1. Should not have requested the people to shelter in place.
2. Should not have gone door to door contacting the citizens.
Letting tens of thousands of people roam around the area of the search would have made it harder still to find Joker and needlessly put those people at heightened risk of injury or death. And not going house to house would be a gift to a fugitive on the loose. He merely has to enter a house and tie up the occupants until the police leave.
As best as I can tell, had the police done as some of the posters suggested, Joker would have gotten away. The boat owner, not wanting to "shelter in place" could just have likely left the area and would not have checked the back yard.
I do support the police if they ask people to stay inside when someone like this is on the loose. Frankly, it is something I would do anyway. And I support the police going house to house to contact the citizens. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. Absent exigent circumstances, I do not support having the police enter the houses without their permission.
You are either delusional or you have a rather loose definition of the word "contacting" Have you seen this? if that's "contacting" then bank robbers contact tellers and the khmer rouge contacted Cambodian intellectuals. I take it you are one of those people who see the police as incapable of doing wrong. As such I'm done wasting time with you.
Just to be clear, the only applicable exigent circumstance in this case is hot pursuit. In this case the police lost the suspect, so hot pursuit is not applicable.
And not going house to house would be a gift to a fugitive on the loose. He merely has to enter a house and tie up the occupants until the police leave.
Too bad. Are you ok with this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/?
When the only evidence of a public emergency is a fugitive on the loose, the police are not granted extra rights (most court decisions) unless the police have reason to believe the suspect is hiding in other specific properties. That reason can be as little a "gut feel" in some cases, but it only applies to specific properties and not to preventing a suspect from hiding in general.
” He merely has to enter a house and tie up the occupants until the police leave.”
YOU are responsible for your own safety. You wrongly, again, assume someone else is responsible for your safety. It is not the government’s job to protect you from bad guys. They cannot possibly be everywhere at all times to protect you. That is childish to believe, “Daddy, Daddy, Fix it!”
I can guarantee you if that bad guy had been in many other places he wouldn’t have survived the hour. In Boston? Hells Bells, bad guys can get everyone to cower and stay inside and not look for them!