And the first house they didn't evac for safety reasons...had the bomber run in there and martyred himself and the occupants...the survivors or their relatives would have sued the shit out of every local state and federal authority involved for not protecting them.
I'm curious to see how some of you think this is actually a violation since there was a public safety concern going on. None of these people were being arrested...they weren't being evicted nor were they suspected of anything. Nothing was siezed from their homes and they were allowed to return.
What you're forgetting is something called "Exigent circumstance" and it applies in this instance.
Go ahead...someone do their best Alex Jones and tell me that a cop killing IED planing bomb thrower...armed...extremely dangerous and even willing to run over his own brother to avoid capture doesn't fall under the definition of "Exigent circumstances" when it comes to searching those people's houses and getting them out of their for their own safety.
If you're gonna cite the Constitution...makre sure you read ALL of the Amendment that you think is being violated and has your panties in a bunch before you go crying wolf.
I'll put my understanding of the 4th Amendment up against yours any day of the week, my friend. And if you're going to claim "exigent circumstances", make sure
you know what it really means before you use it to excuse improper police actions. A general "public safety concern" (to use your words), alone, does not constitute exigent circumstances- that would be a police state.
Hot pursuit and
plain view are the most common exigent circumstances. "Hot pursuit" means actually following a suspect onto private property, not arbitrarily setting a perimeter and searching everything within that perimeter. "Plain view" means observing through reasonable means, a violation of law, an immediate and unavoidable threat to public safety, or the presence of an identified suspect, from a place where the observing officer is lawfully engaged.
Exigent circumstances must create the
most limited infringement of a citizen's constitutional or civil rights. Absent exigent circumstances, law enforcement must
ask permission to enter a residence, or get a warrant.
Pointing a weapon at a person legitimately places him in fear of losing his life, and is a felony if done by a private person (absent an immediate threat). Law enforcement pointing weapons at a person who is not suspected of violating the law, or who does not present an articulable threat to an officer or civilian, is a violation of that person's 4th Amendment right. "Officer safety" alone does not constitute an exception to the 4th Amendment, otherwise police could point their weapons at citizens "for the officer's safety" at all times, with impunity.
Ordering a person (who is not a suspect) from his own home at gunpoint, and walking that person out of his own home at gunpoint with his hands on his head (as shown in a photo on this thread), are violations of the 4th Amendment.
The citizen's remedy for these violations are criminal or civil action under 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
FBI.gov explanation of the statute.
