Door to Door search for active terrorist in Boston

[kusai]

Saw on CNN that the police were clearing neighborhood, and searching door to door for active terrorist.

Constitutional Violation ? What are your thoughts

 

[Sugar Land]

Seems like they have it narrowed down to those 14 blocks.

 

[ZeR0BuG]

Saw on CNN that the police were clearing neighborhood, and searching door to door for active terrorist.

Constitutional Violation ? What are your thoughts

I am leaning towards yes but it's unreasonable search and seizure I think terrorism is reasonable for search and blowing people up is certainly terrorism by any definition

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Renegade]

Saw on CNN that the police were clearing neighborhood, and searching door to door for active terrorist.

Constitutional Violation ? What are your thoughts

I imagine it would not be hard to get a search warrant for the whole area.

 

[jordanmills]

I imagine it would not be hard to get a search warrant for the whole area.

I'm with that. Under the circumstances and with that limited area, I have no problem with a judge issuing a warrant to conduct a room to room search of everything in it. Do it without a warrant and expect me to shoot you, though.

 

[kusai]

Sorry forgot to mention "NO SEARCH WARRANTS" are involved here.

 

[jordanmills]

Sorry forgot to mention "NO SEARCH WARRANTS" are involved here.

Are they in hot pursuit? No? Then if they do anything more than ask for entry, they can go right the hell to prison.

 

[General Zod]

During an active pursuit/manhunt, they have probable cause to search any building the suspect may be holed up in. Probable cause trumps the need for a search warrant.

 

[Renegade]

During an active pursuit/manhunt, they have probable cause to search any building the suspect may be holed up in. Probable cause trumps the need for a search warrant.

It is not an active pursuit. They have no idea where he is for almost 10 hours now. Nobody saw him go into a specific building.

Probable Cause does not trump the 4th amendment. It is what you use to get a warrant as required by the 4th Amendment. Hot pursuit is SCOTUS Case Law.

In United States v. Santana (1976), the Supreme Court had to decide whether the police need a warrant to arrest a person who retreats into her home after the police begin to chase her. The Supreme Court said the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

 

[kusai]

"Let no tragedy go waste" And I really think this would be a very good chance to grab any control that can be gained.

On a side note, someone is already proposing a regulation on blackpowder.

 

[Southpaw]

Are there reports of them forcing themselves in anywhere?

 

[ATX_Shawn]

I doubt they are going to be concerned with anything illegal you may be doing unless it relates to the bombing, etc.. Any evidence they find of an unrelated crime would probably be inadmissible based on the 4th. Kick in the door without a warrant looking for a terrorist and find a pot farm and try to make an arrest, I'd expect the evidence would be thrown out, and thus the case would be too.. but Im not a lawyer.

Kick in the door and find your terrorist, thats a whole different story. They obviously have enough to go on a manhunt for him, so long as all they are doing is searching for him, I think they (PD, Feds) are legal. I would guess that the homeowners are consenting to the searches also...

but thats all just speculation.. what do i know.

 

[jordanmills]

I doubt they are going to be concerned with anything illegal you may be doing unless it relates to the bombing, etc.. Any evidence they find of an unrelated crime would probably be inadmissible based on the 4th. Kick in the door without a warrant looking for a terrorist and find a pot farm and try to make an arrest, I'd expect the evidence would be thrown out, and thus the case would be too.. but Im not a lawyer.

Kick in the door and find your terrorist, thats a whole different story. They obviously have enough to go on a manhunt for him, so long as all they are doing is searching for him, I think they (PD, Feds) are legal. I would guess that the homeowners are consenting to the searches also...

but thats all just speculation.. what do i know.

While I normally would not, I could almost see myself consenting to a search under these circumstances. On the other hand, I know I'm not harboring terrorists, so there's not much point to searching me... so it's just almost.

 

[Younggun]

I feel like if someone denies entry they could come up with a earnest for that residence pretty quickly, but I'm no expert.

 

[Shorts]

Wondered about this myself when I saw the footage. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On one hand I've got nothing to hide so I can see consenting to get in, look and get out of my hair. On the other hand, I wonder what's to stop them expecting to do more of the same under other circumstances? And are we clear on under the types of circumstances they can do this? I think the balance of power is lopsided as if they want to get in, they force their way in, I'll have legal fees, criminal record, likely have things confiscated and be stuck with an uphill battle.

This is how I feel about the thread of the OC long rifle/LEO confiscating arresting the Sgt. At what point is it ok to speak up and say "no". Is it when under normal, calm, relatively no big deal circumstances? Or is it when It is hitting the fan? Citizens like the Sgt get skewered because he said 'no' in a relatively calm no big deal circumstance (everyone says just comply and be done in 30seconds). But if we take, for example, the gun confiscations after Katrina, any refusal got you beat up and your firearm confiscated like that poor 60yo woman. By that circumstance it was already a situation where it was too big to say 'no' to them.

So, when is it the right time to say "no"?

 

[DocD]

Are there reports of them forcing themselves in anywhere?

I heard them say that if a home was empty they were NOT forcing their way in. I'm not really sure how you can have an adequate search under those parameters but at least they aren't just busting down doors.

 

[Southpaw]

I heard them say that if a home was empty they were NOT forcing their way in. I'm not really sure how you can have an adequate search under those parameters but at least they aren't just busting down doors.

That's what I thinking. I am sure they are knocking on doors. If you don't consent they are moving on. Most people probably are consenting and refusal is not an issue. I believe after a few moments of talking with a resident at the door most officers will be able to ascertain whether or not you are in danger or are being deceptive and if so would probably have other officers/agents follow up with their suspicion.

 

[jordanmills]

On one hand I've got nothing to hide so I can see consenting to get in, look and get out of my hair.

I would NEVER consent for that reason. That's bad any way you cut it. I WOULD consent to make sure they can quickly check it off and move to the next one without having spend the time to write a warrant or get it signed.

 

[Shorts]

I would NEVER consent for that reason. That's bad any way you cut it. I WOULD consent to make sure they can quickly check it off and move to the next one without having spend the time to write a warrant or get it signed.

You misunderstand.

 

[ATX_Shawn]

So, when is it the right time to say "no"?

Thats a pretty deep rabbit hole to go down.