Replies

An armed and dangerous islamist terrorist who had committed an act of mass murder a few days earlier, and had just murdered a cop named Sean Collier, engaged in a gun battle with cops on the streets in which 200 rounds were fired, carjacked someone and then robbed the person of his money, and was now on the loose in a densely settled metropolitan neighborhood rather fits the bill of an emergency situation, does it not?

Yes, but the exigency must be tied to a specific place. I have personally entered hundreds of homes under the exigent circumstances exemption. I have had to justify my actions in court every single time (unless there was a plea deal). I know exactly how exigency works, and how the judicial system interprets it. I know precisely what elements must be present for a search to comport with the Fourth Amendment.

A dangerous madman on the loose simply isn't enough. To search without a warrant, the police must either A) get consent which, in this case is not possible because any consent would be under duress, or B) have probable cause to believe there are exigent circumstances tied to a particular home. The police were searching homes systematically, one by one, in the hope that they would find the bomber. They did not have any reason to believe the bomber was in any particular home they searched. This is what makes the searches improper.

This wasn't the King's Troops busting down doors to root out radicals, subversives, or undesirables.

I agree with you here. Look, I'm a retired police officer. Every one of those cops was trying to stop a madman. I get that. I can't ignore the oath I took both in the military and as a police officer, though. I do not think it is paranoia to point out when government oversteps its limitations. In this case, I think there is a very strong case to be made that they did just that.

Thanks for discussing rationally, unlike some other guys I've dealt with about this recently.

To search without a warrant, the police must either A) get consent which, in this case is not possible because any consent would be under duress, or B) have probable cause to believe there are exigent circumstances tied to a particular home. The police were searching homes systematically, one by one, in the hope that they would find the bomber. They did not have any reason to believe the bomber was in any particular home they searched

Consider: maybe they did. And this is speculation on my part, but perhaps they did. Perhaps they had clearly articulable reasons why they expected the bastard to be within a particular section of Watertown. Perhaps they had even more reason, again, clearly articulable, to believe he was in a certain block. Perhaps that articulable reason simply hasn't yet come to light.

And understood: I have a background in con law myself. Academic, but a background nonetheless. I know how this stuff shakes out from an intellectual standpoint, though not a boots-on-the-ground one like you.

And perhaps all this will shake out in open court. Perhaps those whose homes were searched will bring action against the police. Perhaps when they do, the courts will side with those bringing the action.

Like I wrote - I get it. These are times that try men's souls, after all. But as for me, this revolutionary is going to give the fuzz the benefit of the doubt on this one.