Untrue.
I invite you to look at my posting history to get an idea of my feelings on this general subject.
I join my fellow FReepers in stating I believe the case law carving out the exigency exception defines the exception to be narrow and specific - that an officer may enter and search a particular place for a particular person or items without a warrant - when there exists an emergency situation, subject to judicial scrutiny.
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?
I do not believe that the Boston searches were conducted in this way. To mock this position as a "sky is falling" cry is to ignore that many of us opposing the police actions in Boston have legal and criminal justice backgrounds.
No, I'm mocking the reactionaries here who are trying to make hay for their political beliefs out of this tragedy.
I was about a half mile away, as the crow flies, from where the first bomb went off. I saw paramilitary-style cops in full black combat gear and M4s all over my city the entire week, including, ironically enough, in front of the statue of Samuel Adams in front of Faneuil Hall. I saw big black humvees that looked like armored personnel carriers rumbling through the streets all week. Three DHS special forces vehicles are still parked outside of Boston Garden on Causeway Street.
I get it.
But enough is enough. This wasn't the King's Troops busting down doors to root out radicals, subversives, or undesirables. This was cops trying to keep their people safe, and this was people working with the cops to keep themselves safe AND nail the fucking bastard who did this to our city and to our people.
Let's keep our eyes on the prize and keep our powder dry for when we truly need it. Now is not the time, and when this kind of crap gets posted all over Free Republic, and people on our side buy into it, we walk right into the stereotype, and look exactly like the paranoid freaks the left likes to paint us out to be.
Well said and I copied it over w/o the F bomb which might get it deleted.
I was about a half mile away, as the crow flies, from where the first bomb went off. I saw paramilitary-style cops in full black combat gear and M4s all over my city the entire week, including, ironically enough, in front of the statue of Samuel Adams in front of Faneuil Hall. I saw big black humvees that looked like armored personnel carriers rumbling through the streets all week. Three DHS special forces vehicles are still parked outside of Boston Garden on Causeway Street.
I get it.
But enough is enough. This wasn’t the King’s Troops busting down doors to root out radicals, subversives, or undesirables. This was cops trying to keep their people safe, and this was people working with the cops to keep themselves safe AND nail the bastard who did this to our city and to our people.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize and keep our powder dry for when we truly need it. Now is not the time, and when this kind of crap gets posted all over Free Republic, and people on our side buy into it, we walk right into the stereotype, and look exactly like the paranoid freaks the left likes to paint us out to be.
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.
Not even close.
This was cops trying to keep their people safe,
You have a radically different definition of "keeping them safe" than I do. I'm not sure how pointing a gun at someone qualifies as "keeping them safe" in any rational school of thought.