Boston House searches

[protege]

It worries me that people don't give a shit about their rights and feel they should be tosses away to get some "safety"

If they came to my house and demanded entry...they wouldn't be coming inside without a warrant. If I got busted for "obstruction" I'd be suing the fuck out of my borough for false arrest.

Some of you know that I photograph railroad equipment as a hobby. I've done it before and after 9/11. Before that date, most railroads didn't care about photography. As long as you weren't doing anything stupid or getting in the way, they didn't mind. Now, things have changed. I've heard of railfans getting harassed or even *busted* because of rail security officers coming up with some interesting interpretations of the laws. Needless to say, according to Trains magazine, such incidents have resulted in plenty of negative press for the railroads in question...not to mention monetary settlements for the individuals involved. All of this stupidity, because it was *claimed* (never proven) that terrorists took a few photos of trains.

And yes, I have been questioned by rail police. I was somewhere along Norfolk Southern's Conemaugh line in 2009...when a white SUV pulled up and asked me what I was doing. Turns out that it was an NS cop I told him I was a railfan, and was simply taking pictures of trains, and the trucks parked nearby. As I was getting my ID out (I'm sure he had radioed in before he pulled up behind me), he said not to worry about it. The reason he was in the area...was that they had a work train parked on the line, and some things had been stolen and/or vandalized. Once I told him that I was simply a railfan, he relaxed a bit. He even told me that the next train wasn't due for another 2 hours...then drove down the access road to check on his equipment. Total time I spent with him? About 5 minutes. He was just doing his job--I can't fault him for that.

Rather different was what happened near CSX tracks in Grafton, WV. I have been followed many times by rail security there. I've never set foot into the yard or diesel servicing area in Grafton. Yet, I've had their security tail me...even though I always shoot photos from public property. Never had that happen before 9/11.

I admit that what happened in Boston was a tragedy. However, it is *not* an excuse to trample all over our rights. We're all protected by the 4th Amendment regarding unreasonable searches. Sorry, but going to every house on a block and going in...amounts to unreasonable in my book.

[Rageaholic]

If it helps any, in a situation like this they're not likely to take the time to look for anything *else.* They're in a hurry to find someone who is an immediate danger; they'll check for an adult-sized human anywhere one might reasonably be as quickly as possible and then move on to the next house. They're not going to dig through your cabinets, drawers, or hard drive.

That's what I would be afraid of. Cops lie about their intentions. A traffic stop can turn into a full blown drug search. They can always find something to arrest or fine you over (even things you didn't know about). Now in this situation, I would imagine finding the terrorist would be their top priority, but in other situations, I would view the cops like I would view any other person.

[Gravekeeper]

It worries me that people don't give a shit about their rights and feel they should be tosses away to get some "safety"

It worries me that someone would be harping about their rights with a murderous gun wielding, IED toting hostage taking cop killing criminal in the immediate neighbourhood. ;p

It's not a matter of "getting some safety" at that point. You're just obstructing a man hunt on principle. Especially in this situation. I don't think the BPD give's a rat's ass about anything in your house aside from making sure the cop killer with the grenades isn't holding your family hostage.

[Panacea]

Well they had no idea where he was which is why they were doing door to door. Glad it wasn't me because I wouldn't have let them in. Probably got tackled but would have nice shiny new things after suing for unlawful detainment and compensation for traumatic stress. Also, I'm gonna try and find legal precedence rather than a blogger who mostly posts about Nashville

The author of the article consulted with a law school for his information, which is correct btw. The police have a vested interest in protecting public safety; if you refused entry and tried to sue when they came in anyway you would be laughed out of court, especially in such a high profile case. Oh and you'd find yourself in cuffs and probably off to jail for interfering with a police operation.

Also should probably mention in America he is innocent until proven guilty and while he might be found to be a terrorist they also have accused how many people of being connected in the media and went OOPS we were wrong. I know its a movie but ever watch Enemy of the State. even if your innocent if you have people hunting and trying to kill you, you would fucking run too. Hopefully, there will be a trial and the bomber is found out and gets the sentence he deserves.

I absolutely agree that he is innocent until proven guilty. The cops have a case to prove.

But Enemy of the State is just that: a movie. Don't confuse fiction with fact.

Rather different was what happened near CSX tracks in Grafton, WV. I have been followed many times by rail security there. I've never set foot into the yard or diesel servicing area in Grafton. Yet, I've had their security tail me...even though I always shoot photos from public property. Never had that happen before 9/11.

I admit that what happened in Boston was a tragedy. However, it is *not* an excuse to trample all over our rights. We're all protected by the 4th Amendment regarding unreasonable searches. Sorry, but going to every house on a block and going in...amounts to unreasonable in my book.

It's not unreasonable to do house to house to find a mass murderer. Public safety interests can balance privacy interests, and do.

I'm not sure what rail security has to do with the subject at hand.

[protege]

I'm not sure what rail security has to do with the subject at hand.

Simple. The bullshit that goes on was largely fueled by the paranoia after 9/11. Much like the TSA constantly finds excuses to play touchy-feely at the airport...and how all the gun-control people went nuts after Sandy Hook. Look at the terror suspects locked up (and still locked up) at Gitmo after 9/11...and the various excuses that were made in the name of "security." That's the very idea I have a problem with.

[Andara Bledin]

Also should probably mention in America he is innocent until proven guilty and while he might be found to be a terrorist they also have accused how many people of being connected in the media and went OOPS we were wrong.

Regardless of anything else, the bullets in his body will put him at the scene for the shootout with police that included explosive devices and sent one to the hospital. So, for that alone, he's a dangerous criminal.

It worries me that someone would be harping about their rights with a murderous gun wielding, IED toting hostage taking cop killing criminal in the immediate neighbourhood. ;p

Now, now... he's only an alleged cop killer at this point, and not sure he ever took any hostages.

Just a note on the 4th: It protects against unreasonable searches. While you might find the door to door for the suspect unreasonable, I sincerely doubt you'd get a jury of your peers to agree. And if they did find the guy and he had taken hostages, you'd be sincerely screwed, and rightly so in my opinion.

[crashhelmet]

Now, now... he's only an alleged cop killer at this point, and not sure he ever took any hostages.

They carjacked a Mercedes, kidnapped the driver, and forced them to drive to multiple ATMs to pull out cash.

[Gravekeeper]

They carjacked a Mercedes, kidnapped the driver, and forced them to drive to multiple ATMs to pull out cash.

^

Nevermind the initial firefight with the cops.

[siead_lietrathua]

alot of this thread makes it seem like the cops were just randomly going door to door. a situation like this, where they're chasing a specific person en masse, tracked him to a certain area, and are doing door-to-door... are fairly rare. it's not like you can expect it happening every other tuesday. and, again, a minor inconvenience of cops having to search my home vs possible crazy man that i KNOW is in the area maybe hiding in my basement... i'd prefer the cops.
if you're worried about them stealing your expensive shit.. keep records. (i have a jump of everything we would need covered by insurance, every electronic etc)
if you have illegal shit in your house you don't want seen... that's not the cops fault.
if you have things you would be embarrassed to have seen... i think the cop would end up leaving more red-faced than you after finding your porn collection or bin of sex toys.

5-10 min house search is less inconvenient than potential bomb-wielding crazy man.

[Andara Bledin]

I stand corrected on the hostages.

Nevermind the initial firefight with the cops.

Not sure how that ties in with him not being a known murderer; none of those officers died, last I read. Currently, he's still an alleged murderer.

All the rest, however, is likely to ensure he won't be seeing freedom ever again.

[Hyena Dandy]

Not sure how that ties in with him not being a known murderer; none of those officers died, last I read. Currently, he's still an alleged murderer.

I think technically the Aurora killer is an alleged murder too. People are always alleged until it's proven in a court of law.

[draco664]

5-10 min house search is less inconvenient than potential bomb-wielding crazy man.

While I can see your point of view, this is exactly why, and how, liberties are watered down in the pursuit of some nebulous, undefined (and undefinable, let alone attainable) standard of safety.

In the UK, certain laws were passed around access to the CCTV footage recorded by the forest of cameras. The laws were sold to the public as being exclusively against terrorists, yet once passed, they ended up being used to track people who were assumed to be falsifying their address so their kids could get into better schools, or for parking/moving violation citations.

As soon as you say that it's legal for the cops to come in to search for a criminal who's thought to be in the area, your home is technically open for general searches for jaywalkers. It may sound ridiculous, but laws passed in the aftermath of tragic events are often poorly written and misunderstood.

[Hyena Dandy]

As soon as you say that it's legal for the cops to come in to search for a criminal who's thought to be in the area, your home is technically open for general searches for jaywalkers.

The slippery slope argument is always fun, isn't it?

In this case, we're not 'passing a law' anyway, so you're miscategorizing the debate. This is covered by the exception that police do not need to have a warrant if

1) They are actively pursuing a fleeing suspect and thus don't have time to get a warrant

and

2) They have reason to believe that a crime is actively taking place and don't have time to get a warrant.

[Gravekeeper]

Not sure how that ties in with him not being a known murderer; none of those officers died, last I read. Currently, he's still an alleged murderer.

Alright, alleged on the first cop. The second cop was in critical condition but lived. Still, the point as it relates to the subject is that this guy is dangerous and I don't care if the cops want to come in and make sure he ain't in my house.

While I can see your point of view, this is exactly why, and how, liberties are watered down in the pursuit of some nebulous, undefined (and undefinable, let alone attainable) standard of safety.

This isn't a matter of an undefined nebulous threat being used as an excuse though. This is a pretty clear, defined and immediate threat. Exigent circumstance isn't some recently passed legal standard either. In American law, you are protected from "unreasonable" search and seizure, additionally if a search is illegal, any evidence discovered is inadmissible in court afterwards anyway.

I'm sure the UK and Canada both have similar standards on the books.

[Panacea]

Simple. The bullshit that goes on was largely fueled by the paranoia after 9/11. Much like the TSA constantly finds excuses to play touchy-feely at the airport...and how all the gun-control people went nuts after Sandy Hook. Look at the terror suspects locked up (and still locked up) at Gitmo after 9/11...and the various excuses that were made in the name of "security." That's the very idea I have a problem with.

Still don't see what that has to do with the issue of police searching for an armed and dangerous individual who'd just bombed a marathon and shot a cop.