Explosions rock Boston Marathon; several injured

[EZ22]

I absolutely would not be happy in a police state.

Really?

Because you've basically said that there are certain situations where cops should be allowed to force people out of their homes at gunpoint, even if the resident is not a suspect and there is no probable cause.

 

[Carp]

In order to even get a warrant you have to have probable cause.

And "there might be a bad guy in the area" is not probable cause to search everyone's house.

I'm sorry that we laws

From Kevin Cole, University of San Diego School of Law:

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.
-----------------------
Sounds to me like they met the intent of the law and the 4th Amendment.

 

[townsend]

Seems like one of those, beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission kind of things. It seems like most of the time the 4th amendment is defended through the exclusion of evidence found through illegal searches. Unless someone was going to get prosecuted for harboring a fugitive, there isn't going to be any wrongfully found evidence through these searches.
I don't know if Massachusetts has any kind of a castle doctrine, but it seems like the appropriate legal response to an officer barging into your home is blowing him straight to hell.
Of course no matter how lawful, there's no way any police force wouldn't just say "F*** your rights" at that point, and find a way to shoot you while you were reaching for a pen.
Hopefully, the offended parties of any kind of illegal searches will get some justice in the form of civil lawsuits.

 

[townsend]

From Kevin Cole, University of San Diego School of Law:

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.
-----------------------
Sounds to me like they met the intent of the law and the 4th Amendment.

Not met at all, but ignored for convenience. Unless Kevin Cole represents the majority opinion of the supreme court, he's just another example of a dangerous mindset that believes that rights aren't important when people are scared.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

From Kevin Cole, University of San Diego School of Law:

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.
-----------------------
Sounds to me like they met the intent of the law and the 4th Amendment.

Not at all. You're talking about taking the "hot pursuit" doctrine and bastardizing it into something it is not and basically trying to expand it to make the fourth amendment useless.

 

[Smitty]

I just would like for folks like Bipo, Clay, Schmitty, and EZ to say how they should have cleared the neighborhood. They clearly think it was done incorrect and violated rights, so I just would like to hear how they should have been done.

They could knock on doors and ask.

If the person says no, then there is no way to clear that house absent a warrant. Though if a person says no there is good reason to survey the house as well.

So my answer is, absent probable cause, the police simply don't get to sweep every house. There is no way to do it by force.

Of course, that wasnt the way they caught him anyway, so I don't buy that it's not effective to prevent them fr sweeping, cause it didn't even matter.

 

[Smitty]

Not at all. You're talking about taking the "hot pursuit" doctrine and bastardizing it into something it is not and basically trying to expand it to make the fourth amendment useless.

Correct.

 

[Carp]

I'm no lawyer, clearly you guys are the expert here. I'll defer to your expertise.

 

[EZ22]

Police State ftw

 

[BipolarFuk]

Police State ftw

Hells yeah!!

Here's your reminder to thank the "party of liberty" for passing CISPA through the House.

 

[L.T. Fan]

From Kevin Cole, University of San Diego School of Law:

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.
-----------------------
Sounds to me like they met the intent of the law and the 4th Amendment.

This was the point I was making regarding diligence and extreme circumstances dictating extreme actions.

 

[Carp]

This was the point I was making regarding diligence and extreme circumstances dictating extreme actions.

Right. Clearly those opposed do not agree with this point. I can see that, but I can also see how this comes into play.

The biggest issue though is that the bomber was apprehended and in the pursuit and capture of the suspects civilians would not hurt or injured. That was the desired result.

If someones right were violated by all means take the necessary measures to be properly compensated for the physical or mental anguish.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Right. Clearly those opposed do not agree with this point. I can see that, but I can also see how this comes into play.

The biggest issue though is that the bomber was apprehended and in the pursuit and capture of the suspects civilians would not hurt or injured. That was the desired result.

If someones right were violated by all means take the necessary measures to be properly compensated for the physical or mental anguish.

Certainly. I was not advocating changing the rules rather implying there may sometimes be an occasion that warrants an exception to the rule.

 

[Cotton]

Certainly. I was not advocating changing the rules rather implying there may sometimes be an occasion that warrants an exception to the rule.

Like a terrorist act. Agreed.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Right. Clearly those opposed do not agree with this point. I can see that, but I can also see how this comes into play.

The biggest issue though is that the bomber was apprehended and in the pursuit and capture of the suspects civilians would not hurt or injured. That was the desired result.

If someones right were violated by all means take the necessary measures to be properly compensated for the physical or mental anguish.

The outcome was good in this case from a standpoint of the perpetrator was caught and no additional people were harmed. You'll almost never see anyone sue under these circumstances because no one has actual damages. Fact is that it doesn't make it alright.

People see an illegal search that leads to something illegal being found and they don't understand why that evidence should be thrown out. It has basically nothing to do with the person who is being charged and whether they are innocent or guilty. It has to do with the 100 other illegal searches that turn up nothing but the people's lives are screwed in some way because of it. Granted it may be small, like a slight inconvenience or it may be large such as a person's legal belongings being confiscated and their items being thrown all over the place. Most of which isn't worth suing a police department over.

 

[Carp]

Well, sounds like we have put this ugliness behind us.

 

[EZ22]

Well, sounds like we have put this ugliness behind us.

Whatever, freedom hater!!

 

[Carp]

Whatever, freedom hater!!

I love my freedom, but I hate yours...thank you very much.

 

[EZ22]

I love my freedom

You're my guy, but you have no idea what freedom really is.

 

[BipolarFuk]

You're my guy, but you have no idea what freedom really is.

If he could flush it, he would know what it was.