Monday, September 07, 2009

Play Time's Over, Kids (Mommy and Daddy Aren't Famous Enough)

Rosie O'Donnell gets a pass on this when she dresses her 4-year-old daughter similarly (Note: the previous link is one of literally thousands available regarding the June 2207 O'Donnell incident, and was only selected as a representative account because it is posted by a "respectable" source - CBS News), but less well off citizens get hauled in and charged?

Clearly the two in this most recent case are not Parents of the Year material with the drugs and other issues around the home. However, it was the picture that drew government attention in the first place. Certainly one may choose to disagree with the notion of children being in possession of firearms, but a photograph of a child holding a weapon is hardly illegal, and there is no possible method of discerning from the photograph whether the guns were loaded at the time of the photoshoot. Even if the weapons were loaded, that does not in and of itself constitute child endangerment. The nanny-state concerns of a busybody, do-gooder friend or neighbor over the subject matter of a photograph that is not in and of itself depicting a criminal act hardly justifies violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Since the authorities gained access to the home due to information that did not exclusive of the establishment of other supporting facts constitute a crime and would never have otherwise drawn their involvement, all charges the couple face ought to be dismissed. From the photograph itself, as a cause of action for entry and search, it is not possible to determine where the photograph was taken or whether the guns are legally owned and registered. They should get off on this one not because the parents don't deserve to be charged but because we cannot permit the government or it's representatives to enter our homes without just cause and then conduct a fishing expedition.

If the standard for probable cause to enter and search private property is reduced to one citizen complaining that an illegal act might have taken place (or not - oops!) then the protections and privileges of private property cease to exist for all.

Just one more chink in the armor of civil liberties and protection against intrusive government.

No comments:

Post a Comment