House to house searches

[StateLine]

Remember, the door to door search did not find this guy. It was an alert citizen who had already been searched that notified law enforcement.

Report I saw said it was an alert citizen who's house was outside of the search perimeter. Said he'd been holed up in his house, but came outside and saw blood on his boat. Went in and called 911.

I'm really torn on this one. I agree that door to door searches by police absolutely reek of totalitarianism and a suspension of rights. The aftermath of Katrina was a case study on pure, clear-cut violations of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, I feel as though this specific scenario was so far removed from anything else we've seen that house to house consensual searches were the only viable response. This was a terrorist, a mass murderer, and a cop killer. He (and his brother) were engaged in real time running gun battles with the cops in which they hurled homemade grenades and bombs at police. This was not the aftermath of an incident, this was a live, unfolding incident.

Our entire system of justice and liberty is based on "reasonableness". Though subjective to interpretation, I have to side with the response being reasonable in balance to the needs of the public to be safe from an incredibly dangerous situation. I also want to believe that those cops had only one goal on their mind and weren't interested in making any chicken-scratch cases on the side. They were looking for the bad guy. Period.

 

[prevsrt4owner]

Report I saw said it was an alert citizen who's house was outside of the search perimeter. Said he'd been holed up in his house, but came outside and saw blood on his boat. Went in and called 911.

I'm really torn on this one. I agree that door to door searches by police absolutely reek of totalitarianism and a suspension of rights. The aftermath of Katrina was a case study on pure, clear-cut violations of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, I feel as though this specific scenario was so far removed from anything else we've seen that house to house consensual searches were the only viable response. This was a terrorist, a mass murderer, and a cop killer. He (and his brother) were engaged in real time running gun battles with the cops in which they hurled homemade grenades and bombs at police. This was not the aftermath of an incident, this was a live, unfolding incident.

Our entire system of justice and liberty is based on "reasonableness". Though subjective to interpretation, I have to side with the response being reasonable in balance to the needs of the public to be safe from an incredibly dangerous situation. I also want to believe that those cops had only one goal on their mind and weren't interested in making any chicken-scratch cases on the side. They were looking for the bad guy. Period.

Best post I've seen in this thread. I agree with these statements.

 

[StateLine]

Best post I've seen in this thread. I agree with these statements.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

 

[TxBoyX2]

Report I saw said it was an alert citizen who's house was outside of the search perimeter. Said he'd been holed up in his house, but came outside and saw blood on his boat. Went in and called 911.

I'm really torn on this one. I agree that door to door searches by police absolutely reek of totalitarianism and a suspension of rights. The aftermath of Katrina was a case study on pure, clear-cut violations of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, I feel as though this specific scenario was so far removed from anything else we've seen that house to house consensual searches were the only viable response. This was a terrorist, a mass murderer, and a cop killer. He (and his brother) were engaged in real time running gun battles with the cops in which they hurled homemade grenades and bombs at police. This was not the aftermath of an incident, this was a live, unfolding incident.

Our entire system of justice and liberty is based on "reasonableness". Though subjective to interpretation, I have to side with the response being reasonable in balance to the needs of the public to be safe from an incredibly dangerous situation. I also want to believe that those cops had only one goal on their mind and weren't interested in making any chicken-scratch cases on the side. They were looking for the bad guy. Period.

Well said.

 

[captdave77]

Report I saw said it was an alert citizen who's house was outside of the search perimeter. Said he'd been holed up in his house, but came outside and saw blood on his boat. Went in and called 911.

I'm really torn on this one. I agree that door to door searches by police absolutely reek of totalitarianism and a suspension of rights. The aftermath of Katrina was a case study on pure, clear-cut violations of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, I feel as though this specific scenario was so far removed from anything else we've seen that house to house consensual searches were the only viable response. This was a terrorist, a mass murderer, and a cop killer. He (and his brother) were engaged in real time running gun battles with the cops in which they hurled homemade grenades and bombs at police. This was not the aftermath of an incident, this was a live, unfolding incident.

Our entire system of justice and liberty is based on "reasonableness". Though subjective to interpretation, I have to side with the response being reasonable in balance to the needs of the public to be safe from an incredibly dangerous situation. I also want to believe that those cops had only one goal on their mind and weren't interested in making any chicken-scratch cases on the side. They were looking for the bad guy. Period.

Katrina was an extraordinary situation too and it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time to look for survivors by going door to door. The officers in the videos everyone has seen thought disarming citizens was reasonable.

 

[44Pistolpete]

This may have been answered earlier as I have not read all 18 pages of this chain. Exigent circumstances would allow the police to enter your home without a warrant. And, if during a search, there was a brick of cocaine in plain view, they could persue charges etc. In this case, it is doubtful that the SWAT officers searching for the Boston Bomber would have cared if you had an entire grow house.

Before you argue, do some research, google "exigent circumstances" and fourth amendment.

Thank you.

Katrina was an extraordinary situation too and it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time to look for survivors by going door to door. The officers in the videos everyone has seen thought disarming citizens was reasonable.

 

[captdave77]

This may have been answered earlier as I have not read all 18 pages of this chain. Exigent circumstances would allow the police to enter your home without a warrant. And, if during a search, there was a brick of cocaine in plain view, they could persue charges etc. In this case, it is doubtful that the SWAT officers searching for the Boston Bomber would have cared if you had an entire grow house.

Before you argue, do some research, google "exigent circumstances" and fourth amendment.

Thank you.

Exigent circumstances do not cover searching every building in a geographic area. For a search to be legal under exigent circumstances there needs to be a specific imminent danger, evidence destruction, or a suspect will escape.

 

[Big Ben]

Question: What about the dudes boat? Who pays for that?

 

[captdave77]

Question: What about the dudes boat? Who pays for that?

 

[sovietak474u]

Faxed hell, they probably have a judge nearby with preprepared warrants only laxking your address. In other words, saying no would not be wise.

thats fine. Your not stepping foot in my house without a warrant. Once you do get it ill be keeping my eye on you.