Shock Footage - Warrantless House-toHouse Raids In Boston



This is the topic in Youtube, not mine. It looks to be a raid on just one specific house and no way to tell if they had a warrant. But look at how many Muslim looking people lived in that smallish house.

If you haven't committed a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

Zitat

---

Shock Footage - Warrantless House-toHouse Raids In Boston

---

Zitat

---

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 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" ....... Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

---

The Fourth Amendment does not impose a ban on warrantless searches. Notice how the Fourth Amendment only mentions warrants in order to put a limit on their scope. The Fourth Amendment bans "UNREASONABLE" searches.

In regards to warrants, the Fourth Amendment sets forth limitations to warrants (the warrent must describe "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") since there had been a history of British magistrates issuing overly broad warrants: "Search Boston for whatever the hell turns up that the Crown might possibly be interested in."

Since the Fourth Amendment was, in part, a protection from warrant abuse, the Supreme Court has never taken the position that the Fourth Amendment begins and ends with warrants. At the time, warrants were part of the problem, not a legal god to be worshipped. The Golden Standard has always been the "Reasonableness Standard". Just like overly broad warrants were considered "unreasonable", the idea that, even in emergencies, a warrant was always required has been considered "unreasonable".

Over many decades, the definition of "reasonable" has been defined. In 1948, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court invalidated a warrantless search of a suspect's room because the suspect was settled in, nice and cozy in his room, and there was no indication that he was going anywhere. The only reason not to get a warrent was that it was a pain in the butt to have to call a Judge.

In throwing out the validity of the search in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court admonished that "that only 'exceptional circumstances' would suffice to dispense with the need for a warrant". Several examples of an "'exceptional circumstance" were then given by the Supreme Court. The very first one was:

"(1) a suspect fleeing or likely to take flight"

If Johnson was "fleeing or likely to take flight", then entry into the room would have been "reasonable". Since Johnson was not in that category, the warrantless search was "unreasonable" and therefore illegal in Johnson's case.

So what was Johnson's crime?

He was smoking an opium bong and the Police smelled it through the closed door. The Supreme Court was correct. Johnson was perfectly happy where he was in his room and had no intention of going anywhere. Other than the bother of it, there was no reason for the Police NOT to get a warrant specifying Jonhson's room and specifying that they were looking for illegal drugs.

Stoned suspect happy as a clam in his room = No fleeing suspect and no likelihood of flight = Not "Reasonable" to NOT take the time to get a warrant = Illegal search without a warrant = Johnson wins

So, that's the standard. Reasonableness.

Even then, that does not mean that Police can barge into every house in a neighborhood looking for a bong smoker. That would not be "reasonable". ...... Yes, barge into Johnson's room if they knew he was climbing out the window but not every house in a neighborhood.

Over the decades, the "Reasonable" exceptions to requiring a warrent for a search have been limited to "Exigent Circumstance" which was defined in People v. Ramey as:

Zitat

---

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.

---

Now, compare Johnson, the mellow Bong Smoker, to the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Bombers.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother:

* Had set off two separate bombs in a crowd of civilians killing 3 people, including an 8 year old boy
* Had injured 180 other civilian men, women and children which included at least 30 people who had lost legs.
* Had killed an MIT Police officer by shooting him in the back of the head in cold blood
* Had shot another Police officer in the chase where his brother was killed
* Had the know-how to easily make more bombs
* If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got away, he could have dropped off another bomb in any crowded place in Boston maimining or killing dozens more Bostonians.
* Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could know if there were other attacks planned by the "sleeper cell" that is now being searched for.
* Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had already highjacked a car, kidnapped the driver and probably knew that the Police was now on his trail because he had released the driver who immediately called the Police. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev knew that, to get away, the next driver he kidnapped should be left with a bullet in his or her head ........

...... and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was, in the words of Johnson v. United States (1948):

"(1) a suspect fleeing ...."

If all of that does not qualify as "Exigent Circumstances" ....... then WTF does?

If a mass murderer (who now knows better than to leave behind live witnesses) that is hiding in your house does not constitute an "emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life", then ........ what on Earth does?

When dealing with "sleeper cells" of Islamist terrorists known for suicide vest bombings, is it "Reasonable" to keep your hands up (and away from a potential bomb trigger) as you walk 50 yards to get patted down to ensure you are not a human bomb?

Yes, it is "Reasonable". (Remember that the older Boston Bomber married an "Anglo" woman with the "Anglo" name of "Katherine Russell" and she converted to Islam.)

The Fourth Amendment LIMITS the power of Warrants and does not enshrine Warrants as a false god to be robotically worshipped, in every single circumstance, in every single house, in every single yard, come hell or high water, as bombs literally tear American men, women and children to pieces.

That would not be "reasonable". That would be "UNreasonable" and the Fourth Amendment specifically states it is "UNreasonable" actions that must not be tolerated.

The difference between the U.S. Constitution and, say, Soviet law, is that the U.S. Constitution requires both the Government and the People to use common sense and "Reason".

After the capture, I spent a bit of time reading the European newspapers on the Internet. The Telegraph, U.K. was highly illustrated with photos of the reaction after the capture was completed. The photos showed the residents of Watertown and the Police celebrating as a TEAM:

Police and residents were all mingled together. Police and residents posed for pictures with each other. High-fiving each other. Cheering together. Then the Police packed up their weapons and left as crowds cheered them as French towns had cheered American G.I.'s that came to town, conquered the bad guys and then moved on, leaving the town freer and safer than it had been.



It was not a matter of Them vs. Us. It was a TEAM effort. A championship team effort. And Team Boston won.

I then went to the Madrid, Spain, newspaper, ABC.

What struck me was the Reader's Comment section and how Spaniard after Spaniard wrote comments to the effect:

"Look at those Americans. Look at how united they are. Look at how they all cooperated with each other to catch those terrorists so quickly. America is truly the ENVY of the world. Here in Spain, we would have spent our time bickering with each other and grinding our own political axes, as we did after the Madrid bombings, while the terrorists planted more bombs. The Americans unite to fight the terrorists and we divide to fight each other. Okay, their obsession with flag-waving is rather irritating, but, ... my God! .... what a people those Americans are!"

What impressed those Spaniards was that America was "Reasonable". Trust me on this: "Reasonable" is not part of the Spanish character and that has caused a lot of trouble in our Spanish and Cuban history as the pendulum continually swung from Anarchy to Authoritarianism with "Reasonable" being the red-headed stepchild of Spanish and Cuban History.

The Watertown manhunt was a team effort that succeeded because it was "Reasonable".

Warrentless house to house of a 20 block area to search for a bong smoker = Unreasonable = Violates the Fourth Amendment

Warrentless house to house search in hot pursuit of a fleeing bomber that has killed or maimed 180+ innocent people and will do it again if he could = ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE

"Reasonable" is why America, in the past, has succeeded where other socities have failed and "Reasonable" is the heart and soul of the Fourth Amendment. If the Framers of the Fourth Amendment did not expect future Americans to use common sense and reason, they would have made the Fouth Amendment as long and as detailed as the Obamacare legislation instead of trusting future Americans to undestand the plain English word "UNreasonable".

Zitat

---

http://tinyurl.com/bosr23g

The Supreme Court, Warrantless Searches, and Exigent Circumstances

---

I would not have let them in, period.