Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes

YouTube ^ | Apr 20, 2013

[grundle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

Published on Apr 20, 2013

WATERTOWN, MA -- On 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.

https://www.facebook.com/PoliceStateUSA

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.

[Alaska Wolf]

Apparently it allows people to look outside

What is most apparent is that you don't know what you are talking about.

[AppyPappy]

Oh no. That’s blatant family ripping.

[from occupied ga]

There are more people right now worrying about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Constitutional rights then there was people worried about the Constitutional rights of all those people who were locked down and had their homes searched.

I'm ashamed to admit that my wife saw nothing wrong with the police behavior. When I sent her a link to the video she rather snidely asked "Why did you send me that?" It went downhill from there.

[MacMattico]

Who, that actually went through it, is claiming they were forced?

[palmer]

Who, that actually went through it, is claiming they were forced?

Guns waved in face = forced. The courts will allow quite a bit of police pressure and still presume "voluntary" compliance. But there are limits.

[MacMattico]

No— names, tell me what people involved objected to this and how they were mistreated. It was 20 blocks of a city on voluntary lockdown and I don't hear many if any complaints. Some people went out and weren't forced back in. If they had done nothing and he had blown up a few families, you'd be ok with that? Police officers aren't some beings from another planet, they're your neighbors and friends and relatives. Mine won't turn into brown shirts and Obamaites so easily. They will search for and track down a terrorist, and he could have been in any of those homes.

[Teacher317]

1) The 4th Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures—not “illegal” searches and seizures.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

What, precisely, is "reasonable" to you about shutting down an entire section of a city to search every single home, despite the fact that the police have NO reasonable expectation of finding their target in any of those homes? (And, of course, he was not found in a home.)

Detail exactly how allowing this particular search would prevent the police from doing a similar search for EVERY suspect from now on... or do you think that we should be kicked out of our homes (not exactly "secure in their houses" anymore, is it?) every time they want to find somebody, something, or just have a good time lording over the sheep? Is this "reasonable" to you?

[Teacher317]

You want to know whats really sad? There are more people right now worrying about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Constitutional rights then there was people worried about the Constitutional rights of all those people who were locked down and had their homes searched.

You know what's really pathetic? Idiots who don't actually see the importance of that point (and the abject stupidity of assuming that people ought to be concentrating on their rights while they are attending funerals of their loved ones).

Among the many things that made America great was that we did look after the rights of EVERYONE, even the ones we are sure did terrible things. A Good Man does what is Right, even under the most difficult circumstances. We give the accused a free attorney, stack the rules against the Prosecutors, and do everything we can to make SURE that we have the right guy... because it is the Just thing to do.

And your second point is STILL wrong... we ARE focused on the rights of the victims... that's why Boston is a national focus right now... it's why we are pouring money and aid and prayers there... it's why we are talking about it here. The entire damn nation is focused on Boston, because it was a horrible event.. and what made it horrible is that their right to live peacefully and freely was attacked by these two Muslims. We aren't ignoring their rights... we just aren't using that term.

[palmer]

If they had done nothing and he had blown up a few families, you'd be ok with that?

Powerful stuff you got there. How about this one: he ties some family to a bomb, the police barge in and they all blow up. You don't need names, you need an education. The amendment says unreasaonble search is illegal. Case law says that house-to-house is unreasonable and thus illegal.

Police officers aren't some beings from another planet, they're your neighbors and friends and relatives

True, which is why they should not barge into houses that could have bombs and boobytraps.

he could have been in any of those homes

He *could* be in your home!

[Kartographer]

You sir apparently are a being from another plant as do you think that anyone volunteered to have multiple guns waved in their face and to be marched out of their houses with their hands over their heads?

Check your history when tyranny starts in a free country who are the first people sent out to do the tyrants 'dirty work'?

You sir have much in common with Harry Reid you both think people standing up for the Constitution do so only because of 'Imagined Tyranny', but Harry at least has the excuse of being a 'DemonRat' you sir as a FReeper should know better.

”When they forced their way into a neighbor’s house I said nothing, because they where looking for terrorist.”

“When they forced their way into my house looking for my guns no one said anything, because they said I was a terrorist.”

[justice14]

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/19/house-to-house-searches-and-the-fourth-amendment/

[palmer]

Comparing police invading a home to stop and check roadblock is moronic.

[palmer]

Normally I don’t mind arguing with these “safety advocates”, but they are really getting irritating. What has happened to our country?

[justice14]

Read much? He states the closest case law He could find are mostly roadblocks. You stated that there was case law stating what you claim. Can you please provide? Thanks.

[Teacher317]

You also don’t need a warrant under what is called “exigent circumstances” exception, shorthand for a fast moving emergency where there’s no time to get a warrant based on probable cause. Example would be you’re a cop and you just saw an armed criminal enter a house with small children looking out the window. The law, for a very long time, has permitted warrantless searches under such conditions. Can the exception be abused? yes, and it has been, and might have been here, depending on specific situations. But chalking this up to wholesale rejection of the Fourth is not realistic. Nothing defines “exigent circumstance” better than a bomb throwing terrorist running around in a residential neighborhood.

Not exactly. He was on foot. The cops knew he had no more bombs to throw. They also did not know which house he went into, if any. (In point of fact, he never went into any home.) Your entire basis for "exigent circumstances" is that he was alive, and probably within a mile radius. I would say that any reasonable judge would find that to NOT be "exigent circumstances".

What makes people lose their minds and their focus is that he got the special label "terrorist", and so we assume he has something like video game bag filled with unlimited explosives (he didn't), he can physically overpower any team of cops or soldiers (he couldn't), and that he is out to kill everyone at all times and for no reason during his flight (he wasn't).

IF the police saw him, or IF a witness claims to have seen him (like the man with the boat), THEN an "exigent circumstance" could exist. They were free to go into the yard and get into the boat. But for EVERY other home and possession they searched, they did so illegally. Whoever authorized the search should face consequences... but since we love anti-terrorism drama more than we love Freedom or following the Constitution, that idea would never fly in our modern America.

[palmer]

I’ve read sufficiently to know that roadblocks (e.g. near a bank robbery) are allowed. The equivalent here would be a roadblock around the neighborhood. There is case law where evidence was allowed solely because a cop had a hunch about about a house. But that is as far as it goes. Random searches are illegal. Exigent circumstances means there must be specific reason to conduct a search at a specific house. You can read tons about it and you will not find a single case where they were not arguing about the specific reason and whether that reason was valid. In no case was “perp in somewhere in neighborhood” given as a reason or anything close. That would be laughed out of court.

[Kartographer]

True they could ask and people have the right to let them in, but if they volunteered then why the prep walks and the guns waved in their face. There is a lot of difference between a cops just standing at your door questioning you and multiple cops standing at your door with a machine guns pointed at you.

[justice14]

Show me case law proving such.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Kind of overblown and melodramatic.

A terrorist was on the loose in a residential area. What were the coppers supposed to do? Knock and ask each homeowner politely if they were sheltering an on-the-loose terrorist?

I don't like the militarization of police forces one friggen bit, but in this instance, I'm willing to cut them a little slack. Moreover, I don't think conservatives should try to make political hay out of the Boston Marathon bombing by casually linking it to the gun issue AND the police state issue.

[palmer]

You've got it backwards.

Nevertheless, the Court frequently asserts that the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions. The exceptions are said to be jealously and carefully drawn, and there must be a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative. While the record does indicate an effort to categorize the exceptions, the number and breadth of those exceptions have been growing.

From http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-5.pdf

In case you missed it: "per se unreasonable" is the relevant phrase. The exception for hot pursuit was clearly not applicable in Watertown. That is the only possible relevant exception. Some case law has shown a hunch or public view of evidence is acceptable for a search. Thus an officer in Watertown seeing something or feeling suspicious about a particular house could execute a search. But that was not the case in any of the searches in Watertown, all illegal, unless voluntary permission (no pressure) was given.