I rather believe the searches are unconstitutional.
This is a discussion on Exigent Circumstances within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am not in law Enforcement and didn't stay at a motel last night. In watching the Mass governor advise people to let the police ...
I am not in law Enforcement and didn't stay at a motel last night.
In watching the Mass governor advise people to let the police search the entire town without a warrant had me wondering. Can exigent circumstances exist for the entire town? If you allow the search the rules of in plain sight would apply? Questionable weapon on a bench in your reloading room or 30 round mags sitting on a table. You get the idea.
How far can exigent circumstance go for an entire town?
The supreme court had an interesting decision on the fourth and I wonder how this would go.
Looking forward to opinions.
I rather believe the searches are unconstitutional.
He can ask. The people can tell him to pound dirt.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
And Shepards we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee,
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, So that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command,
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be,
Well... I was a police officer. Exigent circumstance exists in this situation. IMO. There is a real, and imminent danger in allowing this perp to run around free. As long as this guy is free he's going to kill people. He's already proven it.
I don't think the police had much of a choice. Two crazies with guns and bombs and no qualms about killing innocent people. Those facts don't leave a lot of room for too many options.
I would have my domicile locked down like fort knox and not be answering my doors for anyone if I were there. If this trogladyte was in my house he would be a carcass and the cops would not need to search.
Thing is, Cops are generally good people, and right now the least of their worries is a 30 round mag in your house. It wouldn't hold up in court anyways.
My metal band: Born under Sirius
Glock 23, mic holster, clipdraw, abdominal carry.
Problem as I see it Fausty is that I don't know what the officers procedural requirements might be. That 30 rd mag is gonna cost me my arm and my leg should the officer decide to write it down in his report. Even being generally good people doesn't mean that his sup or other higher ups won't review his report later. I would, just as you, lock down and not answer my doors.
I've never been a great fan of 'exigency' either. Smacks of totalitarianism if abused.
Hope they get him alive. Sure would be nice to follow-up who's controlling him.
Last edited by Rock and Glock; April 19th, 2013 at 11:48 PM.
Although that brings up an even scarier thought. What are their procedures right now if they knock and get no response?
Suppose you and your dog are in your basement with the idiot tube on or something and don't immediately hear them knocking. Then lets say, they don't get a response and decide to let themselves in to check for said terrorist anyway. Then your dog finally wakes up and notices someone isn't supposed to be there...
This kind of thing has all kinds of ways to go bad.
Exigent circumstances require a credible belief that some law is being broken and that preservation of evidence, or some other mitigating factor must be noted. Such circumstances cannot exist for an entire town/neighborhood. You cannot believe that one perpetrator is in every house in a given area, and claim exigent circumstances.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Alabama Constitution of 1901 - That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Thank you all for the response I want the guy caught I just have a bad feeling about no warrant search under Exigent circumstance.
I live very close to a Federal prison and they have a little area for less violent inmates that have very little supervision. We get a walk away about once or twice a year and I wondered if they could force a search.
We don't have anything to hide but you never know what they are looking for or an obscure law you may be breaking.
I find it amusing that people want him "taken alive". Do you really think law enforcement is going to tell us anything about the interrogation? Best case scenario is they feed us a line of polically correct bs to placate us, then use him to go after bigger fish. Oh and I absolutely would not comply with an illegal search like the one happening right now in Boston.
How ironic that once they lifted the "don't go outside" ban...... It took a civilian to find the fugitive.......
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
He's the deal. Unless they are waving a warrant in your face, you have the right to tell them to go pound sand.
From that point on, it's simply a matter of how bad do they want in, and what amount of force you would like to use in order to repel their entry.
Do you want to use physical or deadly force to keep them out if they are willing to go to that level? Or do you want to let them do their thing, and deal with it in court later on down the road?
One thing is for sure. If you give them permission to do the search, then it you can't claim the unconstitutionality of the search as it was not done by force.
I can tell you that in these kinds of high risk, high threat, dragnets that before they start doing the door-to-doors, the troops are frequently briefed by a prosecutor (or some other high ranking official) and are reminded to stay focused and they are not interested in any ancillary or minor offences which may be encountered during the search. They aren't there for low impact minor B.S and to just find the subject they are looking for.
Now, what does that mean? Not a whole lot of anything when you get right down to it.
So again, unless the have a warrant, you have the right to tell them to take a hike. That is a Constitutionally protected right. After that, it's a matter of how bad they want in, and how bad you want to keep them out.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
A lot of good conversation here. I do support that there are exigent circumstance. Of course the people can deny permission for a search of the personal space. As I posted before the exigent circumstance is the immenant and deadly danger to the community. Exigent circumstance is still subject to judicial review. When searching the officers with or without a warrant can not use the search for a fishing expidition. If the police are searching for a person a 30 round magazine would be inadmissable because the police have no reason to open containers that cound not have the subject of the search contained. In other words the perpetrator couldnt fit into a 30 round magazine... Exigent circumstance cases almost exclusively are connected with the safety of an individual, or a comunity. In the case of evidence being destroyed... my experience is the courts prefer the officers secure the scene, and get a telaphonic warrant.
I believe if you deny them entry and they decide they will search anyway anything illegal they find during the search for the "Fugitive" will be "Spoiled fruit" and will be thrown out of court if it even makes it that far
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .