I don't think it's the Patriot Act. There has always been a 'hot pursuit' or 'exigent circumstances' exception to the 4th Amendment. And also, I imagine most homeowners were only to happy to assist the police by allowing the police to search their homes. If the homeowner gives permission, no warrant is necessary.
I declared Martian Law! Under Martian law doctors and other wizards are forbidden, and we can search any home we want!
Didn't they make one family darn near strip, the family with the boat?
Because Obama is as much as a tyrant as Bush
1. How many people do you think even considered denying permission?
2. Points to r3.
Not so sure they did have the authority without a search warrant. That may end up being an issue in the case.
Just because the government does something and offers a justification doesn't make it okay.
Martial Law Training Day!
Cripes, I meant to point to r2.
because if you said no, they would get a warrant - you have something to hide. if you said yes, you have nothing to hide but perhaps the psyco would be hiding somewhere without your knowledge (like your boat). it was a way to find him alive so you could question him and see if he is part of a larger operation that is planning more bombings. makes perfect sense to me.
When I watched the news the other night, they said the cops didn't actually go into the houses but just knocked on people's doors and checked to see if they were OK. I thought that was a really stupid waste of manpower.
The lockdown served one purpose. It prevented people from taking the law into their own hands. The cops stressed the guy was armed and dangerous, but the mob mentality was certainly a strong possibility after the bombing. Once they knew who it was and started the manhunt, anything could've happened.
A can't vouch for "rootbeer's veracity but here is his/her comment from the LA Times.
"rootbeer at 6:10 PM April 22, 2013. I'm sorry but the police in this country are OUT OF CONTROL! What happened in Watertown, MASS on Friday was a massacre of the US Constitution! I have an uncle who lives in Watertown, MASS who experinced all of this. We had SWAT team members in Watertown conducting INVOLUNTARY door-to-door searches forcing entire families, including small children, out of their homes at machine gunpoint, and conducting warrantless searches with little probable cause to search each individual home while frisking everyone in the home, including small children. I hope all the police and FBI involved in all of these unconstitutional searches get their as$es sued off for unlawful searches! The police in this country are simply OUT OF CONTROL!"
A refusal to allow police in your house is NOT grounds to seek a search warrant. People generally cooperate with the police for various reasons just like they usually believe what they are told about defendants by the police, prosecution and their usual conduit, the media.
The police search of Tsarnaev's home may have violated Mincey v Arizona. This case will have lots of interesting issues to argue.
"out of their homes at machine gunpoint, and conducting warrantless searches with little probable cause to search each individual home while frisking everyone in the home, including small children. "
That's not what the people I know whose houses were searched as potential unwitting hide-outs for the younger brother experienced it at all.
R13, take it to rootbeer.
Nobody answered the question. Not saying I know the answer, but I came here to find the answer. And yes, MOST people allowed the police to voluntarily search their homes, but multiple people did not give police permission to search their home, but we're pulled out at gunpoint followed by an illegal search, according to multiple (not MSM) media sources and journalists. Atleast one family's involuntary search was caught on video by a neighbor, look on YouTube.
It is either:
(1) These were illegal searches, in the cases in which families said, " no I don't want my house to be searched, nobody is inside my house."
(2) Somewhere in Martial Law it says any homes in the area of declared Martial Law can be searched without a warrant or consent.
(3) A "blanket" warrant is approved by a judge for the area of the manhunt or Martial Law.
(4) There is maybe some other state or federal law that allows WARRANTLESS & NO CONSENT searches.
Can a legal EXPERT answer this question? I am a journalist and would like to talk to (not on here) someone who actually knows the answer to this and is not guessing; as the Mainstream Media is, of course, not talking about these possibly illegal searches.
A large amount of U.S. citizens wants to know the answer, because it seems like things like this are and will be happening more and more. America is changing, and many people don't care or don't realize the Constitution is being broken by the people who's job it is to represent thebest interests of the people. Citizens need to know their rights, or else those rights are insignificant. I will be posting my website and a contact info if someone who knows what they're talking about can answer this, tons of people want and NEED to know.
It won't always be another person, or another family who's rights are being ignored- it could be you next! Other things surrounding the Boston Massacre need to be addressed, for example, the Miranda rights issue, enemy combatant issue, and all the coincidences and sketchy details about what happened last week.
There is a picture of Dzokhar Taar aev leaving the scene AFTER the explosion- STILL wearing his backpack, and the same photo that was posted by the FBI has been photoshopped (Dzokhars arm was moved to blocl his backpack.) while a craft agents backpack, that matches the one that comtained the bomb, is missing when he is leaving the scOne guy who was right mext to where the bomb went off, can be seen in pictures, PUTTING ON HIS SUNGLASSES after he was just hit with a bomb. Another guy had his pants ripped off due to the "force" of the blast, but had no blood or even scratches anywhere on his body.. Craft agents were watching the areas where the bombs went off, agents on rooftops with cameras before the bombs went off, the Nacy Seal in civilian clothes who had a backpack resulting the one that contained the bomb, the guy in sunglasses who was "injured" by the first bomb, but was seen at the feet of Jeff Bauman, the guy who lost both his legs in the iconic image, but the two people at the feet of Bauman neither had barely any blood on them. Paramedics who looked at pictures of Jeff Bauman being wheeled away, say if you lose both your legs in trauma, lost about 2.5-3 liters out if the 5-6 L of the blood the human body holds. The cowboy was holding the arterial vein of one leg, and had a "scrap of cloth" as a tourniquet on both legs, but the leg the cowboy was not holding the vein, was not even dripping blood. A person dies within two minutes if your arterial veins are not properly tourniqueted, and holding the artery of one leg with your fingers, and ripped cloth on the thigh - blood would be squirting out like a fully pumped super soaker. However, Bowman lived and the cowboy is a hero. There are "crisis actors" that have been used in false flags, as well as amputee actors that work for the military, and are usually military themselves.
If anyone has info on any of these things, please post it on here, and your contact info, or I will post a temporary contact email. I would appreciate expert analysis on these events
The ACLU is looking into this. But, as I explained above, there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment in exigent cases when police believe they have probable cause.
But the ACLU can't do anything until someone complains. And so far, no Watertown resident has complained.
I kinda hate responding at all to you, R15, because you're nuts.
Tangentially related thing that came to mind. Someone posted a story here several years ago about having someone burst through the front door of his apartment [italic]during a dinner party[/italic] and bolt out the back sliding glass door. He was followed in hot pursuit by two cops who ran out the back door after him. All of the guests except one politely excused themselves. Host and guest got to drink more wine. lol.
Here. Videos of them raiding a home and NO I can't imagine they had the authority to do this. Very very very limited authority to ever go into someone's home with a warrant or permission. And a dragnet search for a suspect on the loose doesn't give you that authority.
Even here in the video they further had no authority to frisk these people. You must have articulable suspicion of suspected criminal activity by that person to even stop or detain them and you must have probable cause to believe that the detained person to be frisked is himself armed and dangerous. You can't transfer your suspicions about another person on the loose onto others.
They sure as hell had no authority to tell people in their own homes to get away from the windows. Do any of you people live in the United States?
No r15 is onto this crap. This is yet another false flag. I can remember about 10-12 years ago when the DL would have been aware of this. This place is full of sheep willing to give up all rights to any boot jack thug with a badge. Hell, a fake badge would probably due. Pitiful.
Well, having said all that at R18, I don't think this is some false flag. It's just par for the course. Happens all the time - admittedly to a lesser degree - in certain neighborhoods in this country. Even those in view of the nation's Capitol Building.
R18 et al
This is obviously an "exigent circumstances" issue. Not that hard to figure out.
"An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials."
Yup. Exigent circumstances. The same loophole the LAPD used when hopping OJ's fence in 1884.
No search warrant needed.
No this does not meet the exigent circumstances test. Try again.
[quote] there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment in exigent cases when police believe they have probable cause
The probable cause must be particularized to a person or specific location. Not to a neighborhood. It is not something in the air. As far as anyone knows they had no probable cause regarding the houses they searched noe the people they grabbed out of their homes at gunpoint and subsequently frisked and/or searched.
By the time they were routing these people out of their homes they knew who they were looking for. If they had a reliable tip that the suspect was in a specific house then they could use exigent circumstances to go in and look for him. But they could not frisk other individuals in that house without the requisite probable cause that they themselves (the routed) were invovled in criminal activity AND that they were armed and dangerous.
Don't just throw around terms and think they apply wily nily. This is not what exigent circumstances allows.
Now if they had voluntary permission by the home owner to search houses then that's a different story. If these were rooming houses then they would need permission of each tenant to search their room. They still can't frisk or search anyone's person.
I don't like that our civilian police look more and more like military infantry.
The fact that these people let these cops into their homes with guns pointed at their heads, while at the same time the gubment is trying to disarm these people is absolutely disgusting.
That it's in Boston is a complete shame.
But what can you do. We've allowed so many foreigners into this country no one understands their rights or civil liberties.
Just like Obama wants it.
Again, the ACLU is waiting for a complaint. None so far. Someone's posting on Youtube doesn't quite cut it.