What was the alternative to what the police did in Boston?

[tod evans]

If the "Grey State" guys don't hurry up with their movie, it will become an historical retrospective (if it's allowed to be made at all).

Don't ya' know they could have got some footage from Boston?

 

[MelissaWV]

ATF:

FBI:

MP (Military Police) shown clearly, with police vest over top (tangent: awesome pen sheaths in your sleeve, dude. Totally impressed.):

State Police:

Local police, right?

That toddler smells loaded...

Seriously you didn't see this?

 

[James Madison]

Anyone still wanna bet the US military won't follow orders?

 

[Brett85]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html

 

[The Gold Standard]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html

Yes, we know federal judges agree with you. It's shocking. And no, I didn't read it. Nor will I.

 

[MelissaWV]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html

One final note about warrantless door-to-door searches: If police do search your home in an emergency, the "plain view" doctrine generally applies. That means officers can seize any contraband they see in, well, plain view -- and that evidence can then be used against you in court.

Neither the photos I posted, nor this paragraph, bother you?

The police can barge into your home without a warrant "for your own protection" from someone who may or may not be within miles of you, and oh by the way if they see pot in plain sight they can take you in for that.

 

[Brett85]

Neither the photos I posted, nor this paragraph, bother you?

The police can barge into your home without a warrant "for your own protection" from someone who may or may not be within miles of you, and oh by the way if they see pot in plain sight they can take you in for that.

I didn't say I agreed with that. I'm just pointing out what the law actually is.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Judges also decided that your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed, that you don't own property, but rent it from the state, that your right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't apply to your emails, or when you are anywhere outside of your home. You'll forgive me for not giving a fuck what some judge thinks.

 

[pcosmar]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004

 

[pcosmar]

I didn't say I agreed with that. I'm just pointing out what the law actually is.

Then the "Law" is simply wrong.

 

[Brett85]

Judges also decided that your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed, that you don't own property, but rent it from the state, that your right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't apply to your emails, or when you are anywhere outside of your home. You'll forgive me for not giving a fuck what some judge thinks.

The text of the 4th amendment also refers to "unreasonable searches," not "no searches."

 

[The Gold Standard]

The text of the 4th amendment also refers to "unreasonable searches," not "no searches."

And since they had no idea where the suspect was, they had no reason to believe he was in any of those houses. See what that means now? Just because a criminal is loose doesn't mean it is reasonable to ransack homes at their whim. They needed a reason (credible tip, evidence). Without that, all of those searches were unreasonable.

 

[MelissaWV]

The text of the 4th amendment also refers to "unreasonable searches," not "no searches."

I'm almost starting to think you are serious.

You are aware of the fact that the Constitution also refers to stating precisely what you're looking for and where you're looking when you get a warrant, right?

Now why on earth would they say that, and then leave it open for every single search to be called "reasonable" and have no check or balance on it?

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.

 

[pcosmar]

The text of the 4th amendment also refers to "unreasonable searches," not "no searches."

You are really going out of your way to attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Why is that?

 

[Brett85]

I'm almost starting to think you are serious.

You are aware of the fact that the Constitution also refers to stating precisely what you're looking for and where you're looking when you get a warrant, right?

Now why on earth would they say that, and then leave it open for every single search to be called "reasonable" and have no check or balance on it?

Why does the 4th amendment contain the word "unreasonable?" Why doesn't it simply say, "law enforcement shall never have the right to enter someone's home without first getting a warrant from a judge?"

 

[The Gold Standard]

Why does the 4th amendment contain the word "unreasonable?" Why doesn't it simply say, "law enforcement shall never have the right to enter someone's home without first getting a warrant from a judge?"

Because they mean the same thing. If you have a reason for the search, you get a warrant.

 

[Brett85]

You are really going out of your way to attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Why is that?

I'm just pointing out that every court has ruled that when you have an imminent public safety situation, these searches aren't "unreasonable." For example, if you had a situation where someone had taken you hostage in your own home, and the police came to your door to help you, should they have to ask permission before they can come in? Would you be able to give permission if the hostage had tape over your mouth and you couldn't talk? Would you want the cop to have to wait thirty minutes to get a warrant before he can come into your house and help take down the criminal who has taken you hostage?

 

[pcosmar]

Why does the 4th amendment contain the word "unreasonable?" Why doesn't it simply say, "law enforcement shall never have the right to enter someone's home without first getting a warrant from a judge?"

Because anyone being searched on the whim of some "enforcer" is unreasonable..

Unless there is a damn good and specific reason.

Why doesn't it simply say, "law enforcement shall never have the right to enter someone's home without first getting a warrant from a judge?"

That is what is says..
Except for the part about "Law enforcement" Police did not exist at the time.

 

[Brett85]

Because they mean the same thing. If you have a reason for the search, you get a warrant.

If someone is kidnapped in their own home, do you think that it's necessary for the police to get a warrant before going in to try to take out the hostage taker?

 

[TheTexan]

If someone is kidnapped in their own home, do you think that it's necessary for the police to get a warrant before going in to try to take out the hostage taker?

According to the Constitution, yes. Unless you believe it's okay to enforce the constitution selectively.