[Pollster1]

Indeed, and LE had just that, and a whole lot more. They knew the perp was afoot, they followed a trail of blood drops. They knew he was wounded, losing lots of blood, and was seeking a place to hide. He was a specific and very big threat to anyone in the direction he was traveling afoot. Their biggest fear, he would find or commandeer a vehicle... hence a complete lockdown of all streets in a area around where the trail of blood led them - and their determination to thoroughly search every building within the parameters of where they thought he could be.

No. Blood drops on my driveway, porch, boat, or threshold to my home are specific. A blood trail in the neighborhood is not. To lock down the area was permissible. To search homes with permission was permissible. Where was the urgent need to search a home over the objection of the homeowner, if any homeowners in Boston objected? They could have maintained their perimeter, requested a warrant for that specific address if they had probable cause, and searched lawfully. I don't know that anyone refused entry to the police and was searched anyways, but the point is the legal question of whether they have the right to search over such an objection. There is no precedent for a general search - none. Or do you have a specific case in mind in which the Supreme Court extended hot pursuit to also cover wide-ranging fishing expeditions?

[Ron C.]

"I don't know that anyone refused entry to the police and was searched anyways, but the point is the legal question of whether they have the right to search over such an objection."

Yes - they have the right to proceed over any objection, simply because the greater good of all others in that area takes precedence over that of a single objector. In fact they have the right to arrest the objector, and proceed with their search despite objection - which is a felony, by the way.