478
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A cop's decision to sport a body camera and search a Massachusetts middle school for a book has raised serious concerns among civil liberties experts, a new report shows.

The Berkshire Eagle reported Wednesday on mounting fears after the Great Barrington plainclothes police officer who entered an eighth grade classroom at W.E.B. Du Bois Regional Middle School.

“Police going into schools and searching for books is the sort of thing you hear about in communist China and Russia," Ruth A. Bourquin, senior and managing attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, told the local news outlet. "What are we doing?”

For their part, police say they were obligated to investigate a complaint about the book "Gender Queer" by Maia Kobabe, a memoir about gender identity that contains sexually explicit illustrations and language, the report notes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheChurn@kbin.social 12 points 7 months ago

The problem with the principal refusing to escort the officer is then they are obstructing a police investigation, and that is a crime. It isn't fair to put this burden on them, the blame lies squarely with the police chain of command.

In fact the root problem of all things police is that once police decide to do something, even if that thing is illegal, interfering is a crime.

This is how we end up with people being charged with resisting arrest, and no other crimes that would warrant an arrest. This is also how we end up with a bunch of people live streaming George Floyd's execution, because stopping a cop from killing someone is a crime.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 7 months ago

Should have asked them to come back with a warrant as that is within his legal rights. The officer had no reason to suspect any real harm to any child in a school classroom after hours (this all happened after school was out for the day).

[-] TheChurn@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

With a complaint and a full description of the offense, the officer had cause to force entry.

Same as if someone called in a suspicious package, they wouldn't need a warrant to gain entry.

Society gives police an incredible amount of leeway.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 7 months ago

On the complaint of a book? I'll call bullshit on that, and no way that would hold up in any sane court. A book is not something that should give police any probable cause, and really something that the police shouldn't even be investigating. Having police coming in to schools to look for books is so far out of what they should be doing the principal should have laughed and called the station to ask what the hell is going on over there.

[-] TheChurn@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

I agree with you, but it doesn't change the implications of a police officer having a complaint and a sufficient description to follow up on it without a warrant.

It is at their discretion, same as if you called in that your grandma didn't answer the phone, they could ignore it or bust down the door. Both would be fully legal.

Court is a different matter. A judge could say there wasn't cause to search after the fact, but that won't change what the police do in the moment.

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
478 points (98.6% liked)

News

22488 readers
4270 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS