Should laws allow the police to search housing projects for illegal weapons and drugs?

Pro: By searching for and confiscating illegal drugs and guns in housing projects, the police would reduce the density of life-threatening weapons and reduce the likelihood that residents and guests would use firearms to inflict harm on other people. The number of crimes committed by some occupants of and visitors to the projects would be reduced. The safety of law-abiding citizens would be increased: removing weapons and drugs from areas where trafficking in narcotics often occurs would benefit the residents by removing some threats of personal injury.

Con: The search for illegal weapons in housing projects would be ineffective if residents knew when searches will occur, and unannounced searches would be serious violations of civil rights. The search for illegal weapons in housing projects would erode the rights of citizens to privacy and their right to control residential space and property.

Reply: While any search for and seizure of weapons in housing projects would reduce the freedoms of law-abiding residents to some degree, the violence and the fear of violence in the projects also drastically limit the freedoms of the people there. One proposal for legitimizing police action in this regard involves obtaining permission from the residents of the projects before the police take any action. Residents could sign an agreement that authorizes the police, without giving advance warning, to search for and confiscate illegally held items.

Con: Rights, once established, tend to persist. While the conditions now found in some public housing projects might warrant searches by police to reduce crime, establishing the right of a police force to enter residences might establish a right that lasts longer than the problem it was meant to eradicate.

Con: The search for illegal weapons in housing projects would be time-consuming and would not produce adequate benefits for the money spent.