So, did anyone in Watertown refuse police entry into their home? If so, what happened?

[reformist2]

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:12 PM - Edit history (3)

I would think this would be the question the civil libertarians would be asking, but I haven't heard anything about this.

Update - I now have the answer to that question - wow.

I can't be certain of the date, but this is Watertown, Mass. - 14 Oak Street, to be exact, which was definitely within the police perimeter. You can verify with Google maps - streetview.

[Marrah_G]

1. I was listening to the scanner all day

I didn't hear anything about anyone not letting them search.

[LisaL]

41. Neither did I.

I think everyone complied. So I guess we will never know what would have happened if someone didn't comply.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. A post earlier today here on DU said nothing happened

A quick look around the outside and they moved on. I looked but could not find it.

I have a friend living nearby but was outside of the cordoned off area. He would have refused, but they never knocked on his door.

There have also not been any reports of homes being forcibly entered. That should have made the media had it been done.

[Bay Boy]

3. If I had a little grow operation going on in my home...

...I wouldn't be too excited about a warrantless search happening in my domicile, no matter how badly I wanted this guy caught.

[former9thward]

12. You would have nothing to worry about.

1) In an operation like this the police could care less about a grow operation. 2) Even if they did any evidence would be tossed because it was obtained without a warrant.

[treestar]

15. That's what I'm thinking

If there are going to be any prosecutions coming out of it.

[Bay Boy]

20. Interesting thought...

but, in my hypothetical situation, I wouldn't know what the police 'could care less about' and wouldn't be aware that the info would be tossed because of the lack of a warrant. And even if I did know this two things I would fully expect they would make a little mental note of the activity for future reference.

[Mariana]

29. But you'd still have to shut down your grow setup

and destroy all traces of it. The cops may not bother you about it now, but they may very well take notes for future reference. You'd always be wondering when they might start scrounging around for enough new evidence to get a warrant to search your place.

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. Your dope > terrorists getting caught.

noted.

[Bay Boy]

16. That was an obnoxious response...

...I don't have anything illegal in my home, just throwing something out to discuss.

[The Straight Story]

19. Actually, probably true when you see the effort we expend on pot vs terrorism

63 pot places shut down the other day by feds in CA with nothing better to do.

[Fumesucker]

31. No, his *freedom*..

A grow operation, even just a closet with a couple of plants will put you away for a long, long time some places.

[TeamPooka]

48. You are undervaluing the importance people place on their own lives and personal safety...

vis a vis the public good.
Almost any hypothetical individual with a grow room, a lot of drugs (for sale), a body in the basement or a house full of stolen goods etc would care most about their personal well being in that situation versus essentially offering to go to jail because the police were looking for a terrorist.
And just because they don't have a warrant today doesn't mean they won't be back with "probable cause" that leads to a warrant tomorrow.

.

[nessa]

4. This does not seem ok to me...

Assuming it's accurate...

&feature=share

[reformist2]

6. OMG!

[reformist2]

11. This appears to be 14 Oak St, Watertown - which was within the perimeter.

[avebury]

18. OMG!

I would have been really upset if that had been my house. I have two small dogs, one of which doesn't not take kindly to strangers coming into her home. If I was not allowed to corral them first I would be so afraid that they cops would have shot my dogs.

[dballance]

5. I Wouldn't Want My Home Searched w/o a Warrant

However, in this particular event, unless you had a meth lab or grow lights and a pot farm in your basement they were so focused on finding the suspect I doubt much of anything would come from minor stuff. Stuff on other occasions they might bust people for. Like the smell of pot leading to search for pot in the residence for instance.

[Poll_Blind]

8. ^ This. nt

PB

[egduj]

7. From what I've been hearing, the people of Boston loved it.

It made them feel all safe and comfy.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. No Warrant Would Have Been Necessary

The "hot pursuit" exemption holds that police do not need a warrant.

[reformist2]

10. Nope. They have no evidence the suspect is in your house.

[treestar]

17. As the guy with the boat learned

It can be you. What if the suspect was hiding near me is how I'd look at it.

[AgingAmerican]

21. He called the cops

They had already been through his home, I presume since he only lived a few blocks from where the initial shootout happened in Watertown.

[treestar]

22. Yeah, I kind of don't see the good of searching door to door

You clear one house, the suspect can go in there. Not like he's not moving.

And indeed they did not find him that way. It was the blood that the boat owner saw.

[westerebus]

26. They did not need evidence...

they had probable cause...hot pursuit of an armed and dangerous person in the immediate area of a shoot out...that's probable cause.

[kudzu22]

27. NOT

Unless they have someone who saw him go in that house, it's not probable cause, and not exigent circumstances. They need consent or a warrant to search.

[westerebus]

28. That would be "hearsay".

Some one saw them enter a house, that's not a requirement of probable cause, but it would help.

Under the circumstances that a crime had been committed (which it had), that the person(s) suspected of having committed the crime (which they were), was attempting to flee (which they did), and a pursuit was in progress (which it was), did the police have probable cause to search the area for an armed and dangerous person?

You really think a judge is going to say no?

The reality is the definition of probable cause is much broader. The discretion allowed to police in hot pursuit is even broader.

[dems_rightnow]

13. Not even close

Wow. Unless they saw the guy run in to a home, it's not a hot pursuit.

[reformist2]

23. +1. This is a horrible precedent, to let police search entire neighborhoods like this.

Police need to wait for a 911 call, and then they can barge into that house - and *maybe* a few adjacent ones - without consent. But that's it.

[kestrel91316]

24. Bullshit. They had taken a guy hostage briefly in a carjack. They

had a duty to look for him in a home holding people hostage.

[reformist2]

25. Sorry - just because suspect is 'super-scary' doesn't change the situation.

[kestrel91316]

38. Well, if you feel somebody's constitutional rights were violated,

by all means file a complaint in court, and contact the ACLU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

50. Actually, it does...

If the police feel there is an imminent threat, they can enter without a warrant.

An armed suspect who has already shot two police officers would be considered an imminent threat even by the strictest standards.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. Obviosuly, not a lawyer...

They don't need to see the guy run into the house. Police just need reasonable suspicion that he might be in there. Same goes for evidence that might be destroyed before a search warrant can be obtained.

[EC]

30. As I understood it

they didn't enter the homes. Just knocked and questioned and searched outside.

[Fumesucker]

32. This video contradicts your understanding

&feature=player_embedded

[EC]

34. Except I don't know anything about this video

It could have been taken at one of the houses where they went for persons of interest we heard about. I didn't see any indication that this is where they were conducting the search.

[reformist2]

37. It's 14 Oak Street, Watertown - search for it on Google maps.

[EC]

43. I don't see them going house to house like this

they do pan to some of the neighborhood and there is no searching like this going on anywhere else...there is something in particular about this house I think. Wouldn't there had been scores of complaints from the people whose houses were searched like this if this is how they went house to house?

[LisaL]

39. From what has been reported, they searched whole houses.

[Xithras]

35. The left has always had a sizeable authoritarian contingent.

Nothing new there.

[reformist2]

36. Especially when they think that the police are on 'their' side.

[baldguy]

46. If a cop wants to put himself between me and terrorist who wants to kill me

I'm not gonna stand in his way. That's not giving into authoritarianism, that's giving into the survival instinct in my brain stem.

[LisaL]

40. When they searched for Dorner, police didn't enter houses that were empty.

As a result, Dorner was able to hide right under their nose for days in an empty house.

[cliffordu]

42. That's exactly right.

[JoePhilly]

44. I've seen this SPECIFIC video posted about 20 times on DU.

Hard to believe that there aren't DOZENS of videos like it.

I mean given that we're living in a police state and all.

[reformist2]

47. I've seen several different examples of this on youtube.

[baldguy]

45. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the asshole?

[Marrah_G]

51. I listened to the scanner all day

Did not hear anything about people giving the cops a hard time.

The house in that video remind me of what they did in hostage situation sometimes when they are not sure who the bad guys are. Bring everyone out with their hands up, frisk, verify and then let them go.

Also there was an issue with a house oak st, I'm trying to remember if it was the basement door open and a possible explosive in the basement or if it the one where a kid in a hoodie ducked back into a basement boor when he saw the cops (he was just out trying to take pictures).

The only people I see having a problem with this is people who don't live here.