House to House search

[ncbearman]

So.......... do we have any lawyers handy. I have a question I thought of while I was running out to get my pre-ban pressure cooker. I saw lots of reports where law enforcement were going into homes searching for the idiot that ran over his brother. "National Security" was mentioned in some of these posts. I would like to know just what exactly are our rights pertaining to this situation. By law am I obliged to let them in to search for the suspect? There was a day that it was very plain as to when law enforcement could enter the home (with a search warrant) and when they could not. What about now though and is there a difference in said laws between Federal and local law enforcement?

[Rick Hodges]

The law hasn't changed...search with warrant, consent, incident to lawful arrest, and exigent circumstances....exigent circumstances is the stickler....open to interpretation and depending on the individual circumstances. It includes hot pursuit, rescuing persons in need of assistance etc. Do the circumstances of a terrorist bomber running through the neighborhood justify forcing entry over the homeowner's objections as part of a blanket area search? I don't think so....but it is pretty apparent that most if not all of the homeowners/occupants welcomed the police and appreciated their efforts.

No, not a lawyer, just a guy with 31 yrs. of law endorcement experience.

[41 mag fan]

So.......... do we have any lawyers handy. I have a question I thought of while I was running out to get my pre-ban pressure cooker. I saw lots of reports where law enforcement were going into homes searching for the idiot that ran over his brother. "National Security" was mentioned in some of these posts. I would like to know just what exactly are our rights pertaining to this situation. By law am I obliged to let them in to search for the suspect? There was a day that it was very plain as to when law enforcement could enter the home (with a search warrant) and when they could not. What about now though and is there a difference in said laws between Federal and local law enforcement?

It's one thing when the gov't is trying to take something or confiscate something like our guns and do house to house searches that could become ugly. But when someone blows up or terrorizes this country, I don't think too many people would object letting the police search their homes. I myself would not. i'd welcome them in this instance and try to help catch the perps with everything in me.
One thing to terrorize the country I love, I'd do whatever it takes to catch them, something totally different if it's resisting gov't tyranny.
I hope I'm coming across correctly on the thoughts and meaning on what i'm trying to say.

[SyberShooter]

OK, so everyone wants to be a nice guy and cooperate with the authorities... after all you don't have anything to hide do you?

But, what if they see your collection of 10-50-100 guns and stash of 50-500-5000 rounds of ammo?
How about that pot plant your kid has growing in their room you didn't know about?
Did you hide the issues of New American where they won't be noticed?
What do you do when they see other questionable things and maybe leave someone from the team behind to do further follow up?
There are any number of potential outcomes once you give consent to search and there are 1000 things in plain sight in your house that can come back to bite you. I certainly don't want strangers in uniform going through my personal belongings no matter who they are looking for.


"I can assure you officer that there is no one here but my family....No warrant, no lookie lookie." would be my response. After that I take names and get an attorney. oh, and I don't have anything to hide either.

[montana_charlie]

It's one thing when the gov't is trying to take something or confiscate something like our guns and do house to house searches that could become ugly. But when someone blows up or terrorizes this country, I don't think too many people would object letting the police search their homes. I myself would not. i'd welcome them in this instance and try to help catch the perps with everything in me.
One thing to terrorize the country I love, I'd do whatever it takes to catch them, something totally different if it's resisting gov't tyranny.
I hope I'm coming across correctly on the thoughts and meaning on what i'm trying to say.
Did you view any of the videos depicting the actions of 'law enforcement' in Watertown?

- When you see a homeowner and his family 'ordered' out of their house ... does that get your attention?
- If he comes out with his hands up, then drops his hands when he reaches the yard, and a cop shouts at him to get 'em back up ... does that raise your hackles, at all?
- Does it bother you at all to see parents and kids with firearms actually trained on them ... knowing emphatically that they are not 'the guy' being searched for?

Just sayin' ...

[Phoenix]

It used to be searches (search warrant) had specific reasons for the search. If they saw/found anything that was not being searched for it was inadmissible. That is no longer the case. If they come in your house looking for drugs because your electric bill went up (yes there are places they do this) and while searching for drugs they see you have a still on your stove. They will nail you to the wall. Years ago they would not be able to prosecute because they were not searching for a still or anything to do with one. (I cannot say with authority that this is the case everywhere, but has become fairly common in the places I have lived) My point is do you think you can trust them to just look for the guy and ignore anything else that may not be illegal or wrong but makes then suspicious. Once they are in your house anything they see is fair game. Even if they leave they may be back with a warrant for whatever they saw. Nothing to hide is irrelevant when you cannot afford a good attorney to beat them in court even if it is obviously against the law/constitution. I say always err on the side of caution. Can they still use what they see even when they force you out without consent. I don't know the answer but unless you have the money to fight it, I would not make any bets.

[Rick Hodges]

Did you view any of the videos depicting the actions of 'law enforcement' in Watertown?

- When you see a homeowner and his family 'ordered' out of their house ... does that get your attention?
- If he comes out with his hands up, then drops his hands when he reaches the yard, and a cop shouts at him to get 'em back up ... does that raise your hackles, at all?
- Does it bother you at all to see parents and kids with firearms actually trained on them ... knowing emphatically that they are not 'the guy' being searched for?

Just sayin' ...

I watched hours and hours of coverage this past week...most on Fox....I did not see anything that resembled that. If you cast a jaundiced eye on everything you see, look for and interpret everything in a most paranoid way....I guess you can see anything you like. Personally if I think a guy who had killed 4 people, is armed, and may have further explosives with him may come boiling out of a building I will keep my weapon ready as I search for him.
What do you make of the spontaneous victory parade, the applause, the high fiving and such by the "victims of such outrageous behavior"? I guess the man and woman who called about the bloody terrorist in the boat were literally carried out of their house while the cops took positions to try to secure him...their neighbors too must have been evacuated....did you hear them complaining?

Was everything done perfectly....hell no, what is? It sure seems that the people who employed those officers seem pretty satisfied....

[Grump]

Exigent circumstance searches are supposed to be limited in scope to what is being searched for.

Any space big enough to hide a human would have been fair game during the prematurely-stopped search for Evildoer the Younger.

Opening up drawers would NOT (unless it's a very, very big drawer...reminds me of a Monty Python scene involving the epithet "big-nose"...).

And anything in open view during such time of "lawful presence" of the LEO can be the basis for obtaining a search warrant later. Sometimes open view items can be grounds for immediate arrest.

Beware consent searches. You might be shocked at what the others in your household are up to.

[Baja_Traveler]

I'd have been perfectly fine - until they hit my back room with the reloading equipment - and the shelves full of my working stash of gun powder. Then the further search in the garage when they opened my fire safe with the rest of the powder and 50,000 primers. I can picture the headlines now - "Arsenal and ammunition factory confiscated in San Diego - Homeowner under arrest for multiple undisclosed weapons and explosives violations" - never mind the fact I have nothing illegal...

[41 mag fan]

I watched hours and hours of coverage this past week...most on Fox....I did not see anything that resembled that. If you cast a jaundiced eye on everything you see, look for and interpret everything in a most paranoid way....I guess you can see anything you like. Personally if I think a guy who had killed 4 people, is armed, and may have further explosives with him may come boiling out of a building I will keep my weapon ready as I search for him.
What do you make of the spontaneous victory parade, the applause, the high fiving and such by the "victims of such outrageous behavior"? I guess the man and woman who called about the bloody terrorist in the boat were literally carried out of their house while the cops took positions to try to secure him...their neighbors too must have been evacuated....did you hear them complaining?

Was everything done perfectly....hell no, what is? It sure seems that the people who employed those officers seem pretty satisfied....


Thank You Rick for putting into words what I was trying to say or convey. When something like this bombing hits the town or area you live in, alot of things come 2nd place when it comes to nabbing or helping to nab the perps.
Yes I have things in this house that I really don't want people or police to see, BUT I've got nothing to hide either.

I have a few LEO friends, state, local and sheriffs dept that have as much if not more than I have, and they know pretty much what I've got. And they could care less.
Now in this instance, where they were pretty sure they had this terrorist surrounded, and were doing a door to door search, I didn't see one iota of footage where they made the homeowners or their family come outside with guns trained on them. Yes they were "gun" ready...hell they had a terrorist that shot at and threw bombs at them. I don't think you'd lower your guard when something like that happened to you, and could happen again, as this "terrorist" explicitly showed he was willing to do.

But IMHO any person who refused them searching their home for a "terrorist" would immediately throw a red flag up that they might have something to hide, not because they were exercising their rights as a U.S. citizen.

The LEO's who did the door to door searches weren't looking thru your wifes panties drawer or your drag queen drawer, if you're that type of person. What they were doing and looking at is anyplace a human could hide. Under the bed, in the closet, ect ect.

If those same LEO's did find a pot plant growing in your kids room and you didn't know about it, then maybe you need to take a step back and realize that alot of the problems with teens these days is the parents are not involved in their kids lives. Then correct that short coming.

It's a different story when something like 9/11 happened, this country came together under pure patriotism to the country. Same thing happened with the Oklahoma City bombing.
If this Boston Marathon bombing had happened on the magnitude of the OK City bombing or 9/11 this whole country would be up in arms to capture the bombers at all costs.

If this same thing had happened around here in my area, and they had what they believed was the "terrorist" surrounded and needed to do a house search for him, then I'd be more than willing to let them search.
To let them search is more sensible than denying them the quick search that might raise red flags and cause more problems later on.

So what if they see I have safes full of guns or that in my shop there's 50k of ammo loaded and stored, and theres enough components to load another 75-100k up .
For one, I don't think a human can hide in an ammo can, or miner bit box thats the same size, or in a can of powder. Just because I've got stacked ammo cans, they are not labeled and they wouldn't be looking inside them.
And for 2.... what I've got is not illegal here, I'm perfectly within my rights.
And for 3 I seriously doubt those LEO's were/would be recording what they found in your house if they searched it for a "terrorist".

It's a whole ball of different wax though if the gov't was doing a search and/or seizure, that's tyranny that needs to be stood against, your patriotic duty. In this instance with them searching to arrest or kill a "terrorist" , you're helping them by letting them look, you're showing your patriotism to this country.

[shooterg]

I think I'd say I do not give my consent to a search without a warrant , but I will not resist in any way .

[WILCO]

What do you make of the spontaneous victory parade, the applause, the high fiving and such by the "victims of such outrageous behavior"?

Useful idiots and propaganda.

[montana_charlie]

I watched hours and hours of coverage this past week...most on Fox....I did not see anything that resembled that.
I don't think that kind of video would make it into 'TV coverage'.

Here is one ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nrkcUV_7Qk

[GaryN]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

I thought it pretty bold of law enforcement to do that. Just like the taking of the guns down in New Orleans during the hurricane crisis. I don't think these things should be ignored. If it is legal then they should tell us why it is. I don't think it is legal and I would have a hard time putting up with it. But I am only one.

[Ramar]

GaryN,
You're not alone in your thinking.
Ramar

[runfiverun]

does anybody remember a time of door to door searches besides this one and the new Orleans one?
did they do door to door for Dillinger, or bonny and clyde, or for jesse james,
or the beltway snipers.
isn't that something that started in Iraq.
just saying.

[montana_charlie]

does anybody remember a time of door to door searches besides this one and the new Orleans one?
did they do door to door for Dillinger, or bonny and clyde, or for jesse james,
or the beltway snipers.
isn't that something that started in Iraq.
just saying.
Troops fought building to building and room to room in Europe during WWII, but that's because the enemy was forted up inside. The same thing was true in Iraq, as far as combat went, but the Army trains for it, now, so they are more precise and organized.
But, door-to-door searches are done differently than 'clearing a building'.

Many of the 'searches' in Watertown were fairly polite and civilized. But they were still warrantless searches, and a homeowner would probably suffer if he objected in any way.

The 'search' in the video, however, was more like 'clearing a terrorist stronghold'.
I thought that team was 'training' to control civilians much the way that the No More Hesitation targets train them to shoot civilians.
The residents of that house were treated like Jews in a Nazi ghetto as they were yelled at, run out of the house with hands on heads, frisked, and then made to run (hands still raised) from one 'storm trooper' to the next until being herded into a group at the end of the line.

Things may be different in some future time, but I don't think any police force would even try to run a Watertown-style operation in a town where most of the residents are armed. There would be a lot more 'howdy-doo and please & thank you' ... and a lot less of that 'Handen hoch und macht schnell, Juden!'

[doctorggg]

GaryN,
You're not alone in your thinking.
Ramar

Ditto that!!!!!!!!!

[Love Life]

That video does two things to me:
(A) Angers me
(B) Makes me ask myself how many people can you possibly have in one house? It was like watching clowns get out of a VW Bug, but I digress.

The search Charlie posted was very much over done. They were dealing with citizens, not combatants.

[mpmarty]

Inasmuch as our "doors" are separated by miles out here I doubt this tactic would work out well for the trespassers. We are prepared to repel boarders.

[ncbearman]

Inasmuch as our "doors" are separated by miles out here I doubt this tactic would work out well for the trespassers. We are prepared to repel boarders.

This is actually the reason I started this thread. Why should law enforcement approach a home in Watertown with different attitude and mentality than they would in a very rural or out of the way place. Our personal freedom is and should be the same wether it is in the city or the country. When we are lawful good citizens the reward for that is rights that are inalienable. Only when we break the law are those rights taken away. Not when someone else does. We don't know why that family in the video was evacuated from their home. Being that they were all allowed back into their home I assume they are innocent. But I must say, to me it brought back memories of the WWII film clips that I saw in the Holocaust Museum in DC. Jews being herded out of their homes with their arms in the air and none of their possessions, and weapons trained on them. Also there were random murders/executions in front of them to be sure they all complied. We certainly are not there yet, but...................what is next from here if we continue to let congress strip away our rights with the swoosh of a pen. Enacting laws that allow warrantless search and entry in the name of national security.

[montana_charlie]

This is actually the reason I started this thread. Why should law enforcement approach a home in Watertown with different attitude and mentality than they would in a very rural or out of the way place.
I believe that attitude/mentality is prevalent because the populace of Watertown and environs has been 'civilized' by the local government to the point where LEOs know they will do as they are told ... and give thanks for the opportunity.
Apparently, those in Michigan and Indiana have almost been civilized to the same point of submission.

I notice that no attorney has participated in the discussion to provide an answer to your original question ...

CM

[Ramar]

montana_charlie,
Do attorneys reload or cast?
Ramar

[Love Life]

I'm pretty sure one of members was a Lawyer and a Judge...

[NuJudge]

There are a couple of us around here....

[nvbirdman]

If the police are looking for a terrorist, and they order the homes resident outside, what reason would they then have to frisk the resident?
Is that a terrorist in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

[ncbearman]

There are a couple of us around here....

I would like to hear your thoughts on this nujudge

[dakotashooter2]

Define "door to door" search. That does not necessarily mean they physically search your home. They often do "door to door" searches for missing children, meaning they go door to door asking residents if they have seen anything............

[GaryN]

Define "door to door" search

Montana Charlie posted it in post #13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nrkcUV_7Qk

[wch]

When all was said and done, this "highly trained" group of law enforcement bureaus and departments looked like the Keystone Kops to me.

[deces]

In an ideal situation I would be in my basement with music headphones on if and when they come crashing in, then sue for trespassing and repairs for any damages and murdered dogs. No warrant , no consent.

[WILCO]

Makes me ask myself how many people can you possibly have in one house? It was like watching clowns get out of a VW Bug, but I digress.

The American family has been forced to downsize since the economy tanked in 2008. Millions of Americans have grouped together with family members for basic survival. Much like the great depression, many are doing with less.

[deces]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5vfyFyptQ

[deces]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3XsD-U1oOk

[deces]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfOvHuojEB4

[deces]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIEHBdkVso

[GabbyM]

montana_charlie,
Do attorneys reload or cast?
Ramar

I know one very good attorney on here. Pretty fair shot with a SA Ruger too.

[quilbilly]

My wife thinks this was just a dry run for a declaration of martial law to see what the ruling class could get away with. I am not sure I don't disagree. A crisis is too valuable not to exploit.

[TXGunNut]

What bothers me is that this sweep apparently missed #2. An alert citizen brought them back. I guess they were too busy looking good for the cameras with all their big boy toys to see a blood trail Ray Charles could have followed.
Quilbilly's better half may be right, looked like a dress rehearsal for martial law.

[SciFiJim]

That first video showed me a couple of things. I don't know what their Rules of Engagement were for the searches (whether there was a blanket search warrant for the entire neighborhood if such things are possible.)

1. The resident that answered the door was not presented any legal justification for the "police action".

2. The "soldiers" did not appear to honor anyone's rights against illegal search by frisking the residents multiple times while being removed from the house.

3. If a real shooting Civil War breaks out, there will be a lot of soldiers dead for failing to "check six". The camera operator was within maybe 100 feet of the action, and no one noticed. All of the other residents were escorted out, so why wasn't he? The situational awareness of the "operators" was too narrowly focused.


I used all of the quote marks and euphemisms because I could not identify the men in uniform. Were they cops in camo, federal operators, or mall ninjas? They obviously weren't sneaking through woodland cover, so why not be in an easily identified policeman's uniform?

[montana_charlie]

Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the war." (or something close).
Obama could say, "If I've lost Bill Maher, I've lost the argument."

What Bill Maher says is, "This country is becoming a police state. And it is very troubling to me,” Maher said, while showing pictures of police officers patrolling the city and searching for Tsarnaev."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/bill-maher-boston-police-90700.html#ixzz2RmAuQLye

[TXGunNut]

Can't get much closer to martial law, telling folks to stay home and doing house-to-house warrantless searches.

[montana_charlie]

Going door-to-door, in force, and just asking questions is not terrible ... although it looks troubling.
But the squad that was entering homes, and running the occupants out - one at a time with their hands on their heads - was just too Nazi-ish to put up with.

Law abiding citizens in a free country don't have to put up with that kind of treatment from their 'public servants' ... and the people of Boston have fallen a long way from their 'revolutionary heritage' to allow it.

I'd still like to hear an appraisal on the subject from a 'legal type'.

CM

[GabbyM]

This sort of reminds me of the first riots during the 1960's.
Police departments were in general very poorly prepared and over reacted in hideous ways.
Chicago 1968 our Illinois NG had to go up to Chicago to reign in the PD. A term police riot was coined around that time.
In Boston you can argue poor tactics along with bad manners. They may need some work. But I'll give them a break on this one.
After all it's not like they shot up a couple newspaper delivery girls. In the end they got the bad guys.

[C.F.Plinker]

Had they searched the property (including the boat) where he was ultimately found prior to having the homeowner call and report his presence?

[SharpsShooter]

I don't think that kind of video would make it into 'TV coverage'.

Here is one ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nrkcUV_7Qk



Wow! That's WAY over the line!

SS

[montana_charlie]

I'll give them a break on this one.
After all it's not like they shot up a couple newspaper delivery girls. In the end they got the bad guys.
The newspaper ladies were 'innocents' and the bomber is a 'terrorist', so it may seem right to allow an error in one case that we detest in a different circumstance.

But, look at the basics of the LAPD pickup shoot-em-up.

They turned loose pretty massive firepower on a target they could not see ... because they thought the occupant might shoot at them.
They did not 'kill' the target in spite of the bucketful of ammunition expended.
They sent many stray rounds into cars, garages, and other surfaces in that neighborhood.
And, the 'target' (when captured) was unarmed ... meaning it was illegal to shoot at her/them.

Compare that with the boat shoot.

They fired (at least) twenty or thrity rounds at a target they could not see ... claiming they 'returned fire' after the bad guy shot at them.
They did not 'kill' the target ... probably didn't even hit him.
Considering the volume of fire reported by media compared to pictures of the boat and a statement from the boat owner, most of those shots went someplace other than the boat.
And, (when he surrendered) the target was unarmed ... meaning it was illegal to shoot at him.

Still willing to give them a break in Boston?

CM

[GabbyM]

.

Still willing to give them a break in Boston?

CM

Yes I am. I do agree they were sloppy.
If it were me in that back yard that creep terrorist would not of come out of that boat alive. My thoughts would be to shoot in about five gallons of gas with a pressure jet then light it up. Or just tie some quarts to flash bangs. Another good way is to toss in a cage full of starving rats. Climbing into that boat with a live terrorist is the last thing I'd want to do. Some Boston PD officer did just that however.

[TXGunNut]

Had they searched the property (including the boat) where he was ultimately found prior to having the homeowner call and report his presence?

My understanding is that they had already "searched" that neighborhood and lifted the "stay indoors" order.

[montana_charlie]

My understanding is that they had already "searched" that neighborhood and lifted the "stay indoors" order.
I heard one of the biggies say that the house and boat were 'just outside' of the x - square block area that they cordoned off to search.

I guess all residents were locked down, but the 'search area' was a bit too small to include the boat.

[TXGunNut]

Sounds more like it, CM. Early report I read was home(boat)owner said he was in the search area but said no houses on his block were searched, to his knowledge. I guess with all the traffic going by he thought they were "searching" his block.
Pretty sure they sat down, debriefed and determined how to do it better next time. What they learn will be incorporated in future training and they'll be much more efficient next time...not sure how I feel about that. :(
As far as the "warrantless" searches they could have gained consent to search these homes. Effective consent varies by situation so they may not have violated the Fourth Amendment rights of these residents. Considering the circumstances a judge may rule that these warrantless searches were not "unreasonable" even without consent.

[deces]

One thing I have not seen mentioned here is what if this happened in NY, where they just passed gun registry? I know from past posts alot of people are holding out on that unconstitutional law. These door to door invasions would certainly draw a line ruining peoples lives, force people to put up or shut up over night just because one person out of 300,000,000 people went rouge. I am warning everyone this is a very dangers precedent being set. Be forewarned, revolution might be coming. Be ready, like it or not this is not a hypothetical situation we are dealing with.

[Katya Mullethov]

My 2 cents , lol , got change for a buck ?
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/601715_538005239576499_556443022_n.jpg

Douchebaggery of epic proportions .