Replies

Those searches are illegal. I'm a defense attorney and this is my take.
If the SWAT shows up with heavy force like this and overcomes the will of a person to refuse consent, or brings the voluntariness of the consent into question (uh yea this would be a textbook case of that) then anything found during the search like “illegal guns” or drugs would inadmissible at trial should they be charged.
Now, if they identified the Muzzi on the street and he ran in the front door of a house, then that would be actual “exigent circumstances”. Or if they had some other information regarding his location that had an indicia of reliability then that would probably be okay.
What we really have here is what I call the “24 scenario”.
There's no incentive (in the mind of law enforcement) to give a damn about the Constitution if the goal is ultimately to prevent an attack and a criminal prosecution is far down the list of priorities. Classic examples of this are all throughput the show 24. In those fictional instances, Jack Bower could have cared less if a suspect made incriminating statements or evidence was found that would technically be suppressed at trial for violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, or 14th Amendments. All he wanted was to stop a nuke from going off (or name your other worst case threat).
In that case he might face potential civil liability down the line, but who cares and it's unlikely anyway.
My point is that they can get away with this because (presumably) they weren't going in to these houses to do general searches on a fishing expedition. I say presumably but I'm not confident this is necessarily the case. The authorities aren't releasing any details about whether anyone refused, and if they did how the police responded. They are about as transparent as the zero administration.
They certainly violated the Constitution by doing these door to door searches. Not a single “consent” given could be determined to be voluntary under those circumstances should someone challenge it.
Furthermore the authorities have made terror attacks much more likely now.
They have the two for one bonus of terrorizing the masses with bombs and then having the people who are sworn to serve, protect, and uphold the Constitution giving the people a second helping of terror by an incompetent police state.
The bottom line is that the areas they searched are not known for their heavily armed populace.
If the 2A isn't being utilized by the people then the 4th is without a paddle.

I said the same thing knowing that if the owner gave permission then all was well. We don’t have real testimony of a home owner requesting the search warrant.

What is to me more important is the boat. We were told that officers opened the covering and looked in the boat and found nothing. Later, the boat owner came outside to smoke, noticed something wrong, saw blood and looked in the boat. He then called cops and three came.

As a tinfoil clad conspiracy loving theorist, it crossed my mind that the original officers observed the same thing but were guilty of searching the boat warrantless. The owners story makes it all legal.