COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!

[txradioguy]

Why would a lawsuit cite the US as a defendant when it was the city of Boston that conducted the searches? Makes no sense.

Just pointing out the silliness of the reason Rebel gave for negating the cases I'm citing.

And based on my post just above, I agree with Rebel. The case you're citing isn't valid. It's apples and oranges, is a lawyer.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....

[txradioguy]

You're citing a court case -- US vs. Smith 1986 -- whose details and rationale aren't always clear.

Did you read the entire decision, TRG?

Here's the first couple of paragraphs from the 10th Circuit's opinion:

From the bolded above, what I'm gathering from it in this case is, there wasn't a warrant. Yet the officers had probable cause to search it because of marijuana seen in the cabin while the cop was legally on the wing of the aircraft. And yet none of the items seized from Smith's home and truck were even entered into trial, with or without a warrant.

Apples and oranges.

In your opinion.  I cited the relevant part of the ruling as it applies to what we're talking about here.

None of the cops could be certain that the bomber entered into ANY of the homes they rousted. Yet they chose to exhibit the blanket "one size fits all" methodology. That's a dangerous decision, but clearly one that the cop head shed made.

The cops couldn't be certain that the bomber had NOT entered any of the homes either.

And as I said earlier...had the cops not done what they did...there'd be some of the same people complaining about alleged 4th Amendment violations bitching about about the LEO's not protecting the citizens.

It's my bet they will suffer the consequences of that decision in the form of one or more lawsuits from those who were rousted out of their homes.

Don't see it happening.  What they did will stand up in court IF it is challenged.  Just like not Mirandizing terrorist #2 under the exceptions in stated in Miranda will stand up to any challenge brought by this dirbag's lawer.

[Rebel]

The cops couldn't be certain that the bomber had NOT entered any of the homes either.

Are you ****ing kidding me? That's your argument?

[txradioguy]

Showing me a picture of a perp is "probable cause" to go door to door forcing people from their homes at gunpoint, while their homes are searched? Talk about a ****ing stretch, TRG.

Here you go, I just picked a random photo of a suspect off Yahoo. This guy is seen robbing a store. He's armed. He fled into the vicinity of ________ Neighborhood.



You've just argued that you have absolutely NO problem with teams of cops in MRAPS showing up armed to the teeth and forcing people at gunpoint from their homes while their homes are searched. Innocent people that have done nothing wrong.

Now you're just being obtuse.  And I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not.

You keep saying forced at gunpoint.  You're being purposely dishonest.  As I said before show me one picture where the people leaving their houses have a weapon aimed at them.

Oh and because it doesn't seem to register with you...SWAT teams are SUPPOSED to be armed to the teeth.  Any other time you'd be stroiking yourself at your keyboard in the 2nd Amendment forum over all their awesome firepower and talking about how cool their gear is.

But because it serves your purpose suddenly..."armed to the teeth" SWAT teams are very bad.

 

Your compass on Constitutionality must be in the calibration shop, TRG.

No but your tinfoil hat is in need of adjustment/alignment.  You're sounding like the nuts at DU.

[txradioguy]

Are you ****ing kidding me? That's your argument?

No that's just the focus of your outrage at this moment. 

[Rebel]

Now you're just being obtuse.  And I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not.

You keep saying forced at gunpoint.  You're being purposely dishonest.  As I said before show me one picture where the people leaving their houses have a weapon aimed at them.

It's apparent you didn't watch the video, or any of the other videos in circulation.

Oh and because it doesn't seem to register with you...SWAT teams are SUPPOSED to be armed to the teeth.  Any other time you'd be stroiking yourself at your keyboard in the 2nd Amendment forum over all their awesome firepower and talking about how cool their gear is.

When they're taking out a terrorist; not when they're unconstitutionally forcing innocent people from their homes. Try again.

But because it serves your purpose suddenly..."armed to the teeth" SWAT teams are very bad.

 


No but your tinfoil hat is in need of adjustment/alignment.  You're sounding like the nuts at DU.

No, TRG, it is you that is sounding like the nuts at DU. The ones that want conservatives and NRA members "rounded up" and their homes searched. You've never once heard me support such unconstitutional tactics. Now, as to your opinion on the analogy about the perp I posted that just robbed a store, was armed, and fled into _________ neighborhood.

[Rebel]

No that's just the focus of your outrage at this moment.  

No, it just goes to show how far you will go to usurp a an innocent person's constitutional rights if some guy on the ground determines that they can't be sure if a suspect didn't enter into any of the homes. That's as asinine as saying, "we can't be sure people in this neighborhood aren't downloading child porn, so let's force them from their homes at gunpoint and search their computers".

[RayRaytheSBS]

Great debate. One thing is sure, if you had been bringing this up in DUmmieland, one of you would have been tombstoned by now for hurting the other's feelings and the other would have been issued this:

(just sayin' I'm Glad to be here!!)

[txradioguy]

No, TRG, it is you that is sounding like the nuts at DU.

So in your weird view of this..citing case law and the legal definition of exigent circumstances is "soudning like the nuts at DU"?

Pull your head out of your a@ss...it's cutting off the blood flow to your brain.

The ones that want conservatives and NRA members "rounded up" and their homes searched.

Well again you're wrong in your dumb@ss thought process...cause that would mean I'm rounding myself up as well.

Idiot.

You've never once heard me support such unconstitutional tactics. Now, as to your opinion on the analogy about the perp I posted that just robbed a store, was armed, and fled into _________ neighborhood.

*sigh*...again let me state the facts to you.  Try and keep up this time...please.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

 Emergency conditions. '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.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).
 
Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F. 2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1993). The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id.
 
A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.
 
The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109. Section 3109 requires 'police officers [to] knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. Exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.' United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 830 (1991). Specifically, the court found that immediate entry was necessary 'for [the officers'] protection and the protection of others inside as well as to prevent the destruction of any drugs in defendant's possession or in the home.'
 
A simultaneous, no-refusal entry is permissible if at least 'mild exigent circumstances' were present. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (mild exigency is sufficient to justify simultaneous knock/announce and entry if entry does not require physical destruction of property), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984); United States v. Whitney, 633 F.2d 902, 909 (9th Cir.'80) ('only a mild indication of exigency is required to excuse noncompliance with the `refusal of admittance' requirement of section 3109'), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004 (1981).
 
When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry. See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.
 
Exigencies created by the government cannot be the basis for excusing compliance with the warrant requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Hackett, 638 F.2d 1179, 1183-85 (9th Cir.'80), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 (1981); United States v. Curran, 498 F.2d 30, 34 (9th Cir.'74). The rule has been applied only in cases where exigencies arose 'because of unreasonable and deliberate [conduct] by officers,' in which the officers ' consciously established the condition which the government now points to as an exigent circumstance.' See, e.g., Curran, 498 F.2d at 34 (emphasis added); Hackett, 638 F.2d at 1183; United States v. Calhoun, 542 F.2d 1094, 1102-03 (9th Cir.'76), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1064 (1977). an honest miscommunication is not a case where the government purposely tried to circumvent the requirements of section 3109. Cf. Hackett, 638 F.2d at 1184-85; Curran, 498 F.2d at 33-34.
 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm

[txradioguy]

Great debate. One thing is sure, if you had been bringing this up in DUmmieland, one of you would have been tombstoned by now for hurting the other's feelings and the other would have been issued this:

(just sayin' I'm Glad to be here!!)

Yeah it would have been me for daring to challenging the hysterical group think and posting factual information instead of emotional knee jerk responses.

[Big Dog]

Ummm...ok 

I didn't even  need to go to reductio to reach absurdum. Are you certain you want to use this scenario?

OK, so based solely on the scenario you provided: Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood.

It's September 11, 2001.  Hijackers have taken over 4 airliners.

The Federal government knows (through unspecified means which violate the laws of space and time) that planes will strike unknown target or targets somewhere in the greater New York City metropolitan area, and somewhere in the greater Washington DC metropolitan area; and the passengers of one airliner will at some point in the immediate future fight back, and the plane will crash somewhere in the state of Pennsylvania.

The Federal government communicates this knowledge to the mayors of all affected cities, and the governor of Pennsylvania, who send the police out.

Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out".

The government can only do two things: Ask the people to leave their homes and businesses (with the option to say "no"), or order them to do so (with the force of the government behind that order, including the power to arrest or use deadly force). Since you used the words telling people to "get out", asking is not on the table.

So, the mayors and Governor identify "most likely" targets, and direct their law enforcement agencies to order evacuation of neighborhoods and particular buildings, based on their assessment of "most likely" targets, but nothing more specific.

A citizen refuses to evacuate: what then? If the police shoot him, arrest him, or forcibly remove him based only on the scenario you provided, they have violated his civil rights.

[txradioguy]

No, it just goes to show how far you will go to usurp a an innocent person's constitutional rights if some guy on the ground determines that they can't be sure if a suspect didn't enter into any of the homes. That's as asinine as saying, "we can't be sure people in this neighborhood aren't downloading child porn, so let's force them from their homes at gunpoint and search their computers".

Aaaand here's the point where you're losing the debate because your emotional outrage doesn't stand up to reality and factual information so you move the goalposts.


Fail.

[txradioguy]

I didn't even  need to go to reductio to reach absurdum. Are you certain you want to use this scenario?

OK, so based solely on the scenario you provided: Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood.

It's September 11, 2001.  Hijackers have taken over 4 airliners.

The Federal government knows (through unspecified means which violate the laws of space and time) that planes will strike unknown target or targets somewhere in the greater New York City metropolitan area, and somewhere in the greater Washington DC metropolitan area; and the passengers of one airliner will at some point in the immediate future fight back, and the plane will crash somewhere in the state of Pennsylvania.

The Federal government communicates this knowledge to the mayors of all affected cities, and the governor of Pennsylvania, who send the police out.

Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out".

The government can only do two things: Ask the people to leave their homes and businesses (with the option to say "no"), or order them to do so (with the force of the government behind that order, including the power to arrest or use deadly force). Since you used the words telling people to "get out", asking is not on the table.

So, the mayors and Governor identify "most likely" targets, and direct their law enforcement agencies to order evacuation of neighborhoods and particular buildings, based on their assessment of "most likely" targets, but nothing more specific.

A citizen refuses to evacuate: what then? If the police shoot him, arrest him, or forcibly remove him based only on the scenario you provided, they have violated his civil rights.

We can play the what if game all day if you want to continue to avoid reality of what I've been posting about where the 4th Amendment wasn't violated.

Whatever you want to do.

[txradioguy]

Rachel B‏@RaediantPhoenix
 SWAT's exact words: "have you seen anything unusual? Are there any areas of your home ud like us 2 search?" I said no thx.  They went away.

https://twitter.com/RaediantPhoenix/status/325304816563785728

[Rebel]

Yeah it would have been me for daring to challenging the hysterical group think and posting factual information instead of emotional knee jerk responses.

What factual information? Searching an entire neighborhood and forcing people from their homes at gunpoint isn't an exigent circumstance. An exigent circumstance is "we saw the perp run into this home. We don't have a warrant, but we have strong suspicions that he's still there". Not, "we saw him run into this home, let's act like Nazis (yes, the **** I did invoke Godwin) and search ALL homes, remove the occupants at gunpoint, and search their homes with no warrant or due process".

[Big Dog]

We can play the what if game all day if you want to continue to avoid reality of what I've been posting about where the 4th Amendment wasn't violated.

Whatever you want to do.

The only "what if" was yours. "Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood," as you said.

But this is more fun than going to the casino. Play on!

[Rebel]

Thanks for telling me which side you'll stand on should Obama order the search and seizure of all firearms from private homes because it's determined that they cause an exigent danger, with an extremely subjective thought process, to the public, TRG.

[Rebel]

Aaaand here's the point where you're losing the debate because your emotional outrage doesn't stand up to reality and factual information so you move the goalposts.


Fail.

I'm losing the debate and getting emotional? You called me an idiot. Who's the one getting emotional? You never even had an up on the debate.

[txradioguy]

When they're taking out a terrorist; not when they're unconstitutionally forcing innocent people from their homes. Try again.

Exactly where is this guys 4th Amendment rights being violated?




Members of a police SWAT team talk to a man while conducting a door-to-door search for 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev on April 19, 2013 in Watertown, Massachusetts. After a car chase and shoot out with police, one suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was shot and killed by police early morning April 19, and a manhunt is underway for his brother and second suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev. The two men are suspects in the bombings at the Boston Marathon on April 15, that killed three people and wounded at least 170. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)


A Watertown resident and Boston Globe employee was at home when the SWAT team knocked on her door. Food editor Sheryl Julian described the interaction:
 

“The SWAT team knocked on every door,” Julian said. “They came in but they didn’t go through the house. We told them we had been through the basement. They went through the garage, in every bush, the whole team, rifles poised, through every single inch of this neighborhood. And every single inch of our house outside.”
 
They were very calm, just having a conversation when they came to the door.
 
“They asked, ‘Have you seen anyone? Have you checked around? Very polite.’”
 
They were going from door to door.
 
And then, just as quickly, they were gone.
 
“It was very quiet.”

[Rebel]

No, it just goes to show how far you will go to usurp a an innocent person's constitutional rights if some guy on the ground determines that they can't be sure if a suspect didn't enter into any of the homes. That's as asinine as saying, "we can't be sure people in this neighborhood aren't downloading child porn, so let's force them from their homes at gunpoint and search their computers".

BTW, this isn't getting emotional; this is a damn good analogy, one that you, by your own admission, wouldn't have a problem with. You've already set precedent in your thinking. Oh, you don't agree with this? Too late. You've already ceded the authority to the head LEO on the ground. What you "think" doesn't matter. "Drag those innocent people out and search those homes!"

[txradioguy]

I'm losing the debate and getting emotional? You called me an idiot. Who's the one getting emotional?  

Take a look in the mirror.  You'll find your answer.

You never even had an up on the debate.

Ummm yeah ok.  You keep telling yourself that.  Yet if you look...I'm the one that's backing up what I'm saying with case law and facts.

You've got...what...righteous indignation and a hand wrining response to a dangerous situation?

You're right...I haven't had an "up" on the debate.

 

[Rebel]

Exactly where is this guys 4th Amendment rights being violated?

I specifically remember commenting on a video. Hell, I started a topic on it. I don't remember starting a topic on "TRG's cherry-picked image off Yahoo images".

[Rebel]

[youtube=425,350]2LrbsUVSVl8[/youtube]

In case "someone" forgot what the topic was about.

[txradioguy]

BTW, this isn't getting emotional; this is a damn good analogy, one that you, by your own admission, wouldn't have a problem with. You've already set precedent in your thinking. Oh, you don't agree with this? Too late. You've already ceded the authority to the head LEO on the ground. What you "think" doesn't matter. "Drag those innocent people out and search those homes!"

It's only a good analogy to YOU.  Because YOU want it to be.  Sounds like a bunch of whining and hysterical hand wroning to others...myself included.

Tell you what...show me black letter case law to proive your point and stop whinging like some 7 year old girl and I'll shut up.

You can't do it.

[Big Dog]

What factual information? Searching an entire neighborhood and forcing people from their homes at gunpoint isn't an exigent circumstance. An exigent circumstance is "we saw the perp run into this home. We don't have a warrant, but we have strong suspicions that he's still there". Not, "we saw him run into this home, let's act like Nazis (yes, the **** I did invoke Godwin) and search ALL homes, remove the occupants at gunpoint, and search their homes with no warrant or due process".

More than that:
The police had no knowledge that the suspect was within their perimeter (he was not).
The police had no knowledge that the suspect was within any particular house or other building within that perimeter (he was not).
The police had no knowledge that any person within the perimeter who was removed from his home was a threat (there has been no evidence or statement that they were).

And, because the police "believed" the suspect was in the area, removing residents from their homes while being searched would have placed them in greater danger than remaining in their homes would have. Fortunately for those good citizens, the police were protecting them with rifles while they were out in the open....no, wait. The police have no affirmative responsibility to protect the public at large, per the US Supreme Court.

Oops. Looks like the police were willing to sacrifice some citizens for their own safety.