Were the recent door-to-door searches in Boston/Watertown legal?

Fred the Red Shirt

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 5:23:52 PM4/27/13

to

It seems that many of these were conducted without the consent
of the residents. Were they legally permissible over such a
large area by exigent circumstances, or other doctrine or statute?

--

FF

micky

unread,

May 5, 2013, 2:48:14 PM5/5/13

to

<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>It seems that many of these were conducted without the consent
>of the residents.

I had heard that they asked permission. But with so many agencies
involved, maybe some people didn't do that. But what I don't get is
that the owners, sometimes a family of 3 or 4, stayed outside during
these searches. The video showed this. Frankly, I would want to
watch what was going on, one family member in each room, to try to
make sure nothing was stolen.

I noticed this first on TV shows where homes were searched for
evidence of a crime, with a warrant, and they would have the residents
wait in one room. If I knew such a search was coming, I'd want
friends over, one per room (or one per searcher to follow the searcher
around) to make sure evidence wasn't planted. Of course I don't
think the police plant evidence all the time, but don't forget, I know
I'm innocent and clearly they think I'm guilty.

>Were they legally permissible over such a
>large area by exigent circumstances, or other doctrine or statute?

One lawyer, maybe on NBC, which had more coverage than the other
broadcast networks, said no. Wait, that was the time when the woman
interviewer asked the question. The guest lawyer said a warrant was
needed, and she thought he said it wasn't. That's one mistake I've
not noticed before.

slide

unread,

May 5, 2013, 2:49:45 PM5/5/13

to

A search is only 'illegal' if it results in the arrest of the person
whose privacy is being violated. As an example, the police, lacking
permission, search a house looking for the bomber but stumble across
some dope. This isn't legal to be used for evidence to convict the
homeowner of drug charges due to 4th amendment violation. Such
protection does not extend a the bomber who may be lurking in or
around the house because it isn't his house so it isn't his privacy
to violate.

Rich Carreiro

unread,

May 5, 2013, 2:50:18 PM5/5/13

to

Define "legal".

Do you mean "could the cops legally go in at all?"

Do you mean "if they found evidence of a crime by the Tsarnaevs,
could be it be admitted at the surviving Tsarnaev's trial?"

Do you mean "if while searching for Tsarnaev they found evidence
of some completely unrelated crime done by the residents, could
it be admitted at the residents' trial?"

Depending on what you meant, you may find this of use:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com

Mike Anderson

unread,

May 6, 2013, 5:30:45 PM5/6/13

to

slide wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>> It seems that many of these were conducted without the consent
>> of the residents. Were they legally permissible over such a
>> large area by exigent circumstances, or other doctrine or statute?

> A search is only 'illegal' if it results in the arrest of the person
> whose privacy is being violated.

I don't believe that to be quite true.

> As an example, the police, lacking
> permission, search a house looking for the bomber but stumble across
> some dope. This isn't legal to be used for evidence to convict the
> homeowner of drug charges due to 4th amendment violation. Such
> protection does not extend a the bomber who may be lurking in or
> around the house because it isn't his house so it isn't his privacy
> to violate.

If I owned a house in that area and a cop came to the door and said "hey,
we want to search for the bomber" and I said "no way" and closed the
door, if they forced their way in and searched anyway, I do believe
I WOULD be able to sue them in civil court for a violation of my rights
no matter WHAT was found (or not found.) So it might not have been
an "illegal" search in that they might not go to jail over it but they
WOULD be civilly liable for it.

Seth

unread,

Jun 5, 2013, 9:32:41 PM6/5/13

to

In article <kljdj0$77t$1...@dont-email.me>, slide <drya...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A search is only 'illegal' if it results in the arrest of the person
>whose privacy is being violated.

Are you claiming that only criminals have Fourth Amendment rights? A
search is illegal if it doesn't have sufficient legal backing (e.g. a
warrant). Searching an innocent man's home, not finding anything
illegal, and not arresting him was still an illegal search.

Seth