Based on earlier thread, many Freepers are okay with this.
No, only some one named Ever Vigilant thinks this was cool awesome and okay
Actually no -- just a few boneheads
..we’d have to know the circumstances under which the house was searched....was the address a known address the bombers were familiar with, was the house (or address) also connected with the other two men here illegally associated and still in jail?
Probable cause
Main article: Probable cause
When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means “less than evidence that would justify condemnation,” reiterating Carroll’s assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would “warrant a man of reasonable caution” in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.[42] It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A “practical, non-technical” probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.[43] In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
At common law, a police officer could arrest an individual if that individual committed a misdemeanor in the officer’s presence or if the officer had probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony. For misdemeanors, probable cause to believe that a wrongdoer committed a misdemeanor is not sufficient for an arrest—the police officer has to actually witness the misdemeanor.[34]
The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when “the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information” would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.[44] Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.[45]
Late last night I ended up in a bit of an argument with some regarding this subject. He wrote the cops did exactly what they should have and we should be applauding them (paraphrase, not quote).
It was a thread with over 200 posts and as I read him arguing with others I had a feeling he was a plant, although he has had an account for well over thirteen years.
Many...maybe most here don’t think for themselves
Their wet finger is always in the wind searching for the narrative answer