Assuming this all accurate, is this ok when searching for a fugitive?

[nessa]

&feature=share

[egduj]

1. Boston didn't mind.

[MattBaggins]

8. What?

And for the silly sigline, plenty of people died an atheist.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. yeah judge. how do you you know that? did you interview every bostonian?

[egduj]

88. No. Just from what Boston DUers are saying.

They were cheering about it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

89. you are still here?

now, thats a surprise

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Exigency circumstances.

It is actually legal, if disturbing, think of it as hot pursuit. You see it often in the wrong side of the tracks when cops jump over fences while chasing suspects

[reformist2]

9. It's not legal if the police didn't see the suspect run into your house.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Take it to a court. It might clarify the limits

But from my understanding it is. And yes, it is highly disturbing.

[gcomeau]

44. Yes it is

They saw him enter the neighborhood and had it blockaded to prevent him exiting. They don't have to see him enter one specific building.

[notadmblnd]

3. No. Once the officers inside had cleared them for exit

they should have no longer been treated as criminals.

[gcomeau]

6. They didn't know if there were additional accomplices.

They walked them out one by one instead of having a milling confused mess of people in confined quarters. Then they patted them down a little down the street, then they let them go. What's the problem with doing that there instead of inside the house? What the heck do you think the difference is that makes one ok and one not?

[notadmblnd]

23. I guess I have a problem with authorities treating everyone

as criminals. I think if leo thought any one of those allowed to exit were associated with the suspects or the suspect, they would have been held inside at gunpoint and would have exited with cuffs and escorts. There would be no reason to assume any of those young men's criminality as they were allowed to exit.

Would you still be ok with how the search was carried out if those coming our were 4 and 5 year olds?

[gcomeau]

45. Please think that through.

They were doing EXACTLY the correct thing to keep those people safe. It's not like they were dragging those people out by their hair or something, they were asked to keep their hands in view until they could be patted down, that's it. Tantrum throwing over that in those circumstances is juvenile.

You wanted them to to go through the process of patting down and clearing each individual in a tightly confined space in a big group? I guarantee that multiplies the risk some innocent person ends up getting shot.

[notadmblnd]

53. No, they wern't asked. They were ordered

And they had guns drawn on them. As I said, if the officers who had entered the home allowed the people there to exit, there should have been no further need to treat them as if they were a threat.

I never stated what I wanted to see, only what I felt. However, I feel that enough leos had entered the home- that they were not all searching rooms one by one together in a group. I would expect that as they came across a resident and before they were allowed to exit one by one as we saw in the video, that yes, indeed they would have been patted down. It would have been foolish to have let an armed individual exit, don't you agree? After all- they did enter looking for an armed individual.

You never did answer my question. Would you feel any different if they had marched 4 and 5 year olds out like that?

[gcomeau]

54. Yes, THAT makes all the difference here.

They were not "allowing them to exit", they were getting them the hell out of the way and moved to a location where they could be cleared SAFELY instead of doing it in a still UNSEARCHED home where there might be a fucking bomber hiding behind the next door who could either open fire or detonate an explosive device.

[reformist2]

55. I'd tell them I already searched my home.

[gcomeau]

56. And they'd know...

...you were saying that because you had and not because the guy who had just blown up the marathon was standing behind your door with a gun pointed at you because all police are psychic. Yeah, that totally works! How could I have missed that?


Wait...

[notadmblnd]

57. Balony, it can't be both

They didn't go in there to get people to safety. They went in there looking for a criminal and treated everyone in there as such until they determined that they wern't. I think that determination was made before they ALLOWED the residents out of the home and therefore no need to continue treating them as a threat. You don't.

Neither of us know exactly what occured as neither of us were there.

[gcomeau]

58. In what fantastical imaginary land

...where the laws of logic operate according to your whims can it "not be both"?

[notadmblnd]

61. Their motive for entering was to apprehend a criminal-

not to get people to safety. Honestly, I don't see how you can twist it into they went in to get people to safety.

In fact, we don't even know if that video is accurate, do we? Was this part of a search of leos going door to door or is it a search of an associate of one of the bombers? The only way to justify the residents treatment would be for it to be the later case as than ther'd be a possibility of the people inside being co-conspirators.

But I stand by what I say. I am uncomfortable seeing Americans marched out of their homes with guns pointed at them and their hands over their heads at the orders of law enforcement. Apparently you believe it's ok. I've answered your questions and I'm not going to argue with you. BTW you still haven't answered mine.

So ridicule and belittle my opinon all you like, it won't change how I feel

Have a good evening

[gcomeau]

65. IT WAS BOTH

The criminal was amazingly fucking dangerous. You get people the fuck out of the way WHILE you are trying to apprehend him genius.

[Yo_Mama]

68. Have you ever seen aftermath vids of a shooting scene?

This is pretty much the procedure used. I know I saw photos of a shooting scene somewhere where they were evacuating survivors using a procedure like this.

I don't know what you expect. They're not miracle workers. He could have been inside a home holding someone hostage. They knew he WAS somewhere near, and they knew he was armed and had no inhibitions about shooting. It was very possible that he also had explosives.

The warning to get away from the windows - well that was because if they did walk into a house where he was or got near, they expected him to start shooting at someone.

If you let people walk out in bunches in a potential hostage situation, one of the people walking out can be holding a gun or a knife on someone else in the group. Yeah, it makes me anxious to see this, but what's the alternative? They're trying to minimize risks to the innocent.

If you stop and think about it, given that they knew he was armed and thought he had explosives, what these officers were doing was very personally dangerous. They don't do this sort of thing for fun and kicks.

[gcomeau]

4. Yes

In an exigent circumstances/hot pursuit situation that is all perfectly ok. I'm curious what part of it you thought might not be?

[Bay Boy]

5. Weren't they being ordered out of their home?

I understand the emergency but this would be scary.

[gcomeau]

11. Of course they were!

They're sweeping room by room looking for someone who just blew up a few dozen people for cripes sake, until you know he isn't in the building you get the civilians the hell clear. What do you think they should have done, had half a dozen people just milling around in the house while they searched it all poised to open fire? They have to assume every house they search is the one this guy is going to end up being in and you want them to deliberately leave civilians inside waiting for the firefight to erupt???

[DonViejo]

7. Check out this thread...

The Definition of Shelter-in-Place

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022727892

[reformist2]

10. Constitutionality aside, the media is kind of lying by saying everyone "cooperated."

[randome]

15. If 'everyone' means 99% of Bostonians, I think we can live with that discrepency.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. 4th 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.

[gcomeau]

18. Exigent circumstances and a hot pursuit.

Look them up, this was not in any way a violation of the 4th.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Where is the "hot pursuit" part?

Did the cops see the suspect in or entering the house?

[gcomeau]

43. They followed him into the neighborhood.

They know he entered it, and it was cordoned off to prevent his escape from it. They don't have to see him enter one specific structure.

[NutmegYankee]

21. Pointing automatic weapons at innocent people and forcing them from their homes

IS THE EPITOME OF UNREASONABLE. No probably cause existed that any of these homes contained the suspect. If you can't be sure that you won't be forced from your home with fucking automatic guns pointed at you and your children's heads, then we have no freedom left.

And this was reported to me by a friend who had his home searched. He had to march out with guns pointed at him and his family. Forget the argument of "secure" in one's own home, the cops had guns pointed at children for fucks sake. He's pissed, and so am I.

[gcomeau]

41. Engage your brain.

They know an armed terrorist was pursued into this general neighborhood and at this moment is hiding in there somewhere. They don't know if he had accomplices or if the house he is potentially hiding in possibly belongs to said accomplices and that's why he ran there in the first place. So you want them to.... WHAT?

Search the house where this guy could be while asking all the residents to please stay inside with them while they do it so if they find him they can get caught in the crossfire when the firefight breaks out? And to leave all of them to just freely mill around without being searched so if one of them is an accomplice they an shoot them in the back?

Name for me a single more optimal approach that keeps all the innocent safe than moving them out of the house in an orderly fashion, yes while under the watch of armed officers, give them a quick pat down outside, then keep them clear until the house is cleared then let everyone go back in.

What exactly is your superior tactic here? Please blind us all with your brilliance.

[NutmegYankee]

60. So your answer is that this tactic is OK?

The exception that often referred to as "Exigency circumstances" applies to a hot pursuit. This was a door to door, block by block search of homes, for which there was no probable cause. The suspect was not seen entering any of these homes, and in fact, never did. In the past, the police went door to door and checked on each family with a suspect on the loose like this. They would question them at the door and request permission to just look around. If in that situation myself, I would have granted it.

But permission was not asked. People were forced out at gunpoint. Why is that so bothersome? You never ever point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy! What if an officer had accidentally fired?

The "Oooo, Scary Terrorist" BS doesn't work for me.

[gcomeau]

63. Perfectly ok

"The exception that often referred to as "Exigency circumstances" applies to a hot pursuit.

WHICH THIS WAS. They don't need to see him run into one specific home. They followed him into this neighborhood and had it contained to prevent him escaping from it. They knew he was in there somewhere and a threat to every single citizen in that area until he was found.

"This was a door to door, block by block search of homes, for which there was no probable cause."

No probable cause?

NO PROBABLE CAUSE?

That's possibly the single most willfully delusional statement I've seen on this topic today and that's saying a hell of a lot. "We know that there is a dangerous terrorist bomber who just blew up the Boston marathon hiding in this neighborhood because after a running gun battle with the police he was followed here, and he could be standing behind your door right no pointing a gun at you so we're coming in whether you say we can or not" is about the best possible probable cause in the entire fucking history of probable causes.

[NutmegYankee]

66. The pursuit is meant for a specific dwelling, not an entire neighborhood.

That is where we disagree, and will continue to do so. So I repeat, NO PROBABLE CAUSE!

[gcomeau]

67. Disagree all you want.

You can disagree that 2+2=4 while you're at it if you get something out of that.

[NutmegYankee]

69. We are not arguing concrete topics such as mathematics or science

We are arguing political and legal theory, for which there is often no right answer and a person's views are reflective our what they value. I'm a Card Carrying Member of the ACLU. Take a guess at what I value.

[graham4anything]

24. unreasonable is the key word. Everything law enforcement did was 100% reasonable.

I am sure you agree as you posted it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. So, if the cops thought the guy might be hiding it in Des Moines they could start invading houses?

Your definition of "reasonable" is to say the least, questionable.

[graham4anything]

34. They didn't invade DesMoines. They were spot-on in the radius. and 100% correct.

and I don't hear 99% of the population complaining at all.

What I did hear was the cheers and applause given to law enforcement as they left the area.
Much like the same after 9-11.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. But, under your rubric it would be OK to violate the 4th Amendment anywhere.

All that has to be done is expand the "radius".

[graham4anything]

40. When there is a hostage situation

every single person in the place is asked to come out with their hands up

to insure that the haterperps don't try to slip out.

99% are very happy with the outcome
1% aren't.

or perhaps its 80-20 like the nation is in spite of the 50-50 soundbyte.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Were there hostages in that house?

[graham4anything]

49. have a nice day.

[SpartanDem]

77. Nope that is not exigent circumstance

it only applies if police have seen the suspect, were chasing them and know they are hiding in particular area. If the police got tip he's was Des Moines they'd need probable cause and warrants to searches house. Let's say they raid the house in Des Moine(with a warrant), but somehow he slips out and they chase him and they lose him again. They now can go door to door without a warrant because it was an active chase.

[randome]

14. In a public emergency, people were told to leave the house with their hands up and were frisked.

Damn! I'm now more than ever convinced of the Apocalyptic Police State.

[reformist2]

20. Gotta love the public emergency clause - all our rights go out the window. LOL

[randome]

22. That's as it should be. I don't hear Bostonians complaining about any of this.

I hear those far removed from the emergency questioning whether Bostonians should complain.

What do you want to happen in an earthquake? Police should run to a judge and get a warrant to enter people's homes and rescue them? Of course there is a public emergency clause.

[NutmegYankee]

30. I'm sure that emergency responders running into a home after an earthquake -

Aren't dressed in battle gear aiming automatic rifles at children's heads.

[randome]

59. Irrelevant. You don't shoot an earthquake. You MAY need to shoot a dangerous suspect.

[Downwinder]

16. Trained in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[randome]

17. I'm sure you have a dossier on Boston police and Massachusetts National Guardsman handy, right?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

25. Somebody needs to be held accountable.

These idiot Boston police were doing what they do best, bullying the taxpayers, the same people that pay their wages. They were too lazy or stupid to search out buildings/backyards.

They were under the belief that someone was sheltering the fugitive instead of doing what a sensible person would do and that is to look in places where he could hide without needing a key or anyone's help.

I wonder how many of these morons gave money to the IRA during their fund raising in Boston. We didn't cower or lock-down in England during the IRA's terrorism.

[randome]

27. Yeah, well, you're simply BETTER than we are, I guess.

I'm sure they were doing both house-to-house searches and backyard searches. Geeze, on the basis of one video, you think this is all they did.

[gcomeau]

46. Yeah...

"These idiot Boston police were doing what they do best, bullying the taxpayers,"

...as clearly evidenced by the mass jubilant standing ovation in the streets those exact same people gave them at the end of the day. Because you know, that's what people generally do for people who bully them, right?

Grow up.

[reformist2]

52. +1. And the kicker is, the police didn't even find the suspect - a civilian did!

[Apophis]

73. +1

[aikoaiko]

26. If the person said it was OK to enter, it was perfectly fine.

It might be OK under certain other circumstances.

[frazzled]

28. People just outside the perimeter were angry the police did NOT search their houses

I heard their complaints relayed on TV during the standoff at the boat. They were near but just outside the search perimeter, and they were WANTING their properties to be searched and checked on. The guy could have been hiding under their porches or in their yards ... which is indeed what happened.

I'm getting tired of people's complaints about police-state this and martial-law that every time that law enforcement tries to act in the public safety and order. It's hyperbole, it's misplaced, and you act as if this was just some unmotivated police grab. None of these complaints seem to be coming from people in the area affected. I'm so freaking tired of these kinds of libertarian complaints and hyperbole. Identify where you live the next time you complain about this "shelter in place" request (and it was just that: a request) from the Governor of Massachusetts.

[NutmegYankee]

32. I have a friend whose home got searched.

He's pissed, mainly because he and family had to stare down gun barrels as he was "evacuated".

[reformist2]

35. Illegal searches like this aren't too far from rape, imo.

[gcomeau]

47. It. Wasn't. Illegal. -eom

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. It wasn't exigent circumstance either

Best I can tell that was not invoked and people could refuse and did. Nothing was forced.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. Wow! I'm guessing someone broke the tenant limit on that rental.

Seriously, though. That does look scary. Power to the Bostonians for understanding that something good would come out of it in the end.

[nenagh]

33. Great job...that's what I think...

They were searching for a man who ran over his brother to escape...

And could have taken a hostage in any home...

Love the dog barking...Good Boy...

[NutmegYankee]

37. I'm only seen one good use of Exigency circumstances regarding entry.

A gas line ruptured and the mains were bleed down to fix it. The police then went door to door with a locksmith to open the homes in which no one was home to shut the gas meters (they were inside basements) and then later to relight pilots. The police ensured nothing was damaged and the locksmith opened the doors without damage.

[dballance]

38. Something Does Not Add Up Here - What's The Source of the Video?

Watching that, and I watched all 6 minutes of it, I can't believe this is what happened to every house that was searched. They'd still be searching houses if they took that much time on each house. Also, if they treated everyone the way they treated those folks I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more reporting about it. If not on the MSM then in independent news sources. If fact, do we even know this is from this week and not from some raid on this house for other reasons?

They way they approached the house makes me think they had been tipped off that there was something/someone there that might be colluding with the bombers. They don't seem to be paying any attention to the other houses at all.

This isn't passing the smell test for me.

[reformist2]

42. There were hundreds of police, and they spend all day searching a dozen streets.

[randome]

64. So you think they should have searched faster?

You don't seem to have a clear beef with this. You just want to be AGAINST something.

How would you have handled finding an armed and dangerous fugitive?

[Marrah_G]

39. no problem with it

[frogmarch]

50. If this is of the

Watertown search, does what we see on the video represent how all the house searches took place? Or was there something about this particular house or its residents that raised a red flag for the officers? It looked to me as if all but one person who came out of the house were young men. The other person looked like a young woman.

I heard on TV at the beginning of the searches that if occupants of houses refuse to answer their doors, the police would have other methods with which to gain entry.

The video title calls the search a raid. It wasn't a raid!

[limpyhobbler]

51. I feel safer already.

[randome]

62. If you were in charge, how would you have handled finding the fugitive?

[leeroysphitz]

70. It's real good what they done. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. From what I have heard, Exigent Circumstances were not invoked

All searches were voluntary, and some residents refused. Others have posted to that effect here on DU today as well.

Houses where no one answered the door did not have the doors forced. Only an external check was done.

The amateur legal experts here are really amusing. Most of this thread is irrelevant and moot.

[NutmegYankee]

74. My friend indicated that he didn't have a choice.

Now, he isn't one for confrontation, so he might have just given in right away. He's mad about the amount of guns that were pointed at them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. The gouge on this is all over the map

Its one of many things I would like to see cleared up.

[NutmegYankee]

76. There's also the fact that so many different law enforcement depts/agencies were on the search.

It's quite likely that they had differing approaches, hence the "all over the map" feeling everybody is getting. Some departments probably handled this better than others.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Here is another thread on this

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Interesting citation. Searches apparently were voluntary

edited to add http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022733235

[NutmegYankee]

79. I'll try to ask my friend for more details.

Liker I said, he's not a very confrontational guy, so if asked he probably said yes right away. He was all worked up the other day over the guns scaring his children. He's VERY anti-gun.

[NickB79]

80. Put up your hands and leave your Constitutional rights inside!

We're here to protect you, really! *Points assault rifle at homeowner*

[Iterate]

81. Oh FFS that's #14 Willow court. Here's the story.

Didn't anyone bother to learn what actually happened? Don't set your hair on fire just yet.

The street had been walked earlier in the day. Residents were told they could either leave or stay, but if you stay, please stay indoors. This house is about a block or two from where the MBTA officer was nearly killed that morning and where it took several hours to clear the grenades, clear the abandoned car, the body, and to figure out who they are dealing with. For the longest time they weren't even sure how many were involved.

About mid-day, there was a partial shift change.

About 2pm some fucking genius decides to sneak around the corner to take some photos. He's wearing a black hooded jacket. Brilliant. When he's spotted by police, he runs. That's better yet. He's believed to have run into either this house or a one next to it. Motion lights go off in the neighborhood.

Next comes a flood of tired, fearful cops whose adrenalin has just shot above sky high. They are convinced and are reacting as if this is the killer and race to the scene. Just before this they've been officially warned about the possible explosive vests. They suspect he is carrying at least two "long guns", as the jargon goes.

They quickly bring in tactical teams, armored cars, bomb disposal, and dogs. So many rush in that they have to be turned away. Teams on a separate search of some houses and yards a block away on Oak Street catch the fever, especially when they find some unexpectedly open doors and sheds. The alarm spreads. And they find a "rocket" in someone's basement. It was an intense few minutes.

That's the context of this search. It lasted less than a half-hour. People who knew nothing of the back-story saw only the apparent rudeness. The rest of the day was not like this. Within ten minutes they go back to escorting people out of the area and escorting people back into the area to get their medications.

BTW, this caused some people to be pulled from the sweep (or second sweep) of Franklin and Center streets (which were INCLUDED in the search zone).

Link to the police scanner audio:

It's worth listening to all 12 hours, even if only to learn something you might not know otherwise. This episode begins after the 11th hour.

The best way I can think of to make kinder cops is to make them less fearful, and the quickest way to make them less fearful is to box up all of the military weapons turned consumer toys. And that puts us on the same side.

[Demo_Chris]

83. Totally irrelevant....

Just because someone saw an unknown person that that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be a potential suspect, does not allow the police to disregard the constitution and civil rights of citizens. It would be reasonable for them to knock on the door (without weapons drawn) and ask if everything is okay, but this garbage is way over the line.

[Iterate]

84. But they did knock on the door.

What I'm saying is that this is not a just a police response to the situation, it's a human response, and if you had been subject to the same stressors you would have reacted the same way, if not worse.

For that matter, any of the cops peeking out the window from across the street (or aimlessly surfing youtube) might think it was an abuse of power. But it wasn't a casual abuse of power (as it had been with OWS), and they were thoroughly convinced there was mortal danger in that neighborhood for those few minutes. The situation does matter.

If the constitution rests on the few individuals nationwide who could resist that stress and behave themselves then that's too thin of a margin for my tastes. There's a better margin to be found in ramping down the violence in general, the wars, the "terrorist" rhetoric, the predatory economy, and the private ownership of military weaponry. To put it all on the backs of a few police who were generally trying to do the right thing in this situation is not only futile, it's unfair.

And that makes it entirely relevant, because the constitution is not intended to rely upon virtue.

In the end, it seems that our fellow citizens didn't see it as an abuse of power. Not long afterwards most in that neighborhood chose to evacuate, buses were sent in, and the original idiot was not detained.

[Demo_Chris]

85. That was a wonderfully written argument (seriously) for nothing at all. Let's review...

* The police SUSPECT that a potential terrorist and cop killer might possibly be located in some neighborhood. They don't know it, they haven't seen him, they just think he might be. They advise local residents to remain indoors. How they did so is unknown, we don't know if everyone got this message, and in any case no citizen is under any obligation to listen to instructions like this.

* Somehow the police get word that someone might have been seen outside. They don't know who, they don't know why, they don't even know if it actually happened. Even assuming it was an actual person, they don't know it wasn't the home owner checking his property, filming the festivities, or just gazing at the stars. All of these things, including doing wind sprints in the backyard or riding a unicycle down main street, are illegal and the residents of that home had every right to do them without attracting an armed and dangerous assault and home invasion.

* Nothing that the police knew justified a use of force. Pointing machine guns at people is a use of force. Ordering people from their home is a use of force. Parading them down the street and subjecting them to multiple pat searches is a use of force. They never had ANY justification for any of it. None. They were in cool paramilitary us versus them mode, showing off for the TV cameras.

* They COULD have knocked on the door without weapons drawn, explained why they were there, asked if everything was okay, and then left. That alone, by the way, is borderline illegal (the police are not empowered to do random wellness checks and knock on people's doors without cause), but under the circumstances it is defensible. This gun toting home invasion nonsense is not.

Anyway, my hope is that every one of these officers loses their job, and definately the supervisors. Further, hopefully the victims in this family sue the hell out of them for violating their civil rights.

That's my opinion. You did a great job expressing your position, and if managed to do half as well I'd be pleased

[Iterate]

87. I've spent most of my life on your side of the argument.

I got tired of it. I'm tired of having unnecessary enemies, even if they are cops. For that matter you and I shouldn't need to be anywhere near spending time discussing fine points of lethal threats to police or the borders of constitutional violations. Other people in other places don't live that way and we don't need to either. The nation seems to have lost the ability to imagine it could be otherwise.

Somewhere towards the end of this particular event there was an almost comic and breathless call over the radio (paraphrasing) "He's on the internet, he's posting right now on the internet, he says he's going to kill us all because we killed his brother, he's going to kill us all." Obviously that guy didn't quite understand how spoofing works. The call was repeated and about that time the police helicopter(which had just come back on duty) spots some poor bastard in the search zone sitting on his patio with a laptop.

The same extreme reaction starts up, but, though it's unclear, it seems that a supervisor stepped in and calmed everyone down. So yes, supervision matters.

Be well pleased. A toast to cooler heads, ending the repeated trauma of violence, and wide line of constitutional protections. Prost!

[Demo_Chris]

82. Disgusting. Unless they had a warrant these officers should all be looking for new jobs....

As well as facing charges for civil rights violations.