Posted on 04/25/2013 12:21:24 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
Something like this is hugh and series.
Even the Stalinist Governor Deval Patrick would have written and signed an order to suspend civil liberties.
Where is it?
Not if the Governor approved it as you claim to have read. The officers would need evidence that the Governor approved it — not just internet rumor, and so would the residents.
If you can convince people that you have the law on your side, you will have done exceptionally grave damage to the Constitution of the United States. Exigent circumstances have always in the past been very narrowly defined and limited to a single home, address, building, or structure. That did not apply in this case, and the general search was yet another of the many governmental overreaches that have created the situations that the courts have used to define that line that may not be crossed.
Even evidence that the Governor approved it would not make this search lawful. The Governor is not the one with authority to approve search and seizure.
Yes - they have the right to proceed over any objection, simply because the greater good of all others in that area takes precedence over that of a single objector. In fact they have the right to arrest the objector, and proceed with their search despite objection - which is a felony, by the way.
Can you cite a source? If that is the case, go file a lawsuit - you will win. But from what I read exigent circumstances is pretty broadly defined and used.
Here's but one legal definition of exigent action during emergency conditions:
'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.'
Perhaps to be satisfied some people need to demand to see it.
Horse manure. What law requires us to permit a search 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" in the absence of either an immediate threat in that particular residence or a risk of the destruction of evidence? I am quite confident that no such law exists.
I don't know what your motive is for defending this extreme governmental overreach, but I would like to see you name the relevant court case that allowed fishing expeditions at multiple addresses or the law that requires an entire neighborhood to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights on demand. I didn't think even Obama or his supporters would go this far so soon, and I am sure there is no lawful precedent. I want to make sure this does not establish a precedent that is accepted by decent people.
BTW, It would not take much money to win the lawsuit if I was arrested for refusing to permit a warrantless search of my home when the police had no reason to believe their target was on my property. I would win that one, and as much as I despise lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, I would enjoy that one, because I would be defending fundamental human rights - the opposite of frivolous.
Absent a public proclamation, MA is in fact, a police state.
Again, no. The court cases I cited {Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, United States v. Lopez, 989 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 872, 114 S. Ct. 201, 126 L. Ed. 2d 158 [1993]); and United States v. Sewell, 942 F.2d 1209 [7th Cir. 1991]} all required specific evidence of exigent circumstances at a specific address. There is no general exception for exigent circumstances in an entire neighborhood, and I hope no one other than you and the Boston PD or FBI HRT will accept the idea that this created an acceptable precedent.
I have no other motive other than to inform people on FR of the facts, the truth and in this case, the law.
There is no one court case, exigent circumstance law has been in place for many years. It covers:
a. Imminent danger to a person’s life or safety
b. Serious damage to property,
c. Imminent escape of a suspect, or
d. Evidence is about to be destroyed or removed
Go look it up for yourself - there is plenty to read about it.
Then go further - has it been abused? I believe it has and will continue to be abused. But, how to fight it? How to repeal it? You won't get far at all, as others have found.
In this case, everyone expected LE officers to track down and catch or kill the perp - no one dared stand in their way or be seen as preventing them from doing their job as swiftly as possible. If any had done so, they would have been made a pariah, and faced heavy fines and lengthy prison time.
I'm sure there are a lot of people like you - see if you can drum up a class-action suit, then let me know how well you triumphed!
Bye
Exigent circumstances law covers, as you say, “a. Imminent danger to a person’s life or safety, b. Serious damage to property, c. Imminent escape of a suspect, or d. Evidence is about to be destroyed or removed,” but only at a single residence, address, or building. I have read the cases I cited (twice), and none of them included broad searches beyond a single address or location. This was a widespread violation of the Fourth Amendment, not a lawful exercise of exigent circumstances.
we'll see a pretty short hop from dragnetting a neighborhood due to a 'bomber on the loose' to the everyday run of the mill gangbanger being reportedly hiding out, and he may or may not be prepared to kill another homey...
anybody with two functioning brain cells can watch the watertown vids and see a police state on roids...
matter of fact, not long ago i ran across what i thought was a 'sobriety' or 'insurance' or any number of other 'safety' checkpoints...during the stop, the asshole that was following orders had, his as number one priority, to simply take the liscence and run my name against a list of names dropped by an informant, in an investigation of a drug related murder...found that out the next day from a co-worker of Mrs G who lives in that town...
long story short, they simply did their *enforcement* by stopping the entire population and checking them vs a list...
and this was in rural Ky...and yeah, i damned near ended up in jail that night for being uppity about the stop...
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.
or, perhaps, they had a reasonable belief your house was on fire and you might not make it if they don’t go in and get you.
“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.”
No, sorry, this exception does not apply. The police still need to have some reasonable suspicion that the suspect they are searching for is in the home they want to search without a warrant. They cannot use “exigent circumstance” to blanketly search an entire neighborhood full of homes, when they know that they won’t find the suspect in 99.9% of them, no matter how dangerous the suspect is.
Thanks, E.!
Sorry for the late response.
“In the interests of balance, there are some who dispute Rep. King’s statistics.”
I’m sure his numbers are way too low...
VR
Ivan
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.