Police Searching Homes

The quote was something to the effect of "We are searching house to house, door to door, closet by closet."

Then, the next day, something about "we have almost finished searching all of the empty cabins in the area."


You can live in your fantasy land, where the police don't violate our rights like this, but this is reality. They are doing it.


We are watching the death knell American liberty, and it is greeted with cheers and adulation from those who want the illusion of safety.

Click to expand...

that was a quote from the boston PD?.....i dont suppose you have a link?

i can tell you i had friends in the immediate area of the incident........they never had police knocking down their doors.

No, M-Cameron, that is a quote from whoever the spokesperson was in the Dorner case.

I don't know all the facts about the Boston one.

I won't comment on some of the stuff in this thread except to point out how easy it is to armchair commando this sort of stuff - Get out on the street at 3am and approach a door not knowing what you'll find and it might give some a different perspective.

Lastly, I probably don't have this accurately - but I believe Mr. Lincoln when questioned about some of his actions during that little conflict called the Civil War is supposed to have said that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact (anyone is welcome to jump in here with the correct quote).

Personally I think we're at our best when the chips are down and Hannibal is at the gate... That goes for the ordinary citizen, the law enforcers, and pretty much everyone else in this country. Yeah, we make mistakes, and yes government can over-react but looking at what I've seen of other countries.... I'll take this one any day - warts and all.

If you agree you're welcome to spread this around... if you disagree -do the same.

Capt (ret.) R. W. LeMay
NMB-PD

Any relationship to General Curtis Lemay, Captain?

Hmmm...

52 posts and none of the "go ahead and let 'em search without a warrant" crowd has comented on the fact it was a citizen not the Police that found suspect #2.

Again and again we continue to see examples of where citizens waive their rights and stand silent in the name of "emergency" or "crisis." Has New Orleans really been that long ago?

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve either one. - Benjamin Franklin

Distrust is built into any democracy as a way to prevent the abuse of power by a few even if the system itself requires public trust.

A man does what he must — in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers, and pressures — and that is the basis of all human morality. John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage (1956)

It seems to me that most citizens take a decidedly different view of what is "reasonable" than what cops have their lawyers argue is reasonable in court months or years after the fact, and what the courts even later ultimately find to be "reasonable".

The bottom line is that the king has given his men the power to do as they see fit in his name, with a few limitations on that power here and there that are sometimes observed and sometimes not. That power is viewed in a very expansive way by the courts, and short of a constitutional amendment I don't see that changing.

"terrorism"....?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, most public bombings fall under terrorism as they are performed in an attempt to affect some form of social, religious, or political changes through violence. Doing so for the purpose of making citizens feel unsafe to go about their normal activities, such as bombing a race, would fall under those guidelines.

There is no indication that the bombs were planted for the purpose of revenge against or assassination of particular people or race officials.

It could be that the bombs were placed by folks so mentally unstable as to not be able to comprehend right or wrong and not be for any other purpose than the enjoyment of seeing the explosions and chaos, but this is highly unlikely, especially with multiple individuals involved.

So the most plausible assumption is that these bombings were in fact acts of terrorism.

http://www.thehighroad.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8883222

ilbob, I believe the constitutional amendment you are looking for is called the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Or in other words, I don't think it's a constitutional amendment we need. We already have that. What is needed is for us to actually take a stand based on the rights that are already protected by the constitution. As far as the issue of reasonableness, I don't believe it qualifies as reasonable suspicion if you come to the door to speak with an officer and agree to allow them to search your property but not your home. As I have seen it interpreted previously they cannot claim the exercise of your constitutional rights as reasonable suspicion and unless they actually saw the perpetrator enter your home they have no genuine reason to believe he is actually inside. Yes, he may be, but "may be" is a far sight from a reasonable suspicion. You may be a homicidal maniac but unless they see evidence of this that doesn't give them reasonable suspicion to search your home. Likewise, unless they see evidence that the perpetrator is in your home they have no reason to search it.

As an aside to Capt. LeMay, thank you for having made the sacrifices you have for the public good. I am not and never will be an officer so you are right to say I don't know what it is to be in that situation. For that reason and others I have great respect for those who wear the uniform and do so with honor. I once had the opportunity to play a small part in helping police apprehend a suspect in my own neighborhood. I saw him skulk through my neighbors backyard and saw the police cruiser out front of my house, wasn't hard to point them in his direction. I believe as citizens we should all work together for the good of our communities and I fully support the police force in the lawful fulfillment of their purpose. And as long as they remain within the bounds set upon them by the law they will continue to have my full support. However, my support and respect will never extend to excusing an officer or officers who overstep those bounds. I feel that is a fair and just position to hold. Isn't respect for the law part of what the high road is all about?

BSA1 said:

Hmmm...

52 posts and none of the "go ahead and let 'em search without a warrant" crowd has comented on the fact it was a citizen not the Police that found suspect #2.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did, something like post 42.

Folks, let's cool down some of the hyperbole here.

1) NO ONE has given any accounts that the Boston Police Dept. went kicking in doors and doing uninvited searches of properties. Whether they could have pushed that issue in a case of "hot pursuit" of one of these guys, it doesn't seem they actually DID SO. So calm down.

2) In the Dorner case it seems the cabins being opened were unoccupied structures where the suspect was actually thought to have been likely to enter in his flight. Any 4th Amendment claim there is pretty darned marginal.

So let's leave off the "death of the republic" talk.

I don't think that it's marginal. I see one more step toward tyranny, with no complaints.

Another retired LEO here. Lemay got it right.

Police entering UNOCCUPIED cabins in the woods to search for an incredibly dangerous suspect known to have fled into that area looking for a place to hide and/or set his next ambush? That's a huge assault on the 4th Amendment? That's tyranny?

No, no it isn't. That's firmly within the powers we, the people, give to law enforcement under those exigent circumstance.

Xiphoticness said:

ilbob, I believe the constitutional amendment you are looking for is called the fourth amendment. Or in other words, I don't think it's a constitutional amendment we need. We already have that. What is needed is for us to actually take a stand based on the rights that are already protected by the constitution. As far as the issue of reasonableness, I don't believe it qualifies as reasonable suspicion if you come to the door to speak with an officer and agree to allow them to search your property but not your home. As I have seen it interpreted previously they cannot claim the exercise of your constitutional rights as reasonable suspicion and unless they actually saw the perpetrator enter your home they have no genuine reason to believe he is actually inside. Yes, he may be, but "may be" is a far sight from a reasonable suspicion. You may be a homicidal maniac but unless they see evidence of this that doesn't give them reasonable suspicion to search your home. Likewise, unless they see evidence that the perpetrator is in your home they have no reason to search it.

Click to expand...

While this is certainly a "reasonable" view of the 4th amendment it is not the view the police generally take nor that of the courts.

I don't recall any requirement that there be actual evidence involved. Reasonable suspicion is a long way from evidence.

In any case, the 4th amendment has proven to be pretty weak as far as actual protections go, despite what appears at a quick glance to be quite strong protection. Much like the 2nd amendment.

I have to wonder if the cops would still be going door to door and searching house to house if the majority of the populace was armed.

Mass has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, unless I am mistaken. If this happened in a southern city, would the cops be so quick to go door to door, knowing a gun was in the hand of the majority of homeowners.

What? I don't even understand the question.

Why would the cops be afraid of the citizens? The citizens are afraid of the guys running loose trying to kill mass numbers of them. The cops are trying to find those guys. The police are going door to door to make sure those guys aren't lurking somewhere, or don't have some family held hostage.

The cops AREN'T making war on the citizens, and the citizens don't BELIEVE the cops are making war on them. Why in the world would there be enough animosity present that you'd think the cops would be scared to go canvas the neighborhoods?

Ok. You are right. And banning assault weapons is within the purview of the powers we give our government in these incredibly dangerous times.


BTW, either they were lying, or it wasn't just unoccupied houses, it was every single house in a given area, no exceptions. Heard them saying it on the radio.

You really didn't read the "exigent circumstances" link I gave you, did you? The police can't decide, "hey it's Wednesday, let's go search every house in the 700 - 1400 blocks of Maple St. and look for things to arrest people for."

They can indeed say, "This known murderer just fled into the 700-1400 blocks of Maple street and we have the following reasons to think he's holed up in there somewhere, maybe with hostages." They can get a warrant to search if they have time, or they can search under exigent circumstances if they must due to time constraints. Either way, there are still protections in place for the homeowners who's property they are searching. It isn't a fishing expedition and it isn't a 4th Amendment violation.

(And comparing it to an AWB is a poor, silly, self-defeating attempt to buoy up the argument. )

No, i didn't. THought you just underlined it.


But now I did, and I do understand the concept anyway. The point is that they are pushing exigent circumstances further and further, and mass searches simply don't cut it to me. Really, considering how many murderers are on the loose at any given time, it is not much more of a stretch to put a city on lockdown at any given time and conduct warrantless searches in the name of public safety.

it is not much more of a stretch to put a city on lockdown at any given time and conduct warrantless searches in the name of public safety

Click to expand...

If it gets to that point, I'll probably agree with you. But it hasn't. Not in Boston, not in the Dorner case.

So where do you draw the line? Honestly, I think the line should be drawn at mass searches, which certainly was present in the Dorner case, and could be argued in this case.


There were some pictures, that I can't seem to find now, with the revolving door that they run on Yahoo, that showed the police "escorting" people from their homes. It may have been voluntary, but I doubt that these people felt that way about it, from the way they looked.

But we don't know all the info in this case. So I ask you, where are we supposed to draw the line on what is and what isn't acceptable? If the police search an empty home without permission because they are searching for someone just in the general area, is that acceptable?

Generally speaking, most public bombings fall under terrorism as they are performed in an attempt to affect some form of social, religious, or political changes through violence. Doing so for the purpose of making citizens feel unsafe to go about their normal activities, such as bombing a race, would fall under those guidelines.

There is no indication that the bombs were planted for the purpose of revenge against or assassination of particular people or race officials.

It could be that the bombs were placed by folks so mentally unstable as to not be able to comprehend right or wrong and not be for any other purpose than the enjoyment of seeing the explosions and chaos, but this is highly unlikely, especially with multiple individuals involved.

So the most plausible assumption is that these bombings were in fact acts of terrorism.

Click to expand...

i fully agree.....in my post i was inquiring why Blakenzy felt the need to put "" around terrorism.......

I don't wish to divert the thread too much, but since we're discussing exigencies of the Boston case, I think it's also very interesting that the Miranda rights of the suspect were suspended to permit questioning as soon as possible in the interest of public safety---despite the fact that the threat had apparently passed. The reporters referred to this as the "ticking time bomb" concept, and one that I found very interesting.

Sam1911 said:

What? I don't even understand the question.

Why would the cops be afraid of the citizens? The citizens are afraid of the guys running loose trying to kill mass numbers of them. The cops are trying to find those guys. The police are going door to door to make sure those guys aren't lurking somewhere, or don't have some family held hostage.

The cops AREN'T making war on the citizens, and the citizens don't BELIEVE the cops are making war on them. Why in the world would there be enough animosity present that you'd think the cops would be scared to go canvas the neighborhoods?

Click to expand...

Nor was I implying any such thing. What I was implying is that there are certain sections of the population who would not be cowering defenseless behind closed doors because of one criminal. A lockdown in my area would have an armed member of my household covering each point of entry. In other words, if the people were allowed to be armed, the cops wouldn't be as worried of finding a family held hostage by a terrorist, but rather a terrorist held at gun plot by an armed citizen.

I don't wish to divert the thread too much, but since we're discussing exigencies of the Boston case, I think it's also very interesting that the Miranda rights of the suspect were suspended to permit questioning as soon as possible in the interest of public safety---despite the fact that the threat had apparently passed. The reporters referred to this as the "ticking time bomb" concept, and one that I found very interesting.

Click to expand...

'Apparently' being the key word....

they didnt know if there were any unknown accomplices, or any other bombs hidden in the area. they dont know if they were working alone, or with a terrorist organization.