The Police Should Not Use Private Property
Posted by: Citizenofboonville
I would like to bring it to the public’s attention that Davis Funeral Chapel on Ashley road has effectively ‘partnered’ with the Boonville Police Department against their potential clients, the citizens of Boonville.
Every morning as I drive my child to the high school I see a BPD police car ‘hiding’ in the Davis Funeral Chapel parking lot. This would be a huge Constitutional violation by the BPD had it not ‘partnered’ up with Davis Funeral Chapel the help punish the citizen’s of Boonville who might be caught speeding past their business.
When I called Davis Funeral Chapel to inform them (in the event they were unaware that it was happening) they joyously proclaimed that they have given BPD permission to use their private property as an extension of the police department to catch the citizen’s of Boonville speeding, affectively ‘partnering’ with them against the very public who would be their potential clients.
I assure you that I did not get a ticket from this BPD/Davis Funeral Chapel joint operation, however, I am a huge constitutionalist who believes there was a valid reason for our forefathers to make sure that the Bill of Rights included a provision that made it against the law for our government to use our private property for their governmental uses, it’s called the 3rd Amendment.
However, in this case, the business owner, who I assume is in business to make money and provide a service to the citizen’s of Boonville and the surrounding areas, has given them permission to do so, therefore no laws are broken as in this case the damaged party would be, Davis Funeral Chapel.
But damaged they still are, and at their own hand as I will never do business with them so long as they are conducting a joint police operation against me and the other citizen’s they wish to service. Furthermore, I will be sure to continue to express my opinion to my family, friends, clients and associates in the hopes that they too will boycott against these types of actions against those citizen’s they claim to want to serve.
I fully understand that it is not only their business decision (which in my opinion flies in the face of any business theory I have ever been schooled in, hence, partnering with the police against your potential clients and then expecting them to still do business with you??) but their constitutional right to make this choice, but so too is it my constitutional right then to speak out against it and not do business with them or any other company who would allow the police or government to use their private land in a joint operation against me, my family, friends and the other citizen’s of Boonville MO.
Respectfully,
Citizen of Boonville
October 20th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
columbiamo65201 it’s not a competition, I would ask the same question if your screen name was some other city. My question was a valid one, as someone from another city wouldn’t have information of local events. It was not a personal attack at you.
I don’t think there is any requirements to posting on this board besides a valid e-mail address and the registration process.
Since you post that you work in Columbia, my guess would be you go out Hwy 87 in the mornings and don’t really know much about what is being discussed as it occurring some mornings on Ashley road.
There is an officer that will sit on the Davis Funeral lot, this is not a daily event. I think I see him maybe once a week sitting there, when he is there it’s very close to the time that the schools open to drop off students. ( a huge mess, but a different subject)
I personally have had issues with out of state drivers, probably from the boat and their inability to read the merge sign just past the funeral home. They are not used to the area and slam on their brakes to merge often.
Citizen of Boonville sounds like he has an axe to grind, and a us against them mentality as far a law enforcement is concerned, so anyone who stands with law enforcement is as bad as law enforcement in his eyes.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
wow wondering……dont know why your getting so pissy cuz my screenname but since you are “WONDERING” i will tell you…… i grew up in boonville, but moved to columbia to go to MU but now i live back in boonville, but work in columbia
so tell me, do i past your test (as if???)
not sure who made you the keeper of which screennames can or can not post here but i hope i passed
October 15th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I must disagree with you on many points but I feel that we will not find common ground. Again you have the right to your opinions and thankfully so. But again I believe your interpretations are misguided and ill informed.
Regarding your last response and the paragraph headed as 3rd amendment. You said “As recent as 1965 the Supreme Court used the 3rd Amendment for the foundation of what we all know as the right to be secure in our homes and free from agents of the government just coming in, or onto, our property anytime they wish without our permission.”
The only case that the Supreme Court ruled on in 1965 was Griswold v. Connecticut
It does underly the right to privacy but was mainly based off of the 4th and 9th ammendments. The 3rd amendment was mentioned in the opinion but not to any great extent and it was not expanded upon in any way and I have not found any interpretation other than some problems that have came out of the disater of Catrina where law enforcement was acting under Federal direction. Your words “right to be secure in our homes” sound a lot like the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probalbe cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and paticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I believe that you are confusing the 3rd and 4th ammendmants here.
I would like to see what would be the outcome of speeding case conducted from a piece of private property where the officer was sitting without permission. I think that the judge would focus on the issue of was the driver actualy speeding and not if the officer had permission to sit wherever he was. The underlying issue is the guilt or innocents of the driver. The driver would not be damaged by the officer sitting in private property without permission because speeding is speeding regardless of the location of the officer. The only one damaged by the officer sitting on private property wihtout permission would be to the property owner who may or may not have civil or criminal actions available to them. You keep saying this is not about the police but about the business. You then say that if it were a private citizen you still hold the same opinion but you just have no ability to do anything about it. I’m just not convinced that you are just against the business in this act.
I am mainly responding so that others are not swayed by things presented as facts that are not. Do not trust me and do not trust Citizenofboonville but trust yourself and do your own homework and research regarding this issue if you are interested. There are other points in your response I would argue are without factual backing including the example regarding officers entering buisiness’s and checking for underage drinking. Again a officer can legally be in a business and if they were to spot a underage person they can act this is not a random asking of patron for ID’s but based on knowledge… But I digress, I have enjoyed the back and fourth debate here and I wish no ill will. Have a great day.
Best Regards,
Hanging around Boonville.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
I know I said it would be my last word but I feel I should respond to some of your interpretations:
Private vs. Public Property
Wal-Mart, just like Davis Funeral Chapel, is still private property, not public property like parking on the street or at a city park, and therefore, it would not be permissible for the police, except under certain circumstances such as with probable cause (e.g., they drove by and saw a crime in progress) or the permission of the private land owner, to just cruise the parking lot randomly looking for possible violations any more than it would be for them to enter a place of business, say, a restaurant, and randomly go from table to table asking patrons of said business for ID to ensure they are not drinking underage. The parking lot is still private land owned by Wal-Mart.
Plain View Doctrine
One of the requirements for the plain view doctrine is the police have to be where they see the contraband legally, such as with permission from the owner, or with probable cause having been established prior to going on the private property. Without being there legally, it is a violation of the 4th Amendment and has been upheld so many times it is what the plain view doctrine was based on:
1.the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
2.the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3. the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”
Private Citizen vs Business
I would ‘care’ if a private citizen was allowing the police to use their driveway or private property in a similar way; however, the difference here is the private citizen isn’t in business to make money off the very public he is helping the police catch by using his land and that is why I brought this issue to the public’s attention.
Work With The Police
I think everyone would agree it is our duty as good citizen’s to cooperate and even help the police do their job; however, there is a fundamental difference between a private citizen cooperating with the police versus a business, who presumably wants to profit from the public’s patronage, who not only cooperates with the police, but goes as far as offering them the use of their strategically placed private land for a police operation against the same general public who would also presumably be their target costumers. This isn’t a case of a good citizen saying, “he ran that way”, it is a case of a business owner saying, “hey, use my land to sit here and see who you can catch driving by breaking the law today.”
3rd Amendment
The Third Amendment has been the least used amendment in legal challenges since its conception. That is, in my opinion, because its premise is so engrained into the American way of life it has only been an issue a handful of times. The government or its agents such as police, military, local, state or federal officials, are not allowed to just use private property as they wish without the owner’s permission. I think most people have heard of its original reason, the British were making Americans house their troops on their private property prior to and during the American Revolution. Since then however, it has been used to stop governors from attempting to take private property for the state’s own use and by the Supreme Court to help make rulings on the right to privacy in one’s home (or on their private property, but at a lesser degree). As recent as 1965 the Supreme Court used the 3rd Amendment for the foundation of what we all know as the right to be secure in our homes and free from agents of the government just coming in, or onto, our property anytime they wish without our permission.
Anti vs Pro Police
People have attempted several times to paint this as being anti police in which it is not; I have said it before, we all appreciate and stand behind them 100% and in this case they are only doing what the business owner is allowing them to do.
My issue lies with the business, or any other business, who wants my money spent at their establishment while at the same time allowing the police to hide on their property in an attempt to catch me breaking a law.
Respectfully, and hopefully again for the last time,
Citizen of Boonville
October 14th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I am wondering if you think police work in a vacuum without the assistance of the citizens and businesses of the community? What if it were a citizen allowing the police to sit in there driveway? Would that be wrong in your opinion, or just the citizen exercising his rights? As one person mentioned would you prefer them sitting roadside possibly causing a hazard?
You mentioned your a constitutionalist. What is your interpretation of the Third Amendment? I’m not convinced that it would apply even without the permission of the land owner. It would be more of a case of trespass a property crime more than a violation of the bill of rights. How does the constitution protect citizens from enforcement of laws from private property?
A little off topic but someone else brought it up using Wal-Mart as the example. Why is there a concept that you free from police inquiries of any nature at walmart? Example one was a police officer driving through the parking lot looking at plates. A officer would not need permission of the business owner to do that. Walmart parking lot is considered a public area with no presumption of privacy so a officer could check plates and enforce those laws from that parking lot. The second example was a officer looking in your car because of a shoplifter. Well again anything that can be seen fro outside the vehicle is in the public eye and you have no expectation of privacy. This issue has been taken to the highest court of the land as a fourth amendment violation and the courts have ruled it is not.
Regarding your right to freedom of speech and your personal opinion I applaude you for exercising it and would fight for your right to have it. I just wander if your opinion is the right one or the wrong one. Is your opinion responsible? Could your opinion be damaging in any way?
October 14th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
So your contention is that Davis shouldn’t allow the Police to use his parking lot and you want a boycott of his business because of it? I have been by there several times, yes, some mornings there is an officer sitting there but not every morning, what is your definition of a speed trap??
You state that your not against the Police but just about everything your posting has the catch phrases; Police State, Sing operation, Laying in wait, and speed trap. Almost every posting has a negative anti-Police feel to it. Your attempting to use your words to influence people against the funeral home because they want to work with the Police?
I am not really sure why someone from Columbia is even posting on Boonville issues. columbiamo65201??
Many members of the community of Boonville work with the Police Department to try and make Boonville a safer place to live.
You can abstain from doing business with Mr. Davis, I on the other hand will do business with Mr. Davis because of this, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
October 9th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Citizen:
I agree with some of what you are saying…….But the “Boycott thing is the thing I have a problem with. If you want to “Boycott” something how about Tobacco companies who sell Tobacco products that are killing 400,000 Americans a year, or so called news media with a obvious bias (CNBC, Fox, CNN, NBC boycott their advertisers) I just don’t think this deserves that kind of action. As I said before I am willing to give the “benefit of doubt” to them and I don’t think they have tried to trample any of my rights….I just think they are trying to help out.
My last word also
October 8th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
If in fact, Davis is letting the BPD use their property to catch speeders, I applaud them. There’s too many laws broken in this town. If your kid got hit by one of those speeders, going by the school, you’d be saying, “Where was the Police?”
Second, evidently they weren’t hiding very well, if you saw them.!!!
October 8th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
My final word, I promise:
One time at a ball game a father / businessman was yelling at his son in such a manner several people in the stands talked amongst themselves saying they would never go to his place of business again and many others openly agreed; another time that comes to mind was when a group spoke about hating a business’ cheesy commercials so much they said they’d never go there; and I wouldn’t do business with a guy once because he bragged to me about cheating on his wife and I didn’t think it was right and yes, I told others because I felt like they should know too, but I hardly think you would call any of these situations an attempt to ‘destroy’ someone any more than you would this situation, people openly talking about a business practice.
Matt, I understand from a ‘personal perspective’ why you feel the way you do and I agree their reputation will, and should be, taken into consideration, but no one’s actions should just be over looked and given a pass based solely on their past performance.
I posted this information for no other purpose than to make the public aware of a business practice that was going on in our community between a local merchant and the police. I have never made a personal attack or called into question anyone’s PAST contributions to this community.
You may not like it and even try to label it ‘do as I say or I will destroy you,’ but the fact of the matter is when someone puts themselves out in the public eye, like a business owner looking for the public’s patronage, the public must then ‘judge’ their product, service, personal and business practices to come to their own decision whether they want to spend their money with that person, and to liken that process to “do as I say or I will destroy you” flies in the face of the very free market principles that this nation was built on.
Respectfully,
Citizen of Boonville
October 8th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Citizen:
I guess I am not willing to throw the owners of Davis Funeral Chapel under the bus. I know the owners personally, and I know what kind of people they are. They have served this community for several generations in business and public service. I know John to be one of the most honorable men I have met. I know the things they do for people that they never get any publicity for. I know how involved they are in this community and I for one applaud them for their service. I do think we have a BIG problem in this country anymore…….The “If you don’t do what I think you should do I will destroy you mentality” Everything isn’t Black or White, sometimes people deserve a “benefit of the doubt” and I for one am willing to give it to them.
October 8th, 2010 at 8:00 am
To LORDJACK:
I am confused because back in June of 2009 you posted on this website against The Hotel Fredrick when you felt they were behind the reason the government reduced the speed limit in front of their place of business coming over the Missouri bridge.
So if I understand your two positions correctly, you’re against a business who just asks the government to reduce the speed limit to make it safer for pedestrians and drivers to cross High Street, but you’re for a business who would allow the police to use their property as a speed trap against the public?
October 8th, 2010 at 7:35 am
To Matt:
Yes, I agree with you, just because it’s your right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it right;
The difference however, is I would say just because Davis Funeral Chapel has the ‘right’ to allow the police to set up shop on their property to conduct an official police operation against the rest of us, doesn’t make it ‘right’.
October 8th, 2010 at 7:27 am
To Kaiser:
1. I have been a Realtor since 1997 and I am very involved in private property rights issues in this state including helping form policies to protect it
2. However, this issue is not about private property rights as I have acknowledged from the beginning that it’s Davis Funeral Chapel’s right to allow the Police to use their property to set up a speed trap designed to catch and punish the citizen’s of Boonville speeding past their business
3. This IS however about the rights of the general public to know that they, Davis Funeral Chapel, or, any other business for that matter, is involved in this sort of action against us. Furthermore, it is then the general public’s right to decide if we are going to do business with them or any other company who might be taking similar actions.
Many things affect the public’s willingness to spend their money at any given business. Columbiamo makes a great point in that if a business like Wal-Mart or McDonald’s would be allowing the police to use their place of business, let’s say, to search cars in their parking lot (which is legal, it’s called the plain view doctrine) the public would be crying bloody murder!!
I mean how would you like it if you went shopping at Wal-Mart and when you came out a policeman was walking around the outside of your car looking in the windows and when you approached him and asked him what he was doing and he replied, “oh, Wal-Mart has been getting shoplifted lately so they have given us permission to use their property to conduct official police business”……………….. would you continue to do business there and wouldn’t you speak out against this practice?
One thing I have learned about our nation and its laws is that everyone is ‘ok’ with laws and police actions that don’t affect them, but as soon as one does, then it becomes an issue. What is wrong, is wrong, and we shouldn’t wait for it to affect us before we speak out about it.
So please, stop with the postings about ‘private property’ and the ‘what’s wrong with catching speeders’ humdrum as neither has anything to do with this issue.
October 6th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
pri·vate
ADJECTIVE:
Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government: private property.
Meaning it’s the decisioin of the property owner what’s allowed and not allowed..and if you go by there EVERY morning and you know they are there….slow down.
October 6th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
OMG can you people not read??? I bet if he was talking about wal-mart people would think different! The guy has said it ten times already and his beef isn’t with the BPD enforceing the law, its with private merchants allowing BPD to use their property in their advantage over the public. I get what he is saying so why don’t everyone drop the speeders angel and focus on the real issue??? It has nothing to with speeders or the police doing their job it has to do with business letting them uswe their property to catch the public doing things!!! a good analogue that I can think of is what if wal-mart was allowing the police to drive through their parking lots to scan all the license plates at wal-mart??? Hey, they might catch someone breaking the law by not having a valid plate or someone with a warrant or something but I bet everyone would get pissy about it wouldn’t they? One because its wal-mart and not a home town guy like daivs, that is why people aren’t complaining more but whatever, wrong is wrong and if you wouldn’t be cool with one business allowing the police to use their property to excise their police powers then you shouldn’t be ok with any of them. It’s the same thing, I drive by davis funeral home and I am and not breaking the law so I don’t think davis should be acting like they are letting the police use their property to catch me doing something wrong and then expect me to shop or do business with them? Are you kidding…..What is next? Mcdonald going to let the police frisk everyone on their property? Give me break
October 6th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Very simple if you havent broken the law then you have nothing to worry about ,you said it Matt! Not only that, but that stretch of Ashley Road has no shoulders. So I prefer them to sit there rather than roadside creating yet another traffic hazard!!!!!
It’s a catch 22 issue…if there sitting there doing their job than people have an issue….however if something happens and someone gets hurt or killed the question “where was the law” is raised!
I know and understand that traffic tickets are not a fun thing to get….but with each ticket issued its possible one life saved! Folks need to stop thinking about what it does to their checkbooks and realize that it’s getting their kids and loved ones home safe! They are not picking on anyone or teaming up with anyone….they are simply doing what we hired them to do….
October 5th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
The only way the general public can affect a business’ policies from the outside is through the company’s voluntary change or through its bottom line. The mere definition would serve as proof that in fact this is the correct course of action:
“Boycotts are nonviolent efforts to disrupt or cease business transactions with a particular company or group of companies in order to bring about some change of policy or practice. “
And instead of wagging your finger and attacking the ‘whistle blower’ in an attempt to blame me for the possibility their business and employees may suffer due to their business practices, maybe they should reevaluate their business practices.
October 5th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
I agree, it is up to the public to decide if they want to do business with them or not. My problem is with the “Boycott” word. I may be wrong but I think they employ several people who will be impacted by a “Boycott” and they have nothing to do with it. Sometimes I think we get caught up in the “My Rights” debate and forget about doing what is “Right”. Just because you have the “Right” to do something does not mean it is the “Right” thing to do.
October 5th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I kind a agree with lord jack and boonville citizen yeah if he wants too he can the business owner I mean but that doesn’t mean we have to do business with him either if he is letting the police sit there and trap people we have enough to worry about now we got business doin the work of the police………..But then again I hope to not have to do business with him for a while now anyways
October 5th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Matt, in my original posting I stated that indeed, it was their constitutional right to allow the police to use their private land in their governmental duties against the public, however, I also stated that it is my right to speak out against it. My boycott is not an action by the government, but an exercise by a private citizen of what we call in this county, ‘exercising a free market’. If Davis or any other company wants to actively pursue these types of actions against the public then they should be prepared to either reap the benefits, e.g., the community’s acceptance of their practice, or the criticism, they are after all, a business in the public domain aren’t they and based on their actions I should be able to decide where to take my business?
In my second posting I clearly indicated that most of the citizens of Boonville, including myself, would agree that it is important for the police to do their duties, however, again, that is not my issue here. My issue is with private citizens allowing the police to use their private land against the public while also asking for our business.
This is not a situation where the police need assistance capturing a wanted criminal; this is an indirect operation whereby the police, while laying in wait on the Davis Funeral Chapel property, can punish anyone who might be passing by that day breaking a law at that particular moment, either by accident or on purpose. The two are inherently different and the latter only serves to help monitor the public’s behavior, something that historically has been left to the police to do, oh, and now, apparently, Davis Funeral Chapel as well.
And if the road is so dangerous then why hasn’t the speed limit been reduced in that area or a dedicated turn lane been installed? No, instead, for now at least, our police, and local merchant, have decided to turn it into a revenue generator by making it a speed trap, and regardless if you are for it or against it, it is something the public should know so they can make up their minds for themselves.
October 5th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
As long as owner of Davis Funeral Chapel don’t mind I don’t see anything wrong with the BPD parking there
October 5th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
No…… I just am not ready to make the giant leap to call it a “Police State” when all they are trying to do is slow traffic down on a dangerous portion of road on the way to the High School and Grade School (My son was rear ended at the location by someone going to fast, and it happens weekly). Just thinking about this for a moment….Isn’t the owners of Davis Funeral Home exercising their Constitutional Right to do with their property as they see fit? The 5th, and 14th amendment to the “Constitution”as well as the “Bill of Rights” guarantee and protect that right also don’t they? To call for a “Boycott”(Punishment) is wrong….Shouldn’t you be championing their Constitutional rights as well as yours? I mean the “Constitution” does work both ways doesn’t it? To call for a “Boycott”(Punishment) against someone who is exercising their rights is just as much a “Police State”…………….. but with you being the police officer.
October 5th, 2010 at 9:47 am
This has nothing to do with being against the police trying to catch speeders or other law breakers as I am sure we could all say we are 100% behind that.
My point however, is that our forefathers knew from experience that it was a bad precedence to allow the government to use our private lands for their governmental uses, such as, using one private property owner’s land against others in an effort help police the public. THEY were so much against it, they made sure to make it the 3rd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, just behind Freedom of Religion and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
In this case I think you compound it further by the fact that it is a private company, who on the one hand is trying to get the public to spend their money at their place of business, while on the other hand partnering with the police in an ongoing attempt to catch and penalize them for a wrongdoing that hasn’t even been committed yet.
Maybe you are ok with living in a ‘police state’ form of government, but where do we draw the line? What is next, and what is or is not acceptable? Maybe this is ok with you because its main purpose is to catch speeders, but would you be against other police/private citizen’s joint operations if they were against you or your business? And just because you might say you’re doing nothing wrong therefore you wouldn’t care, isn’t a valid argument because if it was, then the government could argue why do we need the US Constitution? If everyone is doing what the government deems legal and right then what is there to be afraid of?
This issue isn’t far from the current issues we face in this country today. Some people are willing to give up their civil rights in the name of helping our government catch ‘others’ for their wrongdoing and I don’t think a private entity, especially a business, should be helping the police set up sting operations/speed traps in an effort to catch the general public break a law that hasn’t even been committed yet (e.g., it might be different if they were assisting the police to catch a wanted known criminal but in this case they are just sitting there waiting for someone to break the law so they can catch and punish them, so to Davis Funeral Chapel and the police, it is an ongoing operation against the citizens of Boonville, and for the police we wouldn’t expect anything less, but from our private business’ we should be concerned).
Matt, I am not sure how the radio station makes its money but if it is through its advertisers, I assure you if you partnered with the police in a sting operation to catch your advertisers doing something wrong and they found out about it, I bet they wouldn’t be spending any money with your radio station any time soon.
Citizen of Boonville
October 5th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Hummmmm? By slowing down people speeding on their way to school wouldn’t that be cutting into their business instead? I mean the old saying “Speed Kills” comes to mind, so by helping to slow down drivers they are actually cutting into their business,….right? Not the other way around.
The moral to this story is…….Do not Speed! If you are driving the speed limit you have nothing to worry about! I for one do not care if they hang from trees, if I am speeding and get a ticket it is MY fault no matter where the officer is located. Not the City, Not Davis Funeral Home,Not anyone else MY fault.