If You Lived in Boston, Would You Consent To a Warrantless Search??

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by FliesWay2Much, Apr 19, 2013.

  1. FliesWay2Much

    FliesWay2Much Original Member

    Monday-morning quarterbacking is easy, but here's my questions:

    1. If you lived in the neighborhoods where the cops are going door-to-door right now, would you consent to a search of your house? Why or why not ?

    2. If you owned a firearm and lived in said neighborhood, would you consent to a search? Why or why not?

    I posted this over there. Right now, all but one said they would consent. I'll hold off on my answers until later...

    ...Looking forward to everyone's answers.
     
  2. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    After hearing what they did to some people who had objections, I think I would probably consent. I heard one man was stripped naked and thrown into the back of a police car when he offered up some objection and a couple were taken away in handcuffs when they objected to the police activity on their property. I don't recall what the other incident was.

    That's not an answer. I tend to think that I would consent - maybe not happily, however. Why? Intimidation.
     
  3. FliesWay2Much

    FliesWay2Much Original Member

    Wow - is this stuff in writing anywhere?
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    No, I would not consent.

    (Edited to clarify which post I was responding to since a couple more snuck in.)
     
  5. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Links? I've been searching but haven't found anything so far. Somebodies' Christmas kitties are going to get a big boost if they're pulling that crap.

    I did find one article by an airhead editor claiming it was OK because of an "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment, but that normally applies only when they're in hot pursuit of a subject, etc.

    Even in the "door to door" search for Dorner at Big Bear, they only entered with permission. That was why they didn't find him even though he'd been hiding almost in plain sight for a week -- he found his way into an unoccupied condo and didn't answer the door when the cops came a-knocking.
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    From here:

    As officers fanned out across the Boston area, Bryce Acosta, 24, came out of his Cambridge home with his hands up.

    "I had like 30 FBI guys come storm my house with assault rifles," he said. They yelled, "Is anybody in there?" and began searching his house and an adjacent shed, leaving after about 10 minutes.
     
  7. Doober

    Doober Original Member

  8. RB

    RB Founding Member

    If government thinks it can ignore the law I would say they are in the wrong.
     
    nachtnebel likes this.
  9. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    No, No, and F* NO!

    A knock on the door and "Good day" is all they need.
    If they don't need a warrant to go in the back yard, I wouldn't try and stop them.
     
  10. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member


    Having a nutcase loose in a general area does not diminish the 4th amendment protections against governmental home invasions. Not nearly enough for any reasonable exigency claim.

    I hope these jerks get their asses sued off for any and all egregious violations.
     
    Doober likes this.
  11. FliesWay2Much

    FliesWay2Much Original Member

    OK, now that it's over, here are my thoughts:

    No, I would not have consented to a search of my house. If I had some out buildings, such as a shed or barn, I may have consented to a search of those structures. I would have been present when the cops did their thing.

    Once the homeowner called the cops with the report of finding blood on her boat cover, then, you become a combat zone and a crime scene. That's why I would have allowed a search of the periphery of my property if I believed there was a reason. I would have insisted upon accompanying the cops, armed if necessary.

    I asked the second question about owning a gun to see if the responses would have been different. Armed or not, I would not have allowed a cop to enter my house for a search. Had I been a resident of Watertown and owned a gun, I would have armed myself to the teeth to protect my family and property. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would have entered my house without eating lead. A cop would have had to clearly identify himself/herself and would have had to be OK with me coming to the door of my house packing heat. If a human violated the perimeter of my dwelling, they would have been history, period.

    I'm glad it's over and I'm glad the young kid was captured alive without further loss of life. However, the fundamental thing is that we resolved this issue with the Constitution intact. And, as far as I know, no dogs were gratuitously shot.
     
    nachtnebel likes this.
  12. Monica47

    Monica47 Original Member

    I watched so much news yesterday I cannot remember from which news organization I heard a report that the police were not entering people's homes but were checking just the perimeters of their property BUT I saw news video of armed law enforcement with assault weapons come out of a duplex (I counted at least 8) then go next door and enter the next residence. I struggled with this question - my initial thought was no way would I agree. But easy to say when not directly involved where all this was happening. Not having a firearm and if I was concerned for my safety maybe I would agree. But then I saw the video of heavily armed law enforcement entering residences in mass and went back to my original thought that I would not allow them to enter my home.
     

Share This Page