Cops searching homes in Watertown, MA

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Legal question: Cops are going door to door and demanding access to search the homes. If the door is not answered, they are forcing their way in (according to media reports).

If you do not let them in, and they force their way in, and they find illegal activity not related to their current search, can you be arrested and/or charged?
 
how can you think of the constitution at a time like this
 
SkyHog said:
Legal question: Cops are going door to door and demanding access to search the homes. If the door is not answered, they are forcing their way in (according to media reports).

If you do not let them in, and they force their way in, and they find illegal activity not related to their current search, can you be arrested and/or charged?
Click to expand...


Typically no, under egistent curcumstances (SP) they can compel a search, but they are walking on legal eggshells with regard to what they find.

Now if they find a bag of grass you can expect them to take it with them.
 
This is part of why I would never live in Boston or the surrounding area. This mindset that they can break the law just because it's convenient to their investigation is absurd.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This is part of why I would never live in Boston or the surrounding area. This mindset that they can break the law just because it's convenient to their investigation is absurd.
Click to expand...


This stuff happens everywhere tho!
 
If they illegally enter, i'd raise a stink.. especially to find out if they had a warrant and under what claim they would seek anything such as exigent circumstances.. One could argue that this man hunt is what created the harm to begin with..

I'm also no fan of the western style shootout they had this morning, if they had a more measured response would they have been better able to call for backup and correctly lock the area down? Seems odd
 
SkyHog said:
Legal question: Cops are going door to door and demanding access to search the homes. If the door is not answered, they are forcing their way in (according to media reports).

If you do not let them in, and they force their way in, and they find illegal activity not related to their current search, can you be arrested and/or charged?
Click to expand...

Would you rather have the government declare martial law?

If the police have reasonable suspicion the perps is in there they do not need a warrant.
 
Geico266 said:
Would you rather have the government declare martial law?

If the police have reasonable suspicion the perps is in there they do not need a warrant.
Click to expand...

I'm not supposing any predisposed opinion (although I have one), I am just wondering if evidence can be used against you in this situation.

Edit: Although, I suppose I should ask: Does owning a house in a city where a suspect is hiding rise to the level of reasonable suspicion?
 
bnt83 said:
This stuff happens everywhere tho!
Click to expand...

Boston area is particularly bad about it. They also made it illegal for people to leave their homes during the blizzard a few months back.

Basically, my concern about something like that happening here in ohio is much lower than there.
 
Geico266 said:
Would you rather have the government declare martial law?

If the police have reasonable suspicion the perps is in there they do not need a warrant.
Click to expand...

There are circumstances where a warrant is not needed, such as exigent circumstances and hot pursuit, but unless it is a first party residence, a warrant is still needed. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to make a warrantless entry. I would bet money that most cops are going to ignore a little bit if weed in this situation.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Boston area is particularly bad about it. They also made it illegal for people to leave their homes during the blizzard a few months back.

Basically, my concern about something like that happening here in ohio is much lower than there.
Click to expand...


Wow. That's just absurd.
 
SkyHog said:
If you do not let them in, and they force their way in, and they find illegal activity not related to their current search, can you be arrested and/or charged?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, if the search is ruled illegal, then any evidence acquired during that search is not admissible.
 
I have not found police forces in Ohio to be as rabidly fascist as some other parts of the country in which I've resided. And the city where Ted lives has the most fascist cops in the state, but the way.
 
JB1842 said:
There are circumstances where a warrant is not needed, such as exigent circumstances and hot pursuit, but unless it is a first party residence, a warrant is still needed. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to make a warrantless entry. I would bet money that most cops are going to ignore a little bit if weed in this situation.
Click to expand...

I think the same way, they are on a man hunt for a fanatical killer, they aren't going stop what they are doing to grab a bag of weed, arrest some doofus not smart enough to hide his weed, and write a big report while his buddies are tracking down the "Marathon Bomber"!!!:dunno:
 
JB1842 said:
There are circumstances where a warrant is not needed, such as exigent circumstances and hot pursuit, but unless it is a first party residence, a warrant is still needed. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to make a warrantless entry. I would bet money that most cops are going to ignore a little bit if weed in this situation.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
If they are searching everyone's home, it is pretty obvious they don't have any reasonable suspicion.

Geico266 said:
Would you rather have the government declare martial law?

If the police have reasonable suspicion the perps is in there they do not need a warrant.
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
Generally speaking, if the search is ruled illegal, then any evidence acquired during that search is not admissible.
Click to expand...
That.

I have made forced entries to houses during hot pursuit or exigent circumstances. The entry is limited to apprehending the suspect or solving the exigency, it's not a fishing expedition.

If you see something seriously bad (hear someone screaming for their life and run into a meth lab), then you perform the rescue, arrest, whatever else, then secure the house and go get a warrant.
Even then, guaranteed the defense will file a motion to suppress the evidence, and they're starting with a presumption that the search was unlawful and it's your burden to overcome.
 
steingar said:
I have not found police forces in Ohio to be as rabidly fascist as some other parts of the country in which I've resided. And the city where Ted lives has the most fascist cops in the state, but the way.
Click to expand...

I've said it elsewhere, in my little town the chief is the constitutional law instructor at the local academy

We got it good!
 
N747JB said:
I think the same way, they are on a man hunt for a fanatical killer, they aren't going stop what they are doing to grab a bag of weed, arrest some doofus not smart enough to hide his weed, and write a big report while his buddies are tracking down the "Marathon Bomber"!!!:dunno:
Click to expand...

As a cop (a federal cop to be more specific), the weed would be the absolute least of my concerns. I've ignored a little amount before depending on the circumstances. Even a small crack rock has been destroyed by my boots before.
 
I have friends that live in Watertown. From what I've heard they are not searching inside homes. They are knocking on doors and asking people if they've seen anything. They are searching yards. That's all.
 
I wouldn't think about weed as the issue. Lets say you're counterfeiting bills when they arrive. Suddenly you're busted.

Orrrrr......

Suddenly you're not busted, and you have a free pass since the evidence is not admissible, right?

Gotta be one or the other.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Boston area is particularly bad about it. They also made it illegal for people to leave their homes during the blizzard a few months back.

Basically, my concern about something like that happening here in ohio is much lower than there.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. They made it illegal to drive.
 
MassPilot said:
No they didn't. They made it illegal to drive.
Click to expand...

I remember when I lived in New Hampshire a long time back, Massachusetts made it illegal for all non-essential employees to drive during a particularly bad storm.

Since I worked in a call center for a company that provided phone service, guess who was considered an essential employee.

Ugh.
 
Just another point of reference, based on my facebook friends in Boston and other media reports, they are NOT going door to door searching every house. I know the media was trying to pump up the "if you're not home we'll kick in the door angle", but that's not the reality of what happened. They knocked, asked folks if they were okay, and if they could take a look around (very quickly) and then left. One guy even mentioned his roommate was smoking pot when the cops arrived and they didn't say a word.

As far as the lockdown goes, people were allowed to come and go. Nobody was, to my knowledge, arrested just for leaving their home.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Just another point of reference, based on my facebook friends in Boston and other media reports, they are NOT going door to door searching every house. I know the media was trying to pump up the "if you're not home we'll kick in the door angle", but that's not the reality of what happened. They knocked, asked folks if they were okay, and if they could take a look around (very quickly) and then left. One guy even mentioned his roommate was smoking pot when the cops arrived and they didn't say a word.

As far as the lockdown goes, people were allowed to come and go. Nobody was, to my knowledge, arrested just for leaving their home.
Click to expand...

So....you're saying the media is hyper-inflating the facts just for sensationalism???? I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!!! :D
 
MassPilot said:
No they didn't. They made it illegal to drive.
Click to expand...

They did that during the blizzard of 1978. Traffic was shut down for most of a week! It was fun to be in an urban area that was as quiet as if we were in the country.
 
SkyHog said:
I wouldn't think about weed as the issue. Lets say you're counterfeiting bills when they arrive. Suddenly you're busted.
Orrrrr......
Suddenly you're not busted, and you have a free pass since the evidence is not admissible, right?
Gotta be one or the other.
Click to expand...

Don't know. The lawyers (read: judge) will tell us later.
That sounds snarky, but seriously, one the things that drives cops nuts is there are few clear rules. You do the best you can, and the judge will decide later what you should have done.
 
SkyHog said:
I wouldn't think about weed as the issue. Lets say you're counterfeiting bills when they arrive. Suddenly you're busted.

Orrrrr......

Suddenly you're not busted, and you have a free pass since the evidence is not admissible, right?

Gotta be one or the other.
Click to expand...

It's kinda both,

If they take all the contraband goods, it may not be admissible against you but you can't exactly ask for it back either now can you.

Beyond that, now the cops know what you are up to, even if they can't prove it in court
 
MassPilot said:
No they didn't. They made it illegal to drive.
Click to expand...

I've issued no travel orders before.
The roads got so bad, and so many cars were getting stuck, that the plows couldn't clear the road because of the cars, and the tow trucks could get the cars because of the snow.
The actual travel restriction was academic, because you couldn't actually GET anywhere.

As soon as we got control of the roads and could get them back open, we lifted the travel restriction.

The purpose of travel restrictions is not to write tickets, but to make sure people know the conditions were serious, and to give people cover for not going to work (most people aren't in critical positions, and they could tell the boss "the city said I can't drive").
 
Here's what I would do, and I'm not a liar, oops lawyer. If they ask to come in I will decline. If they force their way in, nothing is admissible. If you let them in, and there is something in clear view - you can be on the hook for that discovery, whether they choose to pursue it or not. However, if you decline their 'request', anything found not pertaining to the reason for the entry is excluded and not admissible.
 
docmirror said:
If they force their way in, nothing is admissible.
Click to expand...

Not true. If the entry is pursuant to a recognized exemption to the warrant requirement, the cops can secure the house, exit, and get a warrant.

But you are correct, that the onus is on the state at that point to show that the entry was legitimate and authorized. If you allow entry, then whatever they find is generally admissible, UNLESS they are searching places beyond the consent, or if consent is withdrawn and the search does not stop, or if the consent is not freely given (e.g., under duress, misled about their standing, detained, etc).
 
PilotAlan said:
Not true. If the entry is pursuant to a recognized exemption to the warrant requirement, the cops can secure the house, exit, and get a warrant.

But you are correct, that the onus is on the state at that point to show that the entry was legitimate and authorized. If you allow entry, then whatever they find is generally admissible, UNLESS they are searching places beyond the consent, or if consent is withdrawn and the search does not stop, or if the consent is not freely given (e.g., under duress, misled about their standing, detained, etc).
Click to expand...

Yes actually true. But I'm not going to look up the case law for you. It's three cases, one of them is in VA, and I think one was in NM, but I've been drinking and I could have that wrong. The one thing I clearly remember, is that if the cops ask to come in the only answer is 'sorry, no thank you'.
 
docmirror said:
Yes actually true. But I'm not going to look up the case law for you. It's three cases, one of them is in VA, and I think one was in NM, but I've been drinking and I could have that wrong. The one thing I clearly remember, is that if the cops ask to come in the only answer is 'sorry, no thank you'.
Click to expand...

Sure. What do I know? I just did actual searches and seizures for 16 years, documented them, instructed them, and defended them in court.

Edit: Nothing is 'always' or 'never' admissible. Admissibility is always an incident specific examination of the totality of circumstances in that specific case.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
This is part of why I would never live in Boston or the surrounding area. This mindset that they can break the law just because it's convenient to their investigation is absurd.
Click to expand...

They aren't breaking the law. It's called exigent circumstances.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Boston area is particularly bad about it. They also made it illegal for people to leave their homes during the blizzard a few months back.

Basically, my concern about something like that happening here in ohio is much lower than there.
Click to expand...

Ohio frequently makes non-emergency travel illegal after a tornado; I know they did in my county in 2007 after a storm came through.
 
astanley said:
They aren't breaking the law. It's called exigent circumstances.
Click to expand...

They're not breaking the law because they are in fact NOT forcing their way into homes and searching them. I'm watching interviews with Watertown residents on local TV and talking to people I know that live there. There's a whole lot of misinformation out there right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top