Pure propaganda.
The searches were constitutional, legal, and done by the book. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary, no matter how many of the propagators of this stuff I’ve asked.
Fact is, the folks spreading this stuff around simply don’t know the law. They don’t know the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable search. They’ve virtually never heard of exigent circumstances, which is the legal criteria.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exigent-circumstances/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html
There is a rapist raping women in the city, he’s done it every day and he’s in this neighborhood for sure. Would it be reasonable to search every house? If you say yes then maybe you’re at the wrong site. There is nothing reasonable about searching every house in a very wide area because a terrorist is somewhere there. The argument is outrageous and there are far too many willing to accept it for my liking. The last stand of freedom on earth and you’re OK with these witch hunts? I think the fact that he wasn’t caught until people were allowed out of their homes is a tell tale sign on how rubbish this approach was
No call for them to stick guns in the faces of uninvolved civilians.
EV, there were several disturbing videos posted on YouTube, wish I had kept a couple of links. Is it constitutional to march several residents out of one home, and into the street with their hands on back of their heads, then make them lie face down on the sidewalk?
Didn’t appear reasonable, nor legal.
My sister-in-law lives in the area, and yesterday she said people are quite angry about the way searches were handled.
Hmmmm. So you accept the Gestapo tactics based on the writer of a short few paragraphs on a website, by the name of Aditi Mukherji? I can’t find that he/she is a lawyer or law student. Can you? Martindale.com (the venerable company that lists, and rates by peers ALL lawyers) has no record of him/her.
But, reality was that a search warrant as required by the 4th amendment was obtainable. There were no exigency circumstances in Boston, as delineated by USSC.
Thank you for what you do, but I humbly believe fervently you are mistaken. A warrant will be required for any search of my house(s). I will also get IDs for all persons entering. I will not voluntarily leave.
I’m sad that our Constitution is eroded by acquiescing with unlawful orders.
Gwjack
P.S. The video is sobering and tragic.
Your comments on this thread clearly demonstrate the serious problem that we have in this country. I’m sure that you truly believe that the actions depicted in the video are perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable. If they have been ruled legal in a court of law, we really do have a serious problem. If they have just been assumed to be legal by an overzealous law enforcement community, that is still a problem, just less serious.
What you are saying is that law enforcement may determine on its own that a situation permits them to bypass the constitutional constraints on government and behave like a police state by storming people’s private residences, manhandling innocent civilians while brandishing weapons in their faces with the sole rationale that a dangerous criminal is on the loose. Dangerous criminals being pretty ubiquitous in large cities, it seems to me that this behavior could become quite commonplace.
If I had directed operations like this in a combat zone, I would have likely been court martialed. I note from history that the greatest atrocities committed by the Germans on the Eastern Front came not from the front line combat troops, but from the rear echelon SS special troops who could play out their little Nazi fantasies on an unarmed civilian population. Is this where we are headed?
You, on the other hand may enjoy being treated like that.
I’ll give you $10,000.00 towards your next ridiculous “campaign” if you can point out the word “exigent” anywhere in the US Constitution. Anywhere at all.
You are a fraud. A complete, utter, total, fraud.
Show us a single warrant issued for search of a home in this incident.
Show us one homeowner who said “no” to a search and wasn’t threatened with deadly force as persuasion.
Existent circumstances amount to there being no question a judge would sign a warrant for the search, but circumstances preclude actually taking the time to get one. The application for a warrant can be made later if demanded, and S will HTF if a judge decides against approval thereof.
Declaring “he’s here somewhere in this city” doesn’t cut it, especially when he’s discovered outside the vast search area.
I tell my clients never open the door to the police and exigent circs won’t do it. Get a warrant based on information
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exigent-circumstances/"
From the link you provided:
Exigent circumstances are said to exist whenI'm wondering:(1) a person's life or safety is threatened
(2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or
(3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.
1) What made the police believe that each and every person in those houses life or safety was threatened? Did they hear loud noise/cries for help/screaming in each and every house? Did they here gunshot or explosions in each and every case? Did they know for sure the suspect was in that particular area? Did they see him enter one of the houses...or all of them at some point? What made them think each person, in their home, was in imminent danger?
2) The suspects escape wasn't imminent. He had already escaped. They had no idea where he was.
3) What made them think evidence was about to be removed or destroyed? Referring back to #1, did they have reason to believe the residence of each house was about to destroy evidence? Did they see the subject, in each of the houses, in a manner that lead them to believe evidence was about to be removed/destroyed in each case?
I'm not so sure "Exigent" circumstances were in play in each of those cases.
Some of the people were searched. Why? Why did the police need to search these people as they came out of their homes? What made them believe these people themselves where suspects coming out of their homes?
To me, this looks like clear 4th Amendment violation, people were forcibly removed from their homes and searched.
This video is a must see. The people of this particular house were orderd out. Why? Did they have reason to believe the suspect was in that house? Based on what? Watch how each person who is exiting the house is searched. Why? Furthermore, how long were those people detained? Where did they take them? Why were others allowed to stay in their houses (i.e. the person taking this video)
Clearly nothing imminant was going on here as the police calmly and quitely walked away, and the people who were forced out of their house and searched can be seen walking back near the end of the video as other people walk outside their homes to look around.
They even landed a (at least one) military chopper in the area. Why?
If the government is going to try to claim it was essentially a war zone (which is probably the only thing that would make sense for these actions), then the bomber in custody needs to be held as an enemy combatant and they need to level with us about the alledged multi-person terror cell that's probably involved.
This was a terrible situation made worse.