Too many meatbags. Bring the drones!

I have heard some say that Boston was a test of martial law to see how compliant the populace has become. I am not one of those people, but videos of things like this make it difficult to argue against that idea. I hope Boston has hundreds of violation of civil rights lawsuits coming and millions in damages to pay it's citizens so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again.
"We're scared" is not a legitimate reason for suspension of your civil rights, I hope Bostonians don't let them slide because they were scared this time too. This is supposed to be the land of the brave people, what the hell has happened to youall? Please grow a spine and demand the rights my forefathers fought and died to secure for us or we'll all lose them.
It is disheartening to think that, if this were a test of compliance, we have scored a 'perfect' 100%.

They're not illegal searches, a warrant isn't needed if it's under exigent circumstances (i.e. Martial Law, manhunt, etc).
If this were under different circumstances, then yes, I'd be upset, but they're looking for someone who's already killed, and injured people, and who's already shown behavior that they will attack on a whim.

Where exactly do you find the law or laws that support this. I'd be very interested in seeing them.

As I said, "We're scared" or in other words 'exigent circumstances' are not legitimate reasons for suspension of civil rights. If you believe a 'manhunt' makes it legal for unwarranted search and seizures then I ask you, when is it NOT legal for them to enter your home without a warrant? There is ALWAYS a 'manhunt' in operation, technically every person with a warrant out is a 'manhunt in progress'. Your suggestion leaves no conclusion except you believe we have already given up the right protecting us from unwarranted search and seizure in our own homes. I disagree with that assertion, and suggest that during these types of extreme circumstances are exactly the times when it is imperative to exercise your rights, not capitulate and allow them to simply strip those rights from you or ignore them without consequence.
If they were in pursuit of a suspect and KNEW he was on or had traveled through the property, that's another story, but that's not the case here.
I did not hear that martial law had been implemented...there may be some validity to that argument, I'm less sure about that circumstance.
Still I suggest that rights only exist if they can be used at ALL times, not just when it's convenient for the government to allow them.

As tough as I'm sure it is to go through, and as much as I'd hate it to happen to me (especially with two tiny children in the house), it is legally permissible and these were definitely exigent circumstances. From WikiPedia (where else?):

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

I dont think you can say people were in imminent danger in any one house of the many they searched as they had no idea where he was. You cant say someones in immediate danger when you have no idea if they actually are. If they had him pegged to a few houses due to some type of evidence then maybe those people might be considered in imminent danger, maybe. Also the suspect cant escape if you have the house or houses surrounded that you "think" (basically taking a stab in the dark guess) he could possibly be occupying. I would think it would then be easy to obtain a warrant.

If this was normal ok procedure then every day blocks would be sealed off and houses searched warantlessly without consent due to violent or dangerous criminals(and what criminals aren't ) having disappeared into a residential areas where they can be considered an immediate danger to the residents of that community. Of course that doesn't happen.

Let's just disagree to agree.

(But I will say it's not every day that someone who blows up people and tosses bombs at police evades capture into a neighborhood after car jackings and shootouts with the proven desire to massacre innocent people without provocation, and all with a big smile.)

there's a key word in my explanation (which the definition is posted in another comment); Under exigent circumstances, meaning using the excuse of "oh.. we're just looking for someone" isn't considered under that label. Also, probable cause can be used in a search without a warrant (i.e. shots reported in a building etc..).

Secondly, the entire city of Boston was on lockdown under a Public Safety measure (no martial law was called at the time), but national guard was patrolling the search area and aiding local enforcement. Anyone found on the streets walking around was instantly stopped and carded for info.

Again, the searches were not unwarranted and they were not illegal. They only searched the houses in the search area, they proceeded with by the book maneuvers. No one was mishandled in the searches from what I see in that video or any other account.

I agree that there is the possibility that either of us could be right by law,and thats why I believe lawsuits should be filed to determine if the searches were legal. The law is to ambiguous and should be challenged in the courts and better defined. I think this situation is a slippery slope which if legal can easily be abused by law enforcement. Just my opinion.

I think the circumstances are a bit different, remember, this isn't just some carjacker or thief. This individual proved how unpredictable he can be (carjack/robbery/bombs being thrown at pursuing police, fire fights, etc..) He's was a danger to all in the area. Look at the firefight that happened when they did find him. It sounded like a warzone, he just didn't raise his hands and say "oh.. guys.. you got me".

Again, I'm not saying that in any other "normal" situation this would be acceptable, but given the circumstances, the amount of danger the area was in, it was necessary to do a full sweep of every house, yard and street in the area.

I can't believe those were legal. None of those people were in "Imminent Danger" unless these two bombers somehow had a nuclear weapon capable of destroying the entire town/county/state.

Where do you draw the line?

My "normal " and your "normal" or what the police say is "normal" could be worlds apart, and that is part of the problem. I'm trying to look down the road and the possible precedents it sets for these type of police actions in the future. Also I dont know why warrants couldnt have been obtained for the houses being searched. I assume under the circumstances it would have been easy to do.

I fear the police having discretion to make these type of calls as I am distrustful of law enforcement and would rather have the rules they operate under more well defined.

*quality *promote discussion

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013 8:22am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

There just isn't any way that the bombing suspects represented enough of a threat to warrant door to door searches at gunpoint. This is even clearer than the post 9/11 'torture' debate... and that was pretty clear.
If the police really had probable cause to enter those homes, then they would have walked out of each of them with a man in handcuffs.

I understand what you're saying, and by "normal" I mean non federal assisted searches, where a town isn't on a total lockdown, where a suspect isn't wanted for terror activities along with several other major crimes.

As always, if anyone feels their rights were violated, it's always suggested to talk to a lawyer. But regarding a warrant for each searched house; when they know that the suspect is in the vicinity, time is of the essence. As to the situation when something like this is allowed or not, it's written in the law books. Sure, it can be argued for or against this action, but when it comes to a circumstance like this, where the known suspect is in the area, possibly in a house. Waiting, even for a few minutes for each warrant to come through (I'm sure there were well over a few hundred houses in the area being searched) could mean lives.

I'm willing to bet that, if they did do the warrants, and the suspect did enter a house, injuring or killing the residents, everyone would be on the authorities for "waiting". They can't win either way. And I must stress, that I understand where you and many others are saying about over-reaching of authorities into civilian rights, but in this case, I feel it's 100% justified and they made the right call. And I'm sure that if there were any court cases brought out from any of this (which I highly highly highly doubt), they'll get dismissed.

...Ahhh, but "exigent circumstances" is not well defined, and apparently includes any 'dangerous criminal' on the loose (and there are thousands) so with your definition any home may be entered without warrant because dangerous criminals ARE in the area and MAY be in your home, at all times. Imagine if any time there's a murder your rights to move OR be secure in your home go out the window for "public safety", that's what you're advocating. There is no right of the government to control your movements in an effort towards "public safety" or you would be under house arrest at all times, it's just not safe out there.
Again, the searches WERE unwarranted, they did not have warrants. The next search area may be the entire USA using your explanation, there are loose criminals everywhere at all times. Because this one crime got everyone hopped up does not make the eradication of your right to privacy and freedom from search in your own home acceptable, don't accept it.
Again, I hope there are numerous lawsuits against Boston for millions proving that this kind of right eradication won't fly again anywhere under any circumstances. Maybe your forefathers didn't fight to secure those rights for you like mine did, if they did you dishonor them and their sacrifice.
PS How is stopping and carding people they know full well aren't the suspects doing anything but needlessly harassing and investigating everyone for "x" ?

Who crafts the language of the law and the descriptive terminology used to codify offenders? The argument here (see out-dated scrap of guidelines) is when does your average Joe become the "exigent circumstance" and who decides what, when, who, how, and where such a circumstantial decision leading to action should be brought into play....and at that point, what action and where is the agreed-upon line drawn? The justification for a door-to-door in Boston this week did not come from the referenced, " American law of criminal procedure" which is quite possibly, a fluid, up-for-interpretation piece of horseshit.

At face value...Jack-boots in armor going door-to-door with adrenaline pumping leads to fucking chaos or police state, and, sorry men-in-black, there are better ways to looks for kooks. Fuck the po-lice and their newfangled ways of doing their half-assed assignments! The goddamn bomber would have found his own ass in 3 more hours trying to buy tampons to stick in his wounds if half the cops looking for him were on a 3-day-drunk ANYHOW!

Yeah-The fucking police violated rights and used some jihad-teen's actions and their own balls as license, don't care how the law reads.

You're taking context way out of proportion, Again, given the circumstances, the searches were valid and needed to find the suspect.

RE: Exigent Circumstances:
"In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

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. /snip"

The key part of this statement is "imminent escape", thus the searches fall under exigent circumstances. ACLU among a few others have already dove into this entire video and it's meaning, they also talked to several attorneys and legal experts and they all say that the searches aren't illegal. Maybe heavy handed, but not illegal.

And lastly (sorry for the long posts), many have already pointed out that this particular video (the only one actually) shows the defensive positioning of the law enforcement, the fact that there's a heli above. This could be a house of interest, possibly someone spotted someone running through the yard, or something seemed suspect. We may never know, but a few officers I've talked to (both in Swat as well as a few of my ex-military contacts) have stated that this isn't standard procedure positioning. That they only arrange themselves like this if they feel there's a threat in the building or car.

"Ma'am, in light of the recent bombing (I'm certain you've heard about it) our intelligence tells us that your domicile (of interest, for whatever the reason) is in the way. With public concern in mind and in the interest of finding these cretins, we're taking you into the street, hands above your head, and searching you and your home before we let you back in....Is that gonna be ok??"

"Well, I guess so, I have nothing to hide. My rights as a human are superseded by the (insert color-coded level here) terror alert and the overwhelming need to find this asshole. Sure. Come on in and have a fucking look-see, no problem..Fuck off."

The mayor of Boston asked for the public's cooperation in staying home so law enforcement could do their job. By no means was it mandatory. I went out for a run at about 1:00pm in Cambridge, across the Mass Ave Bridge, along the Esplanade, and back past the Cambridge Police HQ. There weren't many people out, but there were definitely some. I was never stopped or asked for my identification, even though I ran past police officers. If you're talking about Watertown specifically, though, I can't say what it was like over there.

I think we're in agreement that the home searches were valid. I'd be interested to see if any of the homes refused the search, and on what grounds.

So why was not Martial Law declared for this? That would have clearly made this a legal procedure?

Swat I'm sayin', make a fucking announcement and have the governor back it er sumpthin' on TV or a cell-message, don't just drag folks into the street.....Better ways to find folks without making yourselves more the enemy....

Look, here's the real deal-How safe do you want to be and what will you surrender to feeel like you have that, illusion of safety? Will you let assholes make laws that send hind-brained cunts with barely a hundred I.Q.'s in body-armor with M-16's to your door on a hunch??

Answers: WE ALREADY DID!

And isn't it possible that most "dangerous" criminals (bombers,armed bank robbers,gang members involved in a shooting,etc..),loose in your neighborhood could by that definition be used to perform the same type warrantless searches to apprehend them.

Is saving lives really worth the inconvenience of having your house searched?

Personally, I'd rather be dead.

This would have unfolded completely differently in Texas. I would guess after the 4th or 5th pitched gun battle/standoff they would have re-thought their need for warrant-less searches.

There also needs to be probable cause to make Exigent Circumstances legal. Unfortunately the wording of the law is so full of loopholes that basically this allows complete nullification of our 4th amendment rights. Someone needs to take this to the SC to have it's constitutionality checked.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

@2:13 lmfao.

I find it interesting that just after the Boston Bombings, two men in similar circumstances were arrested in Canada for plotting to bomb a commuter train. The arrests were without incident and happened after several months of surveillance. Presumably the timing was due to a concern over the possibility that Boston might embolden the Canadian terrorists.

The interesting side-note is that police and CSIS were aware of the men because several Muslims who knew the men were concerned that the men had become radicalized.

I wonder, would the Boston bombers have been caught earlier if not for the draconian measures police regularly resort to, including ethnic profiling and harassment of Muslim men and women. Would someone from that community have come forward with information if they weren't afraid of the police? The iron fist plays well to the American psyche, but is it simply counterproductive?

If the key part of the argument is the "imminent escape" clause, does it not logically follow the suspect must be actually IN the home they search?
Perhaps the ACLU spokesman you speak of knows something I don't, but the description claimed this was not an isolated incident and we know the suspect wasn't in there.
If it was neighboring the standoff, which now seems to be the case, it would really seem to be more about the imminent danger to life from erant bullets or explosions. I could understand that, but that's not what the description claims.

ZACTL'Y!...You must live really close to me!!

A warrant-less search is a warrant-less search, regardless of extenuating circumstances, and you'd better have a good lawyah if you'd like to have that FACT argued in court on your behalf in the, "Greeatah Bahhaston earea" any time soon...That is, if you denied these cunts entry and want off scot-free with a hand-slap....

Notice how I keep using the word CUNT??

Hey man! easy with the "c" werd. We are the best CUNTry in the universe mudder fookers! We has the drones to prove it. Lees meatbags, more bots.

This is clearly a job for Skynet.

Exigent circumstances is quite specific in its context. There must be immediate danger to someone, and there was not, or they must be in the immediate act of chasing a suspect, which they were not (randomly searching for is not chasing).

Additionally it only gives them access to a house - with no rights to place non-suspect citizens under armed duress (what did they think they were going to do for non-compliance? Shoot them?).

I think they'll have to answer for their actions and they will have a hard time doing it.

I had tears in my eyes watching this. Unbelievable.
But the most shocking is that some people would have actually blamed the people in the house if a policeman would have shot them for taking the hands down...

Exigent circumstances has been argued and backed by the Supreme court in many cases. In this case, may lawyers and law experts have already looked into this entire situation and say that trying to claim a violation of the 4th would be extremely difficult to prove. As exigent circumstances include: Fleeing suspect (which there was); immediate danger to person or property (which there was, suspect was armed and has already proved his intent); Hot Pursuit (doesn't mean the tv version actually); probable cause (which there was, as they knew he was in the area, and possibly in a domicile).

Regardless what I or anyone on this site says, it's up to the judicial system to determine this issue. And from the looks of it, there won't be much of a fight against the searches.

I really don't get the USA. You have the highest number of gun related deaths in the world, can't change that because of your 2nd amendment rights. You barely passed legislature for mandatory healthcare, while having the worst healthcare system of all industrialized nations. This apparently is what Americans understand as freedom.
But let there be only one threat from outside and people willingly throw their rights down the drain.

It ab-so-FUCKING-lutely was mandatory. I have a friend who lives directly in that area and he was driving home from work. The police pulled him over, TOSSED Him out of his car, pinned him to the ground and (his words not mine) "Almost broke my wrist".

Is that VOLUNTARY? Unless you were there don't assume things.

If you haven't figured it out, as a populace, we aren't the brightest people. We are easily manipulated and controlled by the powers that be. The fact is we get what we deserve.

SCORCHED EARTH!

Getting a warrant to search a house isn't that simple. It takes more time than they had plain and simple. I can't fathom how anyone could think that police, having reasonable grounds to believe that an armed suspect who had committed several murders of innocent civilians in the previous hours is contained in a specific neighborhood, should stop, contain and commence writing search warrants for every house they want to search. Each one taking at minimum 1-2 hours to type, and additional time to be read and approved by the Judiciary. In fact, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do this and allow any other people to be killed in the meantime. This is why exigent circumstances clauses exist. It has never been seen on this scale before and that is due to the extraordinary circumstances.

To argue there shouldn't be an "exigent circumstance" clause, is also ridiculous. If police believe on reasonable grounds, that a suspect is in his house they need a warrant. If they believe he is currently destroying evidence of the crime for which he is a suspect, they do not need a warrant. But rest assured, the police MUST articulate their use of exigent circumstances every time it is used and the scrutiny from lawyers and judges will be fierce. People seem to think that it is a free pass for police to do what they want with no recourse. It is not.

Yep Quad, another thing you might consider; Americans have been groomed through the purification of language by journalists and politicians combined with a systematic elimination of critical thinking skills, to let themselves be raped by a handful of assholes. These same assholes speak of an out-of-date document in desperate need of revisions (many of these Kool-Aid drinkers on this very forum) and continually propose adjustments which send the experiment further down the highway to bankruptcy, diversion, ignorance and idiocracy.
Welcome to Earth, humans may present a problem, enjoy your stay.

Yes my bit on getting search warrants was a bit of a stretch i agree.

There is a reason it's not 'that simple', it's supposed to be difficult for the powers that be to find a reason to intrude on your 'castle', even when they're scared.
I am hopeful that at least SOME will force them to articulate their specific reason for 'exigent circumstances' and hold their feet to the fire when they don't have one in most cases. In the specific instances where they knew or thought they knew where the suspect was (not when they had no idea) it made sense to evacuate surrounding houses, but not at gunpoint, and there was no reason whatsoever for the police to enter and search the home(s) when they suspected the suspect was trapped and totally surrounded in a neighbors yard, just none.
In the instances alluded to in the description, they'll have a hard time making the case for imminent danger or destruction of evidence, when they didn't know where he was or what he was doing they couldn't possibly have had evidence of either.

I agree that it should not be simple. But you are speculating a great deal as to what the police knew, and when they knew it. The"total picture" of police knowledge won't be known until several things play out in court. It will be public record and it can be debated then.

I disagree about the gunpoint evacuation thing. If they suspect he was in a boat, isn't it possible that he moved since police received that information? Couldn't he be in a house now? Seems reasonable to use caution given what his actions were throughout this event. I wouldn't like being pulled out of my house at gunpoint either, but I wouldn't think the police were doing it just to be dicks.

As I said in my first post, I'm not sure what it was like directly in Watertown. But where I live in Cambridge, blocks from where Officer Collier was slain, it was a different story.

MA is a anti-gun state so they get what they deserve for trading their freedom for police state security. You won't see police try this fascist crap in Texas or Virginia.

...resistance is futile....

Oh good one! Well, good for a chuckle at least.

There is no such thing as "human rights." Rights, by their very nature, are simply laws and laws are just words. These words only have meaning when people abide by them and there is nothing in nature that requires people to do so. The reality is that you are afforded rights by the government that rules over you. The government holds the position of authority and, as a citizen, you agree to this. If you do not like this, you should refuse government rule. To hate and distrust your ruler while accepting their rule is pointless. Leave the country, become an anarchist, start a revolution... arguing about semantics (i.e. laws) doesn't change the fact that people with power can exert that power in any way they see fit.

Are you fucking high? I can't believe some of the stupidity coming from some of you people. This is even dumber than the ridiculous tack of @eric3579's comments (although I haven't read further than this comment yet, so maybe he pulled his head out later. EDIT: Nope!).

Bombing suspects weren't enough of a threat?!?! You mean the bombing suspects who detonated two bombs during the marathon, executed an MIT policeman while he sat in his car, committed a carjacking and didn't kill the driver only because he wasn't an American, then engaged Boston police in a car chase and gun battle during which they threw several explosives, and one of the "suspects" ran over his own fucking brother so he could get away? Those bombing suspects? "Just isn't any way" they were enough of a threat?

Look, I've been very vocal about my hatred of police, and it pisses me off to see the citizens of Boston engage in the pathetically effusive hero-worship of police who were just doing what taxpayers pay them to do, but this whole argument that the warrantless searching of homes in an area police believed the remaining suspect to be hiding is just daft and has NO MERIT, not unlike the suspicion that this was some sort of compliance test on the populace that @newtboy"heard some say", which is firmly in Alex Jones/Glenn Beck thousand-yarder territory. Maybe the government just really wanted to get into a few homes and look around without warrants, and the best idea they could come up with was to blow some people up, eh? What sorts of secrets do you think were surreptitiously gleaned from those searched homes that would justify such a huge and deadly ruse? Maybe they just wanted to find out if residents in a search area for an extremely and demonstrably violent suspect would be stupid enough to resist efforts to actually locate and apprehend him. Compliance test... give me a fucking break.

You believe the police should have whittled the the search area down to a single home, got a warrant, and then knocked on the door with their guns holstered? Do you also believe that the police can read minds, or have powers of perception that the rest of us don't? Maybe you think the movies are accurate, and anything that happens anywhere can be played back in HD by the police because some super-secret satellite gets it on video. They're dicks, but they don't have superpowers and can't know everything with certainty, and I think they did a good job in a relatively short period of time of homing in and getting those assholes. What I find amazing is the criticism being leveled at them for doing exactly what they were supposed to do. If I'm being held against my will by someone who just blew up a marathon, killed a cop, and ran over his own brother to get away, the cops sure as shit better be actively searching my neighborhood, and not holding back for lack of warrants or knowledge of exactly which house he's in.

Other people here have tried to explain what exigant circumstances are, and why they most definitely applied in this case, but some of you just prefer to see bogeymen everywhere. Maybe you need to, for some reason.

Those stupid cunts should have just let those murderers/maimers/bombers escape so I can feel safe.

Sowrong. Words mean what they mean regardless of what you mean them to mean.

I don't see it that way, in my opinion US citizens are quite capable of using their intellect. The big problem I see is that your government doesn't seem to care anymore what the populace is for or against. Recently there was a new gun law that should be passed by the congress, I think you know which one I am talking about. The one 80% of the people were for and more than half of the congressmen voted for, which still didn't pass. It shows perfectly that the people aren't to blame, it's your out of touch politicians. It seems like there only are 2 principles you can count on from US politicians (or at least these are the reasons they tell the public), one would be the war on terror and the other the economy.

If you are interested in german politics, we are fighting our criminal mastermind-politicians quite effectively. The Bundespräsident (obviously not the Bundeskanzlerin) resigned in 2012 for some minor favors he had (like not having to pay for a hotel he was staying in while he was president). There was a giant out leash from the public and he quickly had to go (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns-amid-scandal/).

But even more interesting, just yesterday there was a ruling by the highest german court, if the new terror-file used by our intelligence agency and the police was constitutional. It wasn't, so the judges had to change it. And the decision wasn't driven by the need to stop terror, but by german history. You see the problem is, our police and our intelligence agency are separated for historical reasons. When Hitler was just made chancellor of germany he used the Gestapo as an agency that was police and intelligence in one, to get rid of his political enemies.

I know that was very long, I just wanted to make my point using my own country as the best (or worst, depends on the view ) example there is for the world. Cause the world could still learn a thing or two from us, since we learned a thing or two from our last dictatorship and how to avoid it happening again (at least I really hope so).

Uh and since I love quotes, just recently I read this one "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

Everyone is speculating about what the police knew and when. What we do know is they did not know, or even have any evidence that they had returned to Boston after the shootout, but the description claims these searches happened there too.
As for evacuation at gunpoint, yes, it's possible he had moved into a nearby home, but not at all possible that he had morphed into a 12 year old child or woman, so holding them at gunpoint is ridiculous.
It will likely only be true "public record" if there are lawsuits that force the police to give specific reasons for each and every entry.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right. If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.
Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them. Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.
As to what they might find that would make it 'justified', nothing in my mind, but in theirs could be a different story. They leave it open for the GBs out there to call this a 'deadly ruse' amongst other things, and to claim it was simply a way to enter and search peoples homes for whatever they might find (remember, that's how many departments fund themselves, with seizures, so there's a great reason for them to want to know if there's something to seize).
I'm of the opinion that the Boston police saw an opportunity to enter at least some homes they knew full well were not in danger but that they were 'suspicious' of under the 'public safety' umbrella, and likely brought charges against some for what they found, but that's just a guess based on past behavior, I have no evidence that this happened.
I believe the police should have narrowed the search area to less than one square block once they knew where he was, not randomly search homes for him when they have no idea whatsoever where he is. There's no danger if he's not there, so no excuse to enter. If they don't know, but search anyway, that's an illegal warrantless search. If they pull their guns on you and train them at you (which they seemed to do in the video) they put your life in danger for no reason and should be prosecuted for brandishing.
No one (after the carjack victim not in a home) was held against their will, no one needed saving. When they don't know where the suspect is, they don't know where to search for him, so should not enter any home uninvited. How do you not get that? If they don't know where he is or what he's doing or even if he's armed (which it turns out he was not) then there's no exigent circumstance. Period. They only exist when there is knowledge of the suspects actual presence and evidence the he's either threatening others or evidence, not the worry that he might be.
Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.
If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.
Apologies for the long post.

I thought American enforcement only did this overseas? Oh well. It's a war on something, so it's all good I'm sure.

Naw, evolutionary dead end imo.

@newtboy

What we do know is they did not know, or even have any evidence that they had returned to Boston after the shootout..."

Well they wouldn't claim "scared," that's pretty stupid to say. They would claim imminent danger or some such. Not saying it's right, but they can (and have) argued that lives being threatened constitutes an emergency worth breaking down doors. Same reasoning police give for breaking down doors when they hear of abuse to children.

What is to say that the bombers didn't have more bombs planted and had easy access to them if they got to them? Remember, I am not using this logic. I am just pointing out that this can and probably would be their reasoning. You don't have to agree with it--only a judge needs to. You can call bs, but your opinion doesn't matter.

My guess is that no lawsuits will win the day. Remember, the law doesn't support you or I, but those who can argue best.

Every country has its problems. Major and minor. Look at Canada, which is supposedly 100% better--unless you are a protester who is framed for anything a cop can think of...

Btw, @Fletch

Holy fuck...just holy fuck. Good reasoning Fletch, on all parts. Mindless drones on both sides always piss me off and I am glad to see you have an open mind. I remember my first year on the Sift when I came with a partially positive outlook on cops, yet pointed out when they were fucktards--I was this commie cum dumpster that everyone loved to hate... But my views are mostly like yours (Just a little less jaded.)

And we wonder why cops get jaded...

We know that because it was not true, they did not return to Boston therefore they could have no evidence that they had returned to Boston. That simple, not bullshit, and I have no idea what infowars is.
...and yes, I am commenting based on the description of the video, I clearly stated I have no knowledge of any searches done outside the immediate area beyond what's claimed in the description. If there were no random searches in Boston as claimed, there's no argument here other that the base idea that one's home should be safe from search without clear factual reasoning. I guess thinking that makes me a paranoid idiotic nutter, at least I'm not alone. :-}

Yes, but "imminent danger" requires (or should require, I'm not a lawyer) that they KNOW where the danger is, or it's not "imminent". When it's done without that knowledge, it's just saying 'we're scared he could be there, or over there, or in there, or in Boston...', and that's not allowed (or should not be).
I agree, they should have considered him armed and dangerous until they knew otherwise, they didn't know at the time only his brother had a gun and bombs.
The validity of any possible lawsuits will undoubtedly hinge on the validity of the "exigent circumstance", which will probably depend on the competence of the lawyers arguing the points of each case, and yes, I know my opinion has no bearing on that.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oh, for fuck's sake...

Just. Because. The. Suspects. Didn't. Return. To. Boston. Does. Not. Mean. That. The. Police. Had. No. Evidence/reports/leads. That. They. Had. Returned. To. Boston.

I read somewhere (and it could be bullshit) they were fielding 300 tips a minute at one point. Bullshit or not, following up leads, even false leads, is part of police work. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Apologies to @newtboy and others for possibly ramping up a leetle too quickly and harshly. (Edit: Never mind.) There's just a certain type of nuttery and flight from logic that immediately gets me up in arms. It is, imnsho, the kind of buffoonery and dangerous dogma that can only become the self-fulfilling prophecy of those who embrace it.



Ok... going hiking tomorrow. Eagle Creek. Tunnel Falls. I hope to return relaxed. and less abrasive. (Edit: not healthy to deny one's nature)

No, but absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Do I need more periods for that to make sense? Reports/leads. are. not. factual. evidence.
Are you suggesting that they should have had the right to invade any home or neighborhood that a tipster mentioned to them, because you seem to be. And you call me a nutjob? Hmmm.
To address your previous rant...
Because one person may have posed a danger to some does not suspend the rule of law, which requires EVIDENCE, not a guess, that there is actually 'imminent danger' of harm or destruction of evidence or escape...they could not have had that for random searches in Boston, if there were any.
I agree, your ignorance is embarrassing. Searching based on hunch or guess is unreasonable. Simple enough?
It's funny that you have apparently pegged me into some hole you dislike, because you know far less about me that we know about the bombers activities in the hour being discussed and have already made numerous quick false assumptions, but that's your prerogative.
I understand the fourth amendment, it has been widely interpreted by many. You seem to believe that anyone with a different interpretation from yours must be a brain dead idiot that needs a spanking. I simply feel that anyone that wants to freely give up the rights that many paid dearly to secure should instead move to somewhere that already governs the way they would like. They do exist, and I meant it about Australia, it seems great but it's not the USA.
edit: please don't take that as 'if you don't like it then get out!', it is a reasonable idea for those unhappy with the way the current system is working out, especially given the difficulty of changing it.
I take your argument to the logical conclusion, which is that if you think dangerous criminals in the area makes random searches legal, then you think the police may enter your home at any time, you have said nothing to dispute that, just called it dumb and BS. If one murderer is dangerous and worthy or house to house search, is another somehow not? Please explain and cite where the law draws the line.
Please attempt to make a rational argument and not a third grade name calling session. I made no flights from logic that I can see and freely stated I was commenting based on the 'facts' in the description, and did not resort to name calling.
Recall what one of the smartest founding fathers famously said (and quadrophonic kindly reminded me of) "Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

No. Imminent danger should not. A child that is in danger but is not known if he/she is home is fucked under this logic. You cannot go into the home, even if it's likely the parents are there, because you just don't know. That burden of proof goes a little to far the other way...

I said it that way because it's a stupid paranoid idea that the likes of Glen Beck spout, and I don't want my government giving that lot any ammunition. I thought that was clear. I never backed away from my stance that it was NOT a compliance test, I simply commented that the reported conduct makes that argument hard to make to the conspiracy minded. this is the kind of comprehension problem and mistaken assumption I spoke of.
The "they" I speak of is the police that reportedly violated people's rights. No conspiracy needed for that to happen, 'punishment' is needed to curtail it.
What part was a lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma (that) betrays an authoritarian worldview? I agree, I should have included "unreasonable" (not "reasonable" as you keep writing) with "search and seizure", especially since it's the definition of "unreasonable" that we are discussing. It was not an intentional omission as you imply.

You keep saying the same shit over and over and over as if that makes it true anywhere but your own mind, you ignore entirely facts that don't fit within your narrative, you only seem willing to argue points that you created yourself and put into other people's mouths, you openly admit you interpret the 4th as you see fit, apparently without all that "reasonable" detritus, and you repeatedly and intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent what I and others say when it will serve whatever response you wish to manufacture. Does it make you a "brain dead idiot"? Does anyone have to ask?

Congrats,  you win.  

see above/read back to yourself. (said the kettle to the pot)
I didn't realize we were competing.

Is this the forum where everyone starts second guessing how everyone acted in a crisis? I've been having trouble finding it....