Replies

An interesting debate and one that can be settled if we all go read the constitution.

Good idea. The Constitution forbids unreasonable searches. It doesn't forbid searches. And the law is well-established that if lives are immediately threatened warrants are not needed either.

These searches were designed only to make sure the residents were not being held by the at large terrorist, and to make sure their property was clear before the search moved on. Nothing else.

The folks in the video were back in their home ten minutes later.

And the chances are almost 100% that the residents gave permission for the search in the first place, which moots any Fourth Amendment arguments anyhow.

I'd like some of the keyboard commandos who are raving about how bad this is to produce a link to a single example of citizens not giving their consent for the searches. Or of Watertown residents complaining about the actions of law enforcement officers after the fact. I've asked many for this in the last couple of days, but so far that well has come up dry. All I've been able to find is a community that is very grateful to the police, and a bunch of internet posters who don't know the law.

I suggest you go read the 4th ammendment again:

Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

Amendment Text | Annotations

“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.”

You have completely glossed over the instructions that follow ‘unreasonable search and seizure’.

PROBABLE cause..supported by OATH , describing the place to be searched, the persons and things to be seized.

You are really dug in here and I fear that you will see no reason. If these types of searches went on as a matter of course all over Watertowne and Cambridge..and no one objected..then their liberal indoctrination is now complete. I have seen no proof as of yet though that this was what went on at most homes.

"And the law is well-established that if lives are immediately threatened warrants are not needed either."

The only exemption to allow a unwarranted search would be the "hot/fresh pursuit"/exigent circumstances exemption. Even then LEOs would need PC in the form of identifying the perp and actually witnessing the perp going into a structure.

Most people had probably had no problem consenting, which is not surprising coming from a modern enclave that supports limited government and has eternal vigilance to distrust a necessary evil, lol.

The Statist have glee in their eyes over the citizens compliance. Now they will push to shrink the 4th Amendment and expand the provisions of what warrants PC even more.

BTW, I have read some stories, not sure if true, that some denied searches of their homes and the LEOs complied.