What Boston taught me about bugging out...

Originally posted by Covertblack

You said it yourself, a specific area, they did that. They cordoned off a perimeter and went door to door within that area.

Really? So what home did they track him to that would allow for such Police actions under the "hot pursuit" clause?

Yes they sectioned off an entire area, no one disputes that. What is being disputed is what allowed the Police to do so. The standard in your own quote, was not met. Here it is again.

This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home.

So what home was this suspect tracked to?

Everyone keeps saying learn the 4th amendment without having a clue about the exceptions

Indeed

The ACLU has done a cursory view of what occurred and said so far it looks perfectly legal. This coming from the ACLU who are not known to just let things pass by.

edit on 24-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

I think they keyword in what you said here is "so far", however I will also have to ask for a source that shows the ACLU has looked into the Police response and said it appears perfectly legal. The only thing I have seen from the ACLU on the issue is about the miranda rights of the suspect in custody.

reply to post by Covertblack


I'm not concerned so much with what the ACLU thinks.

Now, searching a rural area with (mostly) unoccupied cabins and such where it is unknown who or what is inside is a lot different than searching homes and apartments when the occupants are home—especially is such a populated and concentrated area. "Yes, officer, I'm sure there no one but me/my family in this house. I would know." "Well, we're going to check anyway." Nope.

Even though the principle is the same: searching without a warrant when there is no immediate or reasonable belief he is in that place.

This is the issue and the problem: these actions are setting a precedent that, if not challenged, will become even more commonplace and accepted whenever there is deemed a "safety issue" (said safety issue which could broaden to cover even more commonplace things as those who claim public safety see fit) and which will continue to erode basic constitutional rights. (Example: homeowners calls saying house is being burglarized. Burglar flees, police arrive. Police don't know where he is, and have no reasonable belief that he is in any particular house. Does that give them the right to search every single house in the neighborhood without a warrant looking for him? Hell no.)

The reason I would like to see things challenged it IS setting a (dangerous) precedent when the government, under the protection of a "public safety issue," erases basic rights in order to act. I mean, this is stuff that happened before the revolution with the British, and is precisely a reason WHY the 4th Amendment is so important.

A reasonable search is that there is reason to believe he is inside a particular place.

Slippery slope.

I really appreciate this thread. Because of its shared thoughts and the last bit it took for me to come to a conclusion regarding a specific ATS member. Anyone not convinced fully about the intentions of that unsaid member being here, just Google the avatar and read the wiki page about it.
Chapeau FissionSurplus, chapeau. I like how you´d handled that, it made my day to a point, I started to give away stars to everyone who seemed to already came to this conclusion.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Covertblack

You said it yourself, a specific area, they did that. They cordoned off a perimeter and went door to door within that area.

Really? So what home did they track him to that would allow for such Police actions under the "hot pursuit" clause?

Yes they sectioned off an entire area, no one disputes that. What is being disputed is what allowed the Police to do so. The standard in your own quote, was not met. Here it is again.

This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home.

So what home was this suspect tracked to?

Everyone keeps saying learn the 4th amendment without having a clue about the exceptions

Indeed

The ACLU has done a cursory view of what occurred and said so far it looks perfectly legal. This coming from the ACLU who are not known to just let things pass by.

edit on 24-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

I think they keyword in what you said here is "so far", however I will also have to ask for a source that shows the ACLU has looked into the Police response and said it appears perfectly legal. The only thing I have seen from the ACLU on the issue is about the miranda rights of the suspect in custody.

Just telling your what has happened in previous cases. I'm not a lawyer, but from everything I've read, it was legal. Will that change in a court case? Possibly, depending upon the circumstances surrounding it. Also, I may be assuming it's legal, but in that case you are also assuming it's not.

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Covertblack

 

I'm not concerned so much with what the ACLU thinks.

Now, searching a rural area with (mostly) unoccupied cabins and such where it is unknown who or what is inside is a lot different than searching homes and apartments when the occupants are home—especially is such a populated and concentrated area. "Yes, officer, I'm sure there no one but me/my family in this house. I would know." "Well, we're going to check anyway." Nope.

Even though the principle is the same: searching without a warrant when there is no immediate or reasonable belief he is in that place.

This is the issue and the problem: these actions are setting a precedent that, if not challenged, will become even more commonplace and accepted whenever there is deemed a "safety issue" (said safety issue which could broaden to cover even more commonplace things as those who claim public safety see fit) and which will continue to erode basic constitutional rights. (Example: homeowners calls saying house is being burglarized. Burglar flees, police arrive. Police don't know where he is, and have no reasonable belief that he is in any particular house. Does that give them the right to search every single house in the neighborhood without a warrant looking for him? Hell no.)

The reason I would like to see things challenged it IS setting a (dangerous) precedent when the government, under the protection of a "public safety issue," erases basic rights in order to act. I mean, this is stuff that happened before the revolution with the British, and is precisely a reason WHY the 4th Amendment is so important.

A reasonable search is that there is reason to believe he is inside a particular place.

Slippery slope.

It may be a slippery slope, it hasn't been done to this magnitude, but it has been done before. The courts will sort this out, however, remember that the police wouldn't have done this without consulting a lawyer, or the district attorney, before preceding. They don't want to get sued either. So someone over them authorized this.

Also, the ACLU has looked at the searches too. See my post on the previous page if you care to.

Originally posted by Covertblack
Also, the ACLU has looked at the searches too. See my post on the previous page if you care to.

Did you even read the article you linked?

The ACLU has NOT looked into the searches. They looked into the legalities of the "stay in place" order. According to the article you linked as proof of your claims, the ACLU is asking to speak to people who had their homes searched. They claim to have recieved numerous calls regarding teh searches and even some calls from the area in which the searches were conducted. They also want to speak with a man from the video. The following is from your linked article (your proof) and it completely debunks your claim.

The gentleman here (if you can call him that) notes that both times his house was searched the law enforcement officers “asked” permission to do so, but he didn’t feel like he had much of a choice as the police team had guns pointed at his face. On the one hand, he expresses relief that the terrorist was caught and that he’s still alive, but he seems to struggle with questions about whether the police action was appropriate.

The ACLU would like to hear from the person in that video. Rose said that the organization had received a number of concerned comments from people about the searches that took place, including some from residents of Watertown. None, however, from people whose homes had been searched. (The Watertown police spokesperson, Michael Lawn, wasn't able to say how many homes had been searched, saying only it was "a lot." When asked if that was because the FBI was leading on the effort, Lawn indicated that it was just because it was "hard to tell.")

Calling the searches "a fourth amendment question that wouldn't change whether or not the shelter-in-place" was in effect, Rose explained that the organization's hands were tied. "We're concerned about any precedent that this might set," Rose said. "and are interested in hearing from people whose rights may have been violated."

So here if the statement from the ACLU regarding the door to door searches. Would you care to change your position now?

For those who missed the link on page 4, here it is again.

Link

Yes the title says door to door searches were legal, but the content says something much different. This is why we should always actually READ the things we show as proof.

reply to post by MrWendal

The day's searches were themselves not without precedent. Following the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1998, authorities searched the woods of North Carolina. Earlier this year, cabins near Big Bear Lake, California, were searched in the hunt for Christopher Dorner. Neither of those incidents involved as many homes or as much media attention, nor did either occur in heavily populated residential communities. And, as with Friday's hunt, they were likely perfectly legal. "Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search," the ACLU's Rose pointed out. She noted a situation several years ago in which the Boston police wanted to conduct door-to-door searches seeking out illegal firearms. In that case, the ACLU spoke out against the proposal, and it was dropped.

So wait, they reference here about searches, and it's in the title, but the article says nothing about them commenting on searches? Also note what she says about public safety.

Sorry had to edit a laughing face in there, There.


Also inserting the name of the article:Boston's Door-to-Door Searches Weren't Illegal, Even Though They Looked Bad

Originally posted by Covertblack


So wait, they reference here about searches, and it's in the title, but the article says nothing about them commenting on searches? Also note what she says about public safety.

Where did I say that the ACLU did not comment on searches? Obviously they had to comment on it if they are asking for people to call in right? These are my exact words:

The ACLU has NOT looked into the searches. They looked into the legalities of the "stay in place" order.

Obviously they commented on the searches, what they have not done is come to a conclusion. Hence why they are asking for more information and would like to talk to people. Which debunks your claim which was:

Originally posted by Covertblack
The ACLU has done a cursory view of what occurred and said so far it looks perfectly legal.

See the difference?

reply to post by MrWendal


They did comment about it if you bothered to read it. It's why the article said the part about public safety. Also you said the title has legal in it but it doesn't have anything about it's legality. Yes, it does.

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by MrWendal

 

They did comment about it if you bothered to read it. It's why the article said the part about public safety. Also you said the title has legal in it but it doesn't have anything about it's legality. Yes, it does.

Show me where?

It talks about "Public Safety" in terms of cases that involved searches. One case in the woods, and the next case was unoccupied homes. It discusses possible precedent, but it is also the opinion of the WRITER. NOT the ACLU.

What does the ACLU rep actually say?

"Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search,"

Which is true, but it does not say what happened was perfectly legal. So what else does the ACLU rep say?

In regards to the searches:

"a fourth amendment question that wouldn't change whether or not the shelter-in-place"

This means there is a question as to the legality of the searches- and the shelter in place order does not matter. Weather there is an order or not, there is a question to the legality of the door to door searches.

He also says,

"We're concerned about any precedent that this might set," Rose said. "and are interested in hearing from people whose rights may have been violated."

and my favorite, which shows that no conclusion has been reached as to the legality of the searches.

"We're trying to get facts on the ground of what really happened,"

Those are the words from the ACLU, the rest of the article is a writer influencing you and again I will say, show me where the ACLU rep says the searches were legal?

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by MrWendal

 

They did comment about it if you bothered to read it. It's why the article said the part about public safety. Also you said the title has legal in it but it doesn't have anything about it's legality. Yes, it does.

Show me where?

It talks about "Public Safety" in terms of cases that involved searches. One case in the woods, and the next case was unoccupied homes. It discusses possible precedent, but it is also the opinion of the WRITER. NOT the ACLU.

What does the ACLU rep actually say?

"Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search,"

Which is true, but it does not say what happened was perfectly legal. So what else does the ACLU rep say?

In regards to the searches:

"a fourth amendment question that wouldn't change whether or not the shelter-in-place"

This means there is a question as to the legality of the searches- and the shelter in place order does not matter. Weather there is an order or not, there is a question to the legality of the door to door searches.

He also says,

"We're concerned about any precedent that this might set," Rose said. "and are interested in hearing from people whose rights may have been violated."

and my favorite, which shows that no conclusion has been reached as to the legality of the searches.

"We're trying to get facts on the ground of what really happened,"

Those are the words from the ACLU, the rest of the article is a writer influencing you and again I will say, show me where the ACLU rep says the searches were legal?

The day's searches were themselves not without precedent. Following the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1998, authorities searched the woods of North Carolina. Earlier this year, cabins near Big Bear Lake, California, were searched in the hunt for Christopher Dorner. Neither of those incidents involved as many homes or as much media attention, nor did either occur in heavily populated residential communities. And, as with Friday's hunt, they were likely perfectly legal. "Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search," the ACLU's Rose pointed out. She noted a situation several years ago in which the Boston police wanted to conduct door-to-door searches seeking out illegal firearms. In that case, the ACLU spoke out against the proposal, and it was dropped.

It's right there, where she talks about the courts treating it as a public safety issue. Vague..........yea I'll give you that. But before I concede that fact I want you to link two articles calling these searches illegal, and not from some off the wire agency. You can say it's from people sitting behind a type writer, but they obviously consult people.

There were two components to last week's shelter-in-place request in Watertown, Massachusetts. The first was a request that people not to leave home. The second was a door-to-door search by heavily armed law enforcement officials. Those are two very different things, with different implications. But neither was illegal.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

reply to post by Covertblack

There were two components to last week's shelter-in-place request in Watertown, Massachusetts. The first was a request that people not to leave home. The second was a door-to-door search by heavily armed law enforcement officials. Those are two very different things, with different implications. But neither was illegal.

And NOTHING in the above statement, from your article, is coming from any member of the ACLU. That statement is the writer's opinion.

The ACLU's opinion is, they want more information. I quoted every single statement from the ACLU rep and no where did the Rep say that this was legal. They said they had questions. How is it that this point is so difficult to understand? I am starting to think you are more concerned with being right than admitting the obvious.

She is also NOT talking about the Courts treating this incident specifically as a Public Safety Issue. She says they view Public Safety Issues differently. That is a huge difference.

Originally posted by Covertblack
But before I concede that fact I want you to link two articles calling these searches illegal, and not from some off the wire agency.

Your request is impossible to provide. If the ACLU has questions about the legality of the searches, which they do if they are asking for more information, then how can I possibly prove they are illegal?

Do you even remember what point you are arguing anymore? Let me remind you, you said:

Originally posted by Covertblack
The ACLU has done a cursory view of what occurred and said so far it looks perfectly legal.

As I have shown over and over again, the ACLU said no such thing. How can the ACLU say it is legal if the actual quote says they have questions and want more information? The only thing you are attempting to do now is muddy the waters and back away from your own words.

reply to post by MrWendal


I'm not specifically talking about the ACLU. I mean in general, a writer saying it was illegal.

I conceded that yes, it's vague and probably wasn't a good thing to say about the ACLU when it's only alluded to and not specifically stated.

So two articles, just writers, not from off the wire sites.

I've given two articles backing my side.

Actually the point we were arguing was the legality of the searches, and the 4th amendment.

reply to post by Destinyone

Quick question that is off topic..are you one of the official site owners/admin.?I always see you on here...even since the day i started my membership.Another question here i have on my mind is how come you people are so selective of who's ideas and opinions matter...was just wondering if they are all close minded and you,and many others on this site appear to be?No offense intended just a sincere question.

Just to restate the obvious, the police requested that you stay indoors. It was not ordered.

You could have just walked out your front door and gone wherever you wanted.

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
reply to post by Destinyone

 

Quick question that is off topic..are you one of the official site owners/admin.?I always see you on here...even since the day i started my membership.Another question here i have on my mind is how come you people are so selective of who's ideas and opinions matter...was just wondering if they are all close minded and you,and many others on this site appear to be?No offense intended just a sincere question.

I have nothing to do with Admin, nor Staff. I'm only another member here, just like you. What I post is my own opinion. Your reaction to it, is not my problem.

Hope that answered your questions...

Des

What is interesting is that no sooner did they lift the "shelter in place ban" when the homeowner who ventured out into his back yard "found" him hiding out in his boat. If there had been no lockdown, maybe his whereabouts may have been discovered sooner.

Originally posted by pheonix358
A couple of points to consider.

Not every citizen will get the message of a lockdown. Some like me simply never watch TV nor do I listen to the radio. Too much crap! So if they lock down my suburb I am not going to know about it.

In this scenario, wait for the search to pass you and then wait some more and drive out of the area at a normal pace. Take your dog, explain that you are going camping (To explain all the crap in the car).

The worst that can happen to you is that they return you to your house thinking you can't follow the simplest instructions. Act dumb!

P

Quite a few years ago, it was decided to have three minutes of silence in memory for the tsunami victims of the Pacific Rim. Everything was brought to a standstill. Cars had to stop, people had to stand motionless in the supermarkets, streets and shops. Police were actually flagging down any motorist who didn't stop.

-2 words. Tracking Dogs.

Had the dogs followed a trail to the door of a home, that would have been probable cause.

We know there were dogs (not if they were actually used)

-Tracking Dogs which would have had his scent should have been able to follow a trail and pinpoint an area very easily within a 20/28 Block perimeter- And have found escaped Convicts faster in 1000s of wooded acres.

This was a militant takeover- call it what you wish. Just because the Police now ARE a Military (which gets them away from official declarations)- This was never intended.

Please look up what a Police Tracking Dog is capable of and tell me again why they couldnt have followed a trail and at worst had to enter 1 home? Please tell me why this was done.

-And "armchair QB" - Sure. This is pretty common knowledge- This is how fugitives are generally tracked. Why change everything for 1 19 year old, injured suspect with a handgun?