Thomas Lucente: American liberty died in Boston where it was born

The Lima News ^ | Sunday, April 28, 2013 | Thomas Lucente

[Defiant]

If you know the url where the image was online, you type:

where "url" is the web address of the image. You have to put the image url in quotes, or it won't work.

If you have it on your computer, you need to upload it to a photo sharing site and then get a link to it, and then use that link as your url.

[Defiant]

Sorry, my attempt to show you the http code for posting an image didn't go through correctly. Let's try it this way:

img src="URL">

except put a < in front of img.

[Defiant]

A cop may have a hunch about a specific house and that is legal grounds (has to be explicit). A cop might see something in the yard or through a window which would make the search legal.

That is called "articulable grounds for suspicion", and a cop has to have them to have probable cause for a search or seizure. Still have to have a warrant, except in exigent circumstances.

[palmer]

Makes sense, thanks. The cases I saw had exigent circumstances plus hunches or items in public view or public hearing, so no warrant.

[Amendment10]

All they knew was that a lone bomber was somewhere in a 5 mile radius, ...

This is not all that they knew. I'm unsure of the series of events after the bombing, but Watertown police were undoubtedly very much aware of the carnage in Boston from televised news reports, also that a police officer had been killed on the MIT campus, and that a resident had phoned in concerning evidece of an injured trespasser. It's not like the only information that they had about some bomber was unexpectedly phoned in from an anonymous caller.

So with all due respect Defiant, you seem to be in denial of the series of tragic events which prompted Watertown police to react the way that they did.

As a side note, as I had mentioned in another post, Bill of Right's prohibitions on government powers did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified.

[Defiant]

Watertown police were undoubtedly very much aware of the carnage in Boston from televised news reports, also that a police officer had been killed on the MIT campus, and that a resident had phoned in concerning evidece of an injured trespasser.

By your logic, all of Chicago should be locked down, and a house to house search conducted.

We were all aware of the bombing in Boston, and that these guys killed a cop. That didn't make the searches reasonable or legally justified. That made a police presence in the community justified, and it may have justified a search that included visits to the front door of homes in that area, in the manner I described. Without any information that the bomber was in a particular house, there was no justification for forced entry into any houses, and especially for frisking the occupants. It was disgusting.

The fourth amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, nor shall warrant 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." Our criminal law professor in law school, a lib, made us memorize this amendment. You may have your opinion about what it says, or what our policy should be in connection with a terrorist bombing in which 3 people were killed and dozens injured, but your opinion does not change the text or history of the 4th amendment. It does not allow what the police did in Watertown, and I am surprised that someone here would think it could.

Even in leftist California, when Dorner was running around in the mountains, the cops didn't do this to people. They respectfully went up to their cabins and checked for suspicious circumstances or odd behavior by the homeowners. They didn't treat them like foreign combatants. The people of Watertown were treated in the way the John Kerry described Iraqi jihadis being treated.

[Amendment10]

By your logic, all of Chicago should be locked down, and a house to house search conducted.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Not only does Wikipedia show that Chicago has a population under 3 million, Watertown over 30,000, but Chicago is arguably a war zone anyway. In other words, your neighbors in Watertown know when you sneeze. Chicago residents, on the other hand, probably hearing gunfire coming from all directions 24/7 and are probably somewhat desensitized to it.

Also, let's say Chicago law enforcement authorities have "all the time in the world" to obtain search warrants. So why isn't the constitutional process stopping street warfare in Chicago?

[Defiant]

I think your heart is in the right place, but I am glad that the law does not agree with you—yet.