skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 167772 Find in a Library
Title: Double-Edged Sword of Advocacy for the Homeless (From Police and the Homeless: Creating a Partnership Between Law Enforcement and Social Service Agencies in the Development of Effective Policies and Programs, P 42-57, 1997, Martin L. Forst, ed. - See NCJ-167769)
Author(s): K M Quinn
Date Published: 1997
Page Count: 16
Sponsoring Agency: Charles C. Thomas
Springfield, IL 62704
Sale Source: Charles C. Thomas
2600 South First Street
Springfield, IL 62704
United States of America
Type: Issue Overview
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This chapter analyzes legal issues regarding homeless persons, specifically search and seizure appellate case law.
Abstract: In granting an expectation of privacy to a homeless man, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in Connecticut v. Mooney, broke new ground in defining the constitutional rights of the homeless. The ruling was the first in which the highest court of a State ruled that protection from unreasonable search and seizure pertains to the personal belongings left by the homeless at what they regarded as their home. Some advocates for the homeless find disturbing the broader impact of this ruling. While the Mooney decision will protect some from further violations beyond those caused by homelessness itself, there is little satisfaction in knowing that their possessions hold some Fourth Amendment protection when both possessions and people should be inside, However, advocates fear that, if society takes the next step of finding that an alleyway or space under a bridge abutment is a home deserving of privacy, then by corollary society will find homelessness acceptable and no longer seek a solution. Notes
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Appellate court decisions; Connecticut; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Criminology; Homeless persons; Judicial decisions; Police; Sociology; State supreme courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.