Posted on 04/25/2013 12:21:24 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
“Martial Law was never declared by the gov or mayor, 4th amendment still law of the land.”
Depends on the meaning of the word “reasonable.”
What AR-15? I have no AR-15, at least as far as the government knows :)
Did the police feel they had a “right” at that time to search even unoccupied homes? Because that’s what I would have done in that situation; I just wouldn’t have answered the door when they came a knockin’.
After all the point of the “secure at home” (or whatever it was called) was to stay out of the way and not let yourself become a target right? I mean, who is going to answer the door if there’s a terrorist outside, even if the person knocking claims to be the police?
That’s when I’ll start worrying about my rights being violated. When the police start to feel like they have a “right” to knock down my door when I’m not home (without a warrant).
Forget about making a speech. I’m just locking my door and not answering it for even the Pope!
Is there any response from the people in MA about these warrant-less searches? What about the press there? Surely someone is concerned besides folks here on FR
I confess that when I first heard about this that is what crossed my mind. Just don’t answer the door.
Everybody wants to quote Patrick Henry, but when it means that you gunned down by the ‘good guys’ it would become a different story very quickly.
Surely someone is concerned besides folks here on FR
We need to get the Liberals involved in this. This Shelter-in-Place is just Martial Law under a different name.
There is no need for me to leave my house at gun-point, running, with my hands in the air so the Man can search it without warrant or witnesses.
This is an outrage and needs to be addressed and remedied. It’s better to let one guilty man go free than ALL be subjected to the whims and vagaries of a Police State.
Don’t get me started....
I doubt anyone will complain there, otherwise they might be declared an enemy of the state and have their EBT cards cancelled.
‘Has Watertown Made Warrantless Searches The ‘New Normal’?
Not in my neck of the woods!
Warrantless searches have been around a while. This time last year Tucson police were doing it searching for a missing kid (that still hasn’t been found), going door to door in the nearby neighborhoods. Now it was all voluntary then, and no SWAT teams, but who was going to say no. And that’s a pretty typical occurrence in cases that have popular support. Then of course there’s the “semi-warrantless” searches, where they have a warrant but it’s not for the house they broke into, thanks to the WOD those have been pretty normal for a long time.
Exactly. And if I may add: The radio announcements/warnings I heard about this activity even said, “Don’t answer the door even for someone claiming to be the police”.
So fine, that’s exactly what I would have done. I don’t know why anyone would, unless they wanted to be reassured by the police somehow (as if a person or family isn’t able to search their own home).
So I don’t see any violations of anyone’s rights here. Again, I’ll start worrying when they feel they have a right to knock my door down if I don’t answer. If they knock insistantly, if you feel like it, (and you dont even have to do this either no matter how much they knock) then just to up to the door and say you are fine without opening the door. If they start to argue they “need” to come in, just walk away from the door. There’s no need to open the door and/or get into an argument with them.
Actions speak louder than words anyway.
If they feel they have a “right” at that point to knock it down guess what? Cha-CHING, you just won the lawsuit lottery.
I don't agree. It is our responsibility to have thought this through before the stormtroopers (an in my opinion appropriate word in this context) arrive. When they point their guns at me, the response really will be, "no, you do not have permission to enter my property without a warrant, based on 'probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'" I have already discussed it with neighbors, and we will film each other's homes in this situation. We will sue. We will expect to collect punitive damages of such severity that the representatives of what is supposed to be our government will follow the Constitution the next time around.
It is appropriate for the police to move in large groups, armed, and battle ready - especially after a terrorist attack with explosives, a cop shot and killed, and additional explosives tossed at the police. It is not appropriate for them to violate the Bill of Rights if they are not in hot pursuit or one of the other recognized exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
Can Police Search Door-to-Door Without Warrants? By Aditi Mukherji on April 19, 2013 5:20 PMHeavily armed SWAT teams combed through homes near Boston on Friday in a massive manhunt for one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects.
But what allows police to search door-to-door for a suspect on the loose without a warrant?
Hours after the FBI released photos and videos of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and his brother Dzhokhar, 19, clashes between the suspects and police began, the AP reports.
Tamerlan was killed overnight, but his brother remained on the loose Friday afternoon. Officers went door-to-door in several neighborhoods, looking for Dzhokhar.
Generally speaking, the Fourth Amendment protects residents' privacy by typically requiring police to knock and announce their presence before they can enter people's homes, and get a search warrant before they can conduct a search.
But there's an exception for situations in which there isn't time to get a warrant because of an ongoing emergency. When there are exigent circumstances (emphasis not in original,) or emergency situations, police can lawfully enter, search, or seize a resident's property without a warrant.
The exigent circumstance exception exists for the sake of public safety. Often seen on the show "Cops," the classic exigent situation is when the police are in "hot pursuit" of an escaping suspect who is tracked to a private home.
But another example of an exigent circumstance is when further harm or injury could occur in the time it would take to get a warrant. The exception applies to this case, since Dzhokhar is believed to be armed and dangerous, the AP reports. It's entirely possible that he's planning to cause further injury to people.
Officers are also allowed to enter a home without a warrant to help an occupant in an emergency. That means it would be OK for police to enter a house to apprehend Dzhokhar and help a resident who is possibly being held hostage. In such a situation, the police can also do a protective sweep of a house for weapons and other evidence.
One final note about warrantless door-to-door searches: If police do search your home in an emergency, the "plain view" doctrine generally applies. That means officers can seize any contraband they see in, well, plain view -- and that evidence can then be used against you in court.
Indeed every action taken by the LEO's in Boston/Watertown were covered by law. In other words, no one suffered a great loss of their rights as citizens of this nation. Indeed though, I would say that many lost a lot of time and suffered great aggravation.
Now, in addition, in some cases damages done to private property by LEO's in that search are payable to various citizens, and some home and property owners - and we as taxpayers will most likely foot the bill.
There is one guy that deserves a large cash reward - the boat owner.
“One new normal we have is that about 25 Americans are killed each day by undocumented democrats...”
_____
E,
Do you have a source for that number? I’m guessing it comes from illegal aliens killing US citizens while drinking and driving, which I’m sure happens quite often and does occasionally make it to local news (but never MSM that I’ve seen). I’ve not seen much hard data on that or the “illegals vs. US citizens” murder rate, but in all honesty, I haven’t really looked too hard for it, either. Would you have a good source to point us to? Thanks.
VR
Ivan
I’ll see if I can find it again. It used to be 12 a day, and the last I read, it was up to 25.
I do not agree that these exceptions apply to Boston's situation. Unless the police had reason to believe that a specific home was endangered, they needed a warrant. Searching my home when I refuse permission does not fall under the emergency exception unless they have reason to believe that the terrorist is in my home, or that we are in danger of a specific harm if they wait for a warrant (thermal images, tracking dogs, or some other indication that my home faces a unique and individual risk). The police do not have authority to search every home in Boston simply because there is an armed and dangerous criminal in Boston; they need something more, something specific to the home to be searched without a warrant. Otherwise the Bill of Rights is dead, and we have moved to a world where the law is whatever those in power say it is, in other words, a world without law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.