I have to disagree with EV on this issue. I read his explanation that these searches were covered by the exigent exception to the 4th Amendment. I disagree, but I admit there are certain cases where police have a right to pursue a felon onto my private property, like if they’re in hot pursuit. So we’re not talking about a black and white situation. Judgement is involved.
That said, I think it’s pretty clear the police went too far in this case, but I’m still waiting for further details to come out. For example, what happened (or would have happened) to someone who declined to comply with the search? I’m also bothered by the way the police treated lawful citizens during the search. Women and children hardly matched the fugitive’s description and clearly didn’t deserve to have guns thrust in their faces.
If the police reasonably thought the terrorist was in a particular house, then they’d have the right to aggressively search that house and take precautions to protect themselves. However, I don’t see how one could reasonably claim a 20 block area of houses legitimately qualified as a legitimate, immediate threat to the police.
Unfortunately, government has all the power and money to do whatever it wants, and innocent civilians wisely comply, even when their rights are threatened, when they face deadly force. Even if someone challenges this, it will probably take decades to work its way through the courts (which are being stacked by statists).
I tend to take your view. Exigent circumstances yes, bad reaction and execution by the police in several cases, definitely.
Bottom line is the unintended consequences. The totalitarians will use this to further their agendas, for sure.