface of officer security. [ 1 2 3 4 ].

[ 1 ] [http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-pennsylvania-cop-
shooting-s...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-pennsylvania-cop-shooting-
sharpshooting-survivalist/story?id=25545808)

[ 2 ] [http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-
headquarters-...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-headquarters-
shooting/index.html)

[ 3 ] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sniper-kills-two-officers-
later-...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sniper-kills-two-officers-later-shot-
in-va/)

[ 4 ]
[http://gothamist.com/2013/07/05/police_search_for_sniper_who...](http://gothamist.com/2013/07/05/police_search_for_sniper_who_shot_r.php)

------
radiorental
Wait, what?

If car is unlocked and laptop is visible - they take the laptop and lock the
car. Try to contact owner.

If car is locked and laptop is visible - nothing?

~~~
dogma1138
Would you want them to bash in a window instead?

~~~
radiorental
If consistency was applied they'd either

a) lock the car and leave the property intact

b) try to contact the owner

Neither of which they are doing

------
chris_wot
Can we change this link to
[http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/...](http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/east_rock_car_break_ins/)
\- the current article doesn't allow me to use the back button!

------
lujim
Sure could you also randomly enter my house to make sure I didn't leave the
stove on? Thanks but no thanks.

~~~
nkrisc
Having seen a block of houses burn down due to only one resident's stupid
mistake, I have to admit a bit of a desire to agree with that idea.

~~~
lujim
I think I would rather line the house with smoke detectors and pay the
homeowners insurance than grant the cops the right to enter my house at
anytime for a "safety check".

~~~
nkrisc
Ultimately that's what we do and I agree. We don't allow cops to randomly
enter our homes for safety checks. That said, the situation discussed in the
linked article is similar, but not entirely the same. While the police are
entering private vehicles, it's in the pursuit of reducing and preventing
crime, not the case in the hypothetical situation you posited.

I also think the notion that this is all a front for probable cause is a bit
far-fetched and cynical. For one, do only criminals leave their cars unlocked
with valuables in plain sight? What exactly would the "cover for probable
cause" strategy accomplish?

~~~
lujim
My first post was tongue in cheek, my second one a response to your literal
interpretation of it. What I was really saying is that I think police are
overstepping their bounds on this. I would rather that no one enters my
private property to save me from myself over small things. House on fire?
Thanks a million for helping. I'm a dirtbag that leaves a dog in a hot car?
Smash my window by all means. I forgot my phone in the cup holder and I'm dumb
enough to leave my car unlocked? I will learn a moderately expensive lesson
and won't do it next time. It's not up to the Federal or State government to
treat me like a kid.

~~~
DanBC
> I will learn a moderately expensive lesson and won't do it next time. It's
> not up to the Federal or State government to treat me like a kid.

They don't care about you. They do care about the local crime rate, and the
amount of work they have to do when you report your phone as stolen. Don't
think of this as them treating you as a kid, think of it as them saving
themselves some work and money.

~~~
sprucely
> think of it as them saving themselves some work and money.

Not every unlocked car containing valuables is a guaranteed theft report, so
rummaging through every unlocked car with visible valuables sounds to me like
potentially more work and money.

~~~
mikeash
It's only more work at first. Then the constant seizures will annoy people so
much that they'll start locking their cars, and the police's workload will
decrease.

Note that I'm not just interpreting the situation this way to make the police
look bad. This is how they actually, explicitly describe it!

> Sharp said this plan does two things.

> “The bad guy is not going to break into the car and be able to take that
> item. It inconveniences the person to come down and pick up the property,”
> the lieutenant said.

> That inconvenience is a kind of tough love approach that reinforces the
> safety message.

> “Maybe next time they won’t leave their stuff in plain view,” Sharp said.

------
chris_wot
Ummm... Apparently if you don't claim your goods within 60 days they sell
them!

------
elipsey
Hmm... I wonder if they peruse storage devices while they're at it?

------
daveloyall
So, nobody is ever going to leave their car unlocked in East Rock again. Ever.
Is that a win?

------
Kinnard
The links not working for me. Is this real?

~~~
hga
Works for me, but this is a _much_ better article, among other things pointing
out the items will be sold in 60 days if not claimed, has a copy of the
notice, pictures and comments of the areas's "top cop", etc.:
[http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/...](http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/east_rock_car_break_ins/)

------
smegel
Stuff from unlocked cars?

------
mikeash
Lawsuit in 3... 2... 1....

I'm sure they have the best intentions, but you just can't do this.

~~~
huac
"confiscating goods that are invitations to thieves is one of the six
exceptions in Connecticut law to the requirement for a search warrant"

they can just do this (unfortunately)

~~~
t2015_08_25
Well at least they might be able to do this if Connecticut were to secede from
the United States. Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill
of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal
government... But in this case it looks like we'll have to use it to protect
us from our own states.

~~~
ledude
the 4th amendment has been incorporated to the states. states can't
legislate/constitutionalize less protections than what federal law provides..
you know... because the supremacy clause

this should be killed by a federal court very fast

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_IV)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)

~~~
voxic11
Actually the justification for incorporating the bill of rights (well some of
it) comes from the 14th amendment, not the supremacy clause.

~~~
dragonwriter
The supremacy clause is, however, the basis for why state statute can't brush
aside the protections in the federal constitution, including those
incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendemnt.

