I don't agree. It is our responsibility to have thought this through before the stormtroopers (an in my opinion appropriate word in this context) arrive. When they point their guns at me, the response really will be, "no, you do not have permission to enter my property without a warrant, based on 'probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'" I have already discussed it with neighbors, and we will film each other's homes in this situation. We will sue. We will expect to collect punitive damages of such severity that the representatives of what is supposed to be our government will follow the Constitution the next time around.
It is appropriate for the police to move in large groups, armed, and battle ready - especially after a terrorist attack with explosives, a cop shot and killed, and additional explosives tossed at the police. It is not appropriate for them to violate the Bill of Rights if they are not in hot pursuit or one of the other recognized exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
Can Police Search Door-to-Door Without Warrants? By Aditi Mukherji on April 19, 2013 5:20 PMHeavily armed SWAT teams combed through homes near Boston on Friday in a massive manhunt for one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects.
But what allows police to search door-to-door for a suspect on the loose without a warrant?
Hours after the FBI released photos and videos of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and his brother Dzhokhar, 19, clashes between the suspects and police began, the AP reports.
Tamerlan was killed overnight, but his brother remained on the loose Friday afternoon. Officers went door-to-door in several neighborhoods, looking for Dzhokhar.
Generally speaking, the Fourth Amendment protects residents' privacy by typically requiring police to knock and announce their presence before they can enter people's homes, and get a search warrant before they can conduct a search.
But there's an exception for situations in which there isn't time to get a warrant because of an ongoing emergency. When there are exigent circumstances (emphasis not in original,) or emergency situations, police can lawfully enter, search, or seize a resident's property without a warrant.
The exigent circumstance exception exists for the sake of public safety. Often seen on the show "Cops," the classic exigent situation is when the police are in "hot pursuit" of an escaping suspect who is tracked to a private home.
But another example of an exigent circumstance is when further harm or injury could occur in the time it would take to get a warrant. The exception applies to this case, since Dzhokhar is believed to be armed and dangerous, the AP reports. It's entirely possible that he's planning to cause further injury to people.
Officers are also allowed to enter a home without a warrant to help an occupant in an emergency. That means it would be OK for police to enter a house to apprehend Dzhokhar and help a resident who is possibly being held hostage. In such a situation, the police can also do a protective sweep of a house for weapons and other evidence.
One final note about warrantless door-to-door searches: If police do search your home in an emergency, the "plain view" doctrine generally applies. That means officers can seize any contraband they see in, well, plain view -- and that evidence can then be used against you in court.
Indeed every action taken by the LEO's in Boston/Watertown were covered by law. In other words, no one suffered a great loss of their rights as citizens of this nation. Indeed though, I would say that many lost a lot of time and suffered great aggravation.
Now, in addition, in some cases damages done to private property by LEO's in that search are payable to various citizens, and some home and property owners - and we as taxpayers will most likely foot the bill.
There is one guy that deserves a large cash reward - the boat owner.