Posted on 04/22/2013 5:56:56 PM PDT by LucyT
Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.
No, not this time. But if any illegal guns, plants, or medicine had been in plain view, then said residents could indeed have been arrested and charged with such crimes, based on a warrantless search.
A central reason for the belief in minimal government is that the state should never possess or excercise such powers, because of the massive potential for abuse.
There will come a time when arrests, prosecutions, or at least weapons confiscations will occur as a result of such warrantless searches under the auspices of "exigent circumstances". Do you remember hurricane Katrina, and the illegal weapons confiscations which occurred?
At what point does an LEO begin to bear some responsibility for unconstitutional acts? Is blurting out "I was just following orders" or "there were exigent circumstances" always sufficient to exonerate him?
Thank you. It’s mainly the stuff that is so nutty Jim won’t let it be posted in the forum anyway.
The Fourth Amendment is still controlling here. When an officer applies for a search warrant, his affidavit must describe the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized. Likewise, exigent circumstances must exist at a particular place. The exigence exception allows officers to enter a particular place under specific circumstances.
Otherwise, please explain why the police cannot search every home in Southeast Washington, DC every single night? Violent felons run from the police there every single night. If you don't support nightly searches of all homes in SE DC, please explain how it is different.
Look Eternal, they were NOT acting like good decent whatever you said, they were acting like folking fascists, are you daft?
The answer, of course, is no.
Look, even ten thousand cops in a city that size would perish in no time if the people turned on them as oppressors. The only use all those armored vehicles would have is for evacuating the dead and injured.
No EV YOU are the one who is off the rails, why the hell do you think the 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches? Because the Brits were doing the exact same thing to the colonialists, that’s why. You better get straight, loony tune.
I thought they showed quite a bit of restraint myself. They didn’t kill or injure anybody. Shoot, I didn’t even hear a report of them shooting a dog.
EV,
There you go again.
Jim has never pulled anything I’ve posted, or pinged.
Go read the law on searches. I provided the links way back up the thread.
bull hockey, if they were, they need to go back to law school
Just pull me off your ping list. Thanks.
Resist. By any means necessary; but by legal means first. After what has been described as “..a long train of abuses,...” without redress, other options may be required. History tells us this. But then you know that.
So, you think their policies were set without reference to the legalities? That doesn’t seem likely to me.
They were overbearing thugs and goons and I hope every last one of them gets boils
Thats awesome! Lets all give a round of applause.
I know the law on searches, bub
EV:
Reminder,
You’re the lad who asked to be on my ping list. Your screen name didn’t suddenly appear out of thin air.
***** “I’ll answer who I want, when I want. And I won’t be bullied by you or anyone else.” *****
You sound like you were offended.
So you don’t think folks being ripped out of their homes at the point of a gun was maybe a little worse than bullying?
Should they then have the choice as well to answer questions when they want from who they want?
Jeeze ... it must be pudding time at the HOME
TT
sheeit, bub, they HATE asking the lawyers anything, my colonel in the JAG Corps was the legal adviser for a big city cop force and they all complained that it took him forever to say the answer, it had so many qualifications, cops run from lawyers, esp their own, they think they know it all and also that it is easier to apologize for getting it wrong than to go to all the trouble to do it right
Why world doesn’t revolve around you and your posts. Sorry.
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.