Cops searching homes in Watertown, MA

Alright, I see where we've gone off the tracks Alan. I did say nothing is admissible. I guess, if the object of the putative search(in this case, the 19YO suspect) is cowering in the corner replete with guns, knives, and grenades and they take him into custody, then that person and his effects would/might be admissible. However, anything I (or the OP) have in clear view is not admissible.

I apologize unreservedly for my error. You can have the suspect should you break in, but you can't have the crack pipe, machine gun, etc on my kitchen table.

Happy now?
 
MassPilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree. My Facebook stream has been filled with my friends from home watching LEO's stream through Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown all week.

But the claim, even if law enforcement are forcing themselves into a home, that it is "unconstitutional" or "illegal" or "something that only happens in the People's Republic of MA" is so patently wrong that I can't tolerate it.

Cheers.
 
PilotAlan said:
....... 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then whatever they find is generally admissible, UNLESS they are searching places beyond the consent, or if consent is withdrawn and the search does not stop, or if the consent is not freely given (e.g., under duress, misled about their standing, detained, etc).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...

First... Thanks for your service to catch the bad guys.........

Now, The big question........ In your years of LE , have you ever had a person, who knew their stash was about to be discovered and told you to STOP looking.... Do LEO's actually stop,:dunno: Or just ignore the request and bust them for what was found?:dunno:...
 
docmirror said:
However, anything I (or the OP) have in clear view is not admissible.

I apologize unreservedly for my error. You can have the suspect should you break in, but you can't have the crack pipe, machine gun, etc on my kitchen table.
Click to expand...

No problem. Keep in mind that some state courts have different interpretations of the State constitutional restrictions on search and seizure.
I again say that US Supreme Court rulings are that if an exigent entry is made and evidence of a crime is in plain view, it can be seized.

The definition of plain view *is* that the evidence seen is not related to the purpose of entry (Coolidge v New Hampshire, 1971).
In Arizona v. Hicks, the US Supreme Court rejected the "apparent position of the Arizona Court of Appeals that because the officers' action directed to the stereo equipment was unrelated to the justification for their entry into [Hicks's] apartment, it was per se unreasonable."

In other words, your statement that seizing evidence unrelated to the purpose of entry is unreasonable was *specifically* rejected by the US Supreme Court.
Arizona v. Hicks: The policeman's action directed to the stereo equipment was not ipso facto unreasonable simply because it was unrelated to the justification for entering the apartment. That lack of relationship always exists when the "plain view" doctrine applies.
...
"It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant," Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S., at 465. Those circumstances include situations "[w]here the initial intrusion that brings the police within plain view of such [evidence] is supported . . . by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement," ibid., such as the exigent-circumstances intrusion here.
...
It is clear, therefore, that the search here was valid if the "plain view" doctrine would have sustained a seizure of the equipment. There is no doubt it would have done so if Officer Nelson had probable cause to believe that the equipment was stolen.
Click to expand...

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire - 403 U.S. 443 (1971)
People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 91 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 654; 720 P.2d 2
Kentucky v. King, US Supreme Court, 2011
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984)

In Arizona v. Hicks, the evidence was suppressed because the officer handled it to get serial numbers. But the court opinion made it very clear that the plain view exception paired with exigency of entry was acceptable, only his action of lifting the stereo to get serial numbers was what made the action inadmissible.
However, the search was invalid because, as the State concedes, the policeman had only a "reasonable suspicion" - i. e., less than probable cause to believe - that the stereo equipment was stolen.
Click to expand...
 
N801BH said:
Now, The big question........ In your years of LE , have you ever had a person, who knew their stash was about to be discovered and told you to STOP looking.... Do LEO's actually stop,:dunno: Or just ignore the request and bust them for what was found?:dunno:...
Click to expand...

Thanks.
Usually, if I was searching I already had authority to do so. I always asked for consent so that I was covering myself two ways (later, if the consent is overthrown, I still have my lawful authority; if my lawful authority is overthrown, I still have consent).
So, searching a car, for example, I would go from area to area and watch for signs of stress. If I went to open the trunk, for example, and the guy suddenly withdraws consent, I know exactly where the bad stuff is. And then I search with my lawful authority (assuming I have it).

But to answer the question, there were cases where I was certain that the guy had illegal substances or evidence of a crime, but no probable cause to search or obtain a warrant.
The guy consented, I started searching, then he withdrew consent (you'd be surprised how many bad guys will give consent think they'll pull off the 'double-psych-out' and I won't search.)
The search stopped.

I have a reputation and a career, I'm not going to jeopardize it for one bad guy. Further, my authority extends to the boundaries of the law. Exceeding my legal authority makes me no better than the bad guy.
Plus, I have my whole career to catch that guy. He might get away once, twice, but sooner or later either I will arrest him, or one of his business partners will shoot him. Either way, I'll be warm in my bed that night.
 
PilotAlan said:
,...... I have my whole career to catch that guy. He might get away once, twice, but sooner or later either I will arrest him, or one of his business partners will shoot him. Either way, I'll be warm in my bed that night.
Click to expand...


Great outlook on life....... I live the same way...:yes::yes:..

That Karma is a ***** to the bad guys..;)
 
MassPilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

So...the pictures of SWAT team members going through people's homes while they sit there in terror (or bemusement, or whatever) are fake?
 
Jay Honeck said:
So...the pictures of SWAT team members going through people's homes while they sit there in terror (or bemusement, or whatever) are fake?
Click to expand...

Jay, Jay, Jay.........

The sheeples are multiplying faster then us...:yes::mad2::mad:
 
PilotAlan said:
No problem. Keep in mind that some state courts have different interpretations of the State constitutional restrictions on search and seizure.
I again say that US Supreme Court rulings are that if an exigent entry is made and evidence of a crime is in plain view, it can be seized.

The definition of plain view *is* that the evidence seen is not related to the purpose of entry (Coolidge v New Hampshire, 1971).
In Arizona v. Hicks, the US Supreme Court rejected the "apparent position of the Arizona Court of Appeals that because the officers' action directed to the stereo equipment was unrelated to the justification for their entry into [Hicks's] apartment, it was per se unreasonable."

In other words, your statement that seizing evidence unrelated to the purpose of entry is unreasonable was *specifically* rejected by the US Supreme Court.


Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire - 403 U.S. 443 (1971)
People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 91 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 654; 720 P.2d 2
Kentucky v. King, US Supreme Court, 2011
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984)

In Arizona v. Hicks, the evidence was suppressed because the officer handled it to get serial numbers. But the court opinion made it very clear that the plain view exception paired with exigency of entry was acceptable, only his action of lifting the stereo to get serial numbers was what made the action inadmissible.
Click to expand...

Hey, thanks for all that. Like I said, I'm not going to hunt down the opposite rulings. Each search ruling more narrowly defines the parameters. Mebee later tonite I'll find those rulings from VA or NM, or otherwise. I used the machine gun example specifically because it's one I recall from a 5th circuit court of appeals, but I'm just too lazy to go find it. I know as you've provided that many courts(not in TX) are pretty liberal in restricting 4th amendment rules, but there are some the other way as well.

Know this though, if you break in down here in TX, it will not go well. :D
 
Here is the deal, anything a police officer sees in a place he is legally allowed to be,



Is fair game
 
Jay Honeck said:
So...the pictures of SWAT team members going through people's homes while they sit there in terror (or bemusement, or whatever) are fake?
Click to expand...

I was kind of wondering the same thing.

Law enforcement has a job to do, and I appreciate that, but I kind of feel like we're guilty until proven innocent any more.

Just as an example, I got pulled over for no legit reason visiting my daughter who lives 1200 miles away. The cop said I went through a red light, I was sure it was yellow. No matter, those kind of disagreements have been going on since they invented traffic lights and they invented the ticket book.

But, after I gave him my license and registration, he asked, "When did you move here and why haven't you updated your license and registration?"

I said, "I don't live here."

Which wasn't a good enough answer for him, I guess.

cop: "What are you doing here?"

me: "I'm not going to answer that, you have my ID and my registration and proof of insurance."

cop: "Step out of the car."

cop: "Do you mind if I look in your car?"

me: "Yes, I do mind."

cop: "If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind. Is there something that you should be telling me about?"

me: "No."

cop: "If it's just a little weed or a pipe or something, don't worry."

me: "If you want to arrest me, go ahead."

cop: "Any weapons, got a gun in there, knife, shotgun?"

me: "No."

cop: "Most people don't have an attitude like you. I can get a warrant but you'll sit here for 2 hours while that happens."

me: "Do what you need to do."

I never smarted-off or asked for his badge number or anything else.

So, yeah, I'm not going to send a check to the police benevolent society this year.
 
poweroff360 said:
I was kind of wondering the same thing.

Law enforcement has a job to do, and I appreciate that, but I kind of feel like we're guilty until proven innocent any more.

Just as an example, I got pulled over for no legit reason visiting my daughter who lives 1200 miles away. The cop said I went through a red light, I was sure it was yellow. No matter, those kind of disagreements have been going on since they invented traffic lights and they invented the ticket book.

But, after I gave him my license and registration, he asked, "When did you move here and why haven't you updated your license and registration?"

I said, "I don't live here."

Which wasn't a good enough answer for him, I guess.

cop: "What are you doing here?"

me: "I'm not going to answer that, you have my ID and my registration and proof of insurance."

cop: "Step out of the car."

cop: "Do you mind if I look in your car?"

me: "Yes, I do mind."

cop: "If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind. Is there something that you should be telling me about?"

me: "No."

cop: "If it's just a little weed or a pipe or something, don't worry."

me: "If you want to arrest me, go ahead."

cop: "Any weapons, got a gun in there, knife, shotgun?"

me: "No."

cop: "Most people don't have an attitude like you. I can get a warrant but you'll sit here for 2 hours while that happens."

me: "Do what you need to do."

I never smarted-off or asked for his badge number or anything else.

So, yeah, I'm not going to send a check to the police benevolent society this year.
Click to expand...

How much did the ticket cost ?:dunno:.. :redface:
 
N801BH said:
How much did the ticket cost ?:dunno:.. :redface:
Click to expand...

No ticket.

He gave up, but only because I called his bluff because I know my rights as a citizen.

What happened to the next person he stopped and pulled that act on, I have no idea.

I can only imagine what happens to people that get profiled.
 
poweroff360 said:
I was kind of wondering the same thing.

Law enforcement has a job to do, and I appreciate that, but I kind of feel like we're guilty until proven innocent any more.

Just as an example, I got pulled over for no legit reason visiting my daughter who lives 1200 miles away. The cop said I went through a red light, I was sure it was yellow. No matter, those kind of disagreements have been going on since they invented traffic lights and they invented the ticket book.

But, after I gave him my license and registration, he asked, "When did you move here and why haven't you updated your license and registration?"

I said, "I don't live here."

Which wasn't a good enough answer for him, I guess.

cop: "What are you doing here?"

me: "I'm not going to answer that, you have my ID and my registration and proof of insurance."

cop: "Step out of the car."

cop: "Do you mind if I look in your car?"

me: "Yes, I do mind."

cop: "If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind. Is there something that you should be telling me about?"

me: "No."

cop: "If it's just a little weed or a pipe or something, don't worry."

me: "If you want to arrest me, go ahead."

cop: "Any weapons, got a gun in there, knife, shotgun?"

me: "No."

cop: "Most people don't have an attitude like you. I can get a warrant but you'll sit here for 2 hours while that happens."

me: "Do what you need to do."

I never smarted-off or asked for his badge number or anything else.

So, yeah, I'm not going to send a check to the police benevolent society this year.
Click to expand...
Welcome to PoA, fellow Midwesterner.
 
nddons said:
Welcome to PoA, fellow Midwesterner.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Sorry if I derailed the useful discussion with my cop story...we really should be talking about flying and how to encourage more people to participate, rather than my my rant.
 
Jay Honeck said:
So...the pictures of SWAT team members going through people's homes while they sit there in terror (or bemusement, or whatever) are fake?
Click to expand...

No, but those people probably gave consent to the police searching their home for the supect. The story in the press was that the police just broke down everyones doors.

I suspect that the number of homeowners busted for a bag of weed during this watertown operation was 0. (otoh, if local police ran into a major growing operation in someones basement, they would probably come back with a warrant a couple of days later).
 
DeeG said:
So, you think its just OK to ignore it when its convenient?
Click to expand...

A quick background check of Tony will tell you he's introducing his normal dry wit. :)
 
Listened to the police scanner live as it went down. The multi-agency Command Post issued the order that only the FBI Hostage Rescue Team was to go in for the takedown. Immediately after the order someone replied, "too late". So it appears that one of the supervisors at the scene from either Mass State Police or BPD decided that the locals were not going to let the Feds get the glory.
 
DrMack said:
Listened to the police scanner live as it went down. The multi-agency Command Post issued the order that only the FBI Hostage Rescue Team was to go in for the takedown. Immediately after the order someone replied, "too late". So it appears that one of the supervisors at the scene from either Mass State Police or BPD decided that the locals were not going to let the Feds get the glory.
Click to expand...

Awesome! I bet some bureaucrat on Pennsylvania Ave was stomping his feet and throwing a hissy fit about that!
 
DrMack said:
The multi-agency Command Post issued the order that only the FBI Hostage Rescue Team was to go in for the takedown. Immediately after the order someone replied, "too late".
Click to expand...

Heh.
.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A quick background check of Tony will tell you he's introducing his normal dry wit. :)
Click to expand...

OK. Never mind, then. :) My sense of humor was pretty much non existent after work yesterday. Search warrants being served, houses surrounded, people going to jail, nosey media, citizens not understanding that their 'I got a scam phone call' is going to have to wait just a bit longer, cause every one of my officers is tied up on priority calls, crappy radios, my dispatch computer software shutting itself down, and too many sprouts on my otherwise yummy turkey sammich.
 
weilke said:
No, but those people probably gave consent to the police searching their home for the supect. The story in the press was that the police just broke down everyones doors.
Click to expand...

I would like to know where that story in the press was, because I couldn't find it. Yes, I tried.

In fact, I could find nothing clear on the matter until long after Nick posted this - in which case it was clear that any "searches" were consensual (which has no Constitutional implication).

Stuff in the media was not exactly "correct" - including the whole story about a 7-11 Robbery attributed to these two. And other things. Then again, if you consider Glen Beck or InfoWars as being "the press", then who knows what story is out there....
 
Skylane81E said:
Here is the deal, anything a police officer sees in a place he is legally allowed to be,



Is fair game
Click to expand...

Only if it falls under the plain view doctrine. I may be legally in a house searching for a body, but if I open a small drawer and find drugs or an illegally owned gun, it's a bad search and those aren't admissiable in court.
 
ah yea, that was sarcasm. sorry, next time i'll make it more obvious
 
JB1842 said:
Only if it falls under the plain view doctrine. I may be legally in a house searching for a body, but if I open a small drawer and find drugs or an illegally owned gun, it's a bad search and those aren't admissiable in court.
Click to expand...

Exactly, because you weren't allowed to look in the drawer unless it was big enough for a body.

But as you know there are ways around that when requesting warrants
 
Skylane81E said:
Exactly, because you weren't allowed to look in the drawer unless it was big enough for a body.
Click to expand...
More specifically, the plain view doctrine is for when you inadvertently find something OTHER than what you were looking for.
If' you looking for people, you can look in the closet (for a person). When you open the closet looking for the person and see a meth lab, then plain view doctrine covers it.
If you look in the closet and find the person, that's not plain view because that what you were looking for.

And if you open the drawer and find a pipe bomb, it's not allowable under plain view, because it wasn't an inadvertent discovery while looking for something else (the person can't be hiding in the sock drawer).

I know you know this, Duncan. It's for others who don't do this for a living.
 
PilotAlan said:
More specifically, the plain view doctrine is for when you inadvertently find something OTHER than what you were looking for.
If' you looking for people, you can look in the closet (for a person). When you open the closet looking for the person and see a meth lab, then plain view doctrine covers it.
If you look in the closet and find the person, that's not plain view because that what you were looking for.

And if you open the drawer and find a pipe bomb, it's not allowable under plain view, because it wasn't an inadvertent discovery while looking for something else (the person can't be hiding in the sock drawer).

I know you know this, Duncan. It's for others who don't do this for a living.
Click to expand...

Understood, though I don't do it for a living:wink2:
 
poweroff360 said:
No ticket.

He gave up, but only because I called his bluff because I know my rights as a citizen.

What happened to the next person he stopped and pulled that act on, I have no idea.

I can only imagine what happens to people that get profiled.
Click to expand...
It is called fishing. They do it all the time. I'm personally against it and I used to discourage it.
 
Last edited:
Maxmosbey said:
It is called fishing. They do it all the time. I'm personally against it and I used to discourage it.
Click to expand...

Here in Port Aransas during Spring Break they brought in 160 extra LEOs from all over Texas. Our normal police force is 9 LEOs, but 150,000 beach revelers is obviously too much for them to handle.

For the first three days we lived in a police state. They were randomly stopping pedestrians in front of my hotel, shining spotlights in their eyes and making them follow the finger.

We went to our favorite pub for dinner, and there were four of us inside. During Spring Break! Everyone else was too terrified to go out. It was horrible.

Once the beach crowds arrived and the cops had legitimate traffic concerns to keep them occupied, the harrassment declined, but every business owner I know wrote letters of complaint to the city managers. I wrote two, and received two apologies.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3...
 
I nominate PilotAlan for POA Pilot of the Year. A lot of interesting information presented in a way so that everyone understands it.

Thanks. I know that I'm not the only one who appreciates that.
 
Maxmosbey said:
It is called fishing. They do it all the time. I'm personally against it and I used to discourage it.
Click to expand...

There is a time and place, ie act like a professional fisherman and only go on a fishing trip were you have reason to think you will catch a fish.

(Then again is that still "fishing?")
 
Last edited:
As I posted elsewhere this morning...

The debate over the lockdown tactic has begun.

And irony: The lifting of the lockdown allowed a private Citizen to find the bad guy... Not the police.

Big names like Schneier are carefully crouching their words to not lose their giant government security consulting contracts and using words like "I usually give the police tactical leeway in these cases", translation... "Wow that was dumb, but I make most of my living teaching government employees about security, so I'm not going to risk the food on my table to point out how dumb it was.

Lesser names looking to make a splash, are calling it what it was, Martial Law.

http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/20/s...ps-every-cop-and-donut-joke-youve-ever-heard/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top