Illegal Searches In Boston

[dwarven]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

They just burst in, assault rifles pointed in the peoples' faces. No warrants. Hundreds of these took place.

[Fireslave]

Dealing with terrorism. Fuck warrants.

[Vantheus]

A warrant is not always required. Shame people don't understand this or most other aspects of law.

[Tradewind]

Oh look one of these threads.

It's not illegal if you have the home owners permission to enter...the description of that video is tinfoil hat derp to say the least.

[Victor Komalov]

Horrible. Just horrible. Nothing like endangering everyone's safety by raiding their homes. Feels like Iraq 2.0.

[dwarven]

Oh look one of these threads.

It's not illegal if you have the home owners permission to enter...the description of that video is tinfoil hat derp to say the least.

They didn't have permission.

Enjoy your NDAA overlords. It's already being used to strip the suspect of his rights.

[Tradewind]

They didn't have permission.

How do you know? Did you ask the guy in the house if the police asked if they could enter and search the premises? There is also something called exigent circumstances.

All this "police state" nonsense is just pointless.

[Nelle]

No problem if you have nothing to hide!

Stop whining....

[Victor Komalov]

How do you know? Did you ask the guy in the house if the police asked if they could enter and search the premises? There is also something called exigent circumstances.

All this "police state" nonsense is just pointless.

"HANDS IN THE AIR!" combined with the guns pointed at the home owners face? Yep, sounds like they were on mutual grounds for home inspection.

[dwarven]

No problem if you have nothing to hide!

Stop whining....

It's not a problem? What is your reasoning?

[La]

How do you know? Did you ask the guy in the house if the police asked if they could enter and search the premises?

Probably because the person that filmed it probably went and asked their own neighbor if they gave them permission? Maybe they did it to their house, or the house of others? Not everyone lies about everything that happens.

I also don't understand how even without a probable cause, they would assume that citizens would actually house a terrorist. Just because people don't want the cops to go through their houses without permission or reason, despite being 100% not guilty or having anything against them, doesn't mean that you can take the route of "well, they have nothing to hide, so why care?" Yes, why care about your rights.

Land of the free. It's things like this and things like CISPA that piss all over the rights of the people that should make you all question your government...if you do not already.

[Tradewind]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent...ted_States_law

It's a shame people outside of the US know more about the laws in your country.

[Hyve]

Hang on ... Let me get this straight ...

One of the largest manhunts on U.S. soil in modern history is being conducted, for a man suspected of a terrorist attack, then killing a police officer, then throwing bombs at the police ... and they're surprised that they bypassed the Warrants?

Honestly, people who complain about this sort of thing should just be ignored. The Judge should just make it clear that such money grabbing and stupidity will not be tolerated, and that anyone who wishes to complain will have their benefits cut in order to fund their trial.

Some people have some serious nerve ...

[Vantheus]

The police are authorized to make a warrantless search when the time it would take to get a warrant would jeopardize public safety or lead to the loss of important evidence.the police are authorized to make a warrantless search when the time it would take to get a warrant would jeopardize public safety or lead to the loss of important evidence. There ya go, not needed under circumstances at the time of searches, thread over but paranoia will live on.

[dwarven]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent...ted_States_law

It's a shame people outside of the US know more about the laws in your country.

I know about the law. The problem with it is that it can be used arbitrarily.

[Frostys99]

A warrant is not always required. Shame people don't understand this or most other aspects of law.

He's right and a simple search came up with this.

There are four main circumstances in which a warrant is not required for police to search your house:

1. Consent. If the person who is in control of the property consents to the search without being coerced or tricked into doing so, a search without a warrant is valid. Note that police do not have to tell you that you have the right to refuse a search, but you do. Also, note that if you have a roommate, he or she can consent to a search of the common areas of your dwelling (kitchen, living room), but not to your private areas (bedroom, for instance). On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently ruled that one spouse cannot consent to the search of a house on behalf of the other.

2. Plain View. If a police officer already has the right to be on your property and sees contraband or evidence of a crime that is clearly visible, that object may be lawfully seized and used as evidence. For example, if the police are in your house on a domestic violence call and see marijuana plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized as evidence.

3. Search Incident to Arrest. If you are being arrested in your house, police officers may search for weapons or other accomplices to protect their safety (known as a "protective sweep"), or they may otherwise search to prevent the destruction of evidence.

4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.

[Nurabashi]

I know about the law. The problem with it is that it can be used arbitrarily.

The fact is they won't. Under the circumstances, it's more than reasonable.

[Deadvolcanoes]

How do you know they didn't have a warrant?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a judge issued a warrant for all houses in that 20 block radius.

[Tradewind]

I know about the law. The problem with it is that it can be used arbitrarily.

Soooo I guess "arbitrary" is dangerous suspects who bombed children, had a shootout with police with automatic weapons, throwing homemade grenades and IED's at them from a stolen SUV, shooting a campus guard etc.

Good to know.

It's not like they're busting down doors because someone littered.

[Frostys99]

I know about the law. The problem with it is that it can be used arbitrarily.

I disagree, in this situation a judge would have ruled in favor of issuing search warrants for the residents in the area that was blocked off. Getting a hold of a judge and then processing and issuing all paper work would be argued that it would have given time for the terrorist to escape, thus endangering more people. Now if police were using the same excuse to search someones property several miles away you might have a case.