Enforcement Actions in Boston

[Niiro]

One could make the argument that despite it being your right, by doing so you weaken the effectiveness of the ongoing search as you're essentially poking a hole in the dragnet, so to speak. This makes the search less effective and slows things down overall in a situation where time is a very big factor.

Everyone else was willing to allow the police into their homes for the sake of others' safety, you're putting your right to privacy above the safety of the community at large in the presence of a very imminent, very real threat.

(I'm not necessarily making this argument, but it's an argument that could be made)

[Blubbartron]

You act as if the "terrorist" was a made up story for the cops to enter the house or something, but it was actually happening, everyone in that town was terrified. Again, if this was happening on the daily I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Are any rights given up if the home owner allowed access for the search? I think cooperating with the police to help find the guy is what any good citizen would do... is it not?

If someone has the wherewithal to make a rational decision and allow cops access to their home, no, obviously not. But I think you underestimate the innate coercive power of people in SWAT gear that are carrying big guns ready to be used (i.e. not holstered). The number of people that would even *consider* saying no to anyone with a gun, be it cop or criminal, is very, very low.

This is of course assuming that the homeowners were even asked the question at all. For all I know the conversation went something like "we're going to search your house, put your hands up and walk over there." I honestly wouldn't be shocked if it was that, verbatim.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not that worried about people pressured into allowing a search - hell, that's half of a cop's job, getting people to voluntarily give up their rights. It's the searches without judicial oversight or permission that could be problematic when we're talking about a wide and inaccurate free-for-all area.

[Charismatic]

[Blubbartron]

I'll drink to that.

[hey]

So you're saying a judge is an amalgamation of people and not an individual person?

Is that what they're hiding under those robes?

Judges don't proactively issue warrants on their own. A minimum of 3(?) people need to think there's a reason for it for a warrant to be issued.

Why does it have to be an accomplice? It seems pretty fucking reasonable and logical to me that an armed man on the run would bust into a house and hold the family at gunpoint until the dust settled. Instead he hid in a boat, but certainly wasn't something way out of the realm of possibility. Especially since they had just taken hostages and robbed them earlier.

Oh, you won't let us search? okay, that's fine. Could you come out here for a second, just so i can make sure you're okay in there?

Again, if this was happening on the daily I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Are any rights given up if the home owner allowed access for the search? I think cooperating with the police to help find the guy is what any good citizen would do... is it not?

If they allow it? No, obviously not. As explained repeatedly, it's only a problem when they do not. Being a bad citizen isn't a good reason to search someone's house btw.

One could make the argument that despite it being your right, by doing so you weaken the effectiveness of the ongoing search as you're essentially poking a hole in the dragnet, so to speak. This makes the search less effective and slows things down overall in a situation where time is a very big factor.

Everyone else was willing to allow the police into their homes for the sake of others' safety, you're putting your right to privacy above the safety of the community at large in the presence of a very imminent, very real threat.

So...? Is this an everyone else is doing it argument? People are allowed to be selfish. It was no one's but the police's job to make sure the search was successful.

[Eurell]

Oh, you won't let us search? okay, that's fine. Could you come out here for a second, just so i can make sure you're okay in there?

How is this going to fix anything at all?

He could have family held hostage upstairs. Or the guy who said no to a search for no good reason will just say no to stepping outside. "Go Fuck yourself" I think is what people thought was appropriate to tell these cops?

[hey]

How is this going to fix anything at all?

He could have family held hostage upstairs. Or the guy who said no to a search for no good reason will just say no to stepping outside. "Go Fuck yourself" I think is what people thought was appropriate to tell these cops?

Then at least they have some reason to enter. It fixes it because it allows people to refuse a search. If they don't refuse it, then whatever.

[Niiro]

Judges don't proactively issue warrants on their own. A minimum of 3(?) people need to think there's a reason for it for a warrant to be issued.

I'd have to defer to jmc or Neph on that but afaik a judge makes the call, anyone else involved just there to verify/witness/process (procedure probably also varies by state and nature of the warrant, but considering the "we have people on call to get a warrant in minutes" comment from before the process is not so cumbersome or complicated).

So...? Is this an everyone else is doing it argument? People are allowed to be selfish. It was no one's but the police's job to make sure the search was successful.

Of course you're allowed to be selfish, and people are allowed to spite you for it if it potentially puts others at risk.

[archibaldcrane]

Of course you're allowed to be selfish, and people are allowed to spite you for it if it potentially puts others at risk.

Sure, but if you are positive the dude didn't get into your house, you aren't putting anyone at risk - and if they leave to continue their search in places he might actually be you're helping by not wasting their time.

[hey]

I'd have to defer to jmc or Neph on that but afaik a judge makes the call, anyone else involved just there to verify/witness/process (procedure probably also varies by state and nature of the warrant, but considering the "we have people on call to get a warrant in minutes" comment from before the process is not so cumbersome or complicated).

Yes, but one person can't just make that decision on their own. A judge cannot search anyone's house, and they don't issue warrants unless someone asks for one. That's the entire purpose of the courts. Yes, the decision is ultimately up to one person, but the process still requires multiple people.

[Niiro]

Sure, but if you are positive the dude didn't get into your house, you aren't putting anyone at risk - and if they leave to continue their search in places he might actually be you're helping by not wasting their time.

Aside from the fact that you may not know that for sure, they can't take you on your word, that's why they want to do the search. A dragnet search is already a method of last resort and it's useless if it can't be done thoroughly. Given the extraordinary circumstances there are a scant few reasons why someone would decline them access (especially from their point of view).

-The person is hiding the suspect/is an accomplice.

-The person is turning them away under duress.

-The person has something serious enough to hide that the police, while in the middle of a search for goddamn Niko Bellic himself, would take the time to stop and arrest them for it.
(ie. they're not going to care about the bong on your coffee table but the huge meth lab in your garage is going to no pun warrant their attention)

-The person is adamant enough about their right to privacy that they're willing to inhibit an ongoing search for a very dangerous person in order to preserve it on principle alone.

Yes, but one person can't just make that decision on their own. A judge cannot search anyone's house, and they don't issue warrants unless someone asks for one. That's the entire purpose of the courts. Yes, the decision is ultimately up to one person, but the process still requires multiple people.

I'm not even sure what the point being made at this point is.

(would like to hear more from jmc/Neph tho as now I'm curious)

[Ksandra]

Which works great if they break a TV (not really, since then you still don't have a tv for the 3 months it'll take them to write you a check). Not so much if they break something that cannot be replaced, or something cheaper that isn't worth the hassle to get them to pay for

I am happy to say, there isn't a single material thing I own that is more important than doing the right thing by assisting/not hindering the police in their search for a guy who blew up 200 people. Maybe you shouldn't wrap yourself so much in objects.

[archibaldcrane]

Given the extraordinary circumstances there are a scant few reasons why someone would decline them access (especially from their point of view).

-The person is hiding the suspect/is an accomplice.

-The person is turning them away under duress.

-The person has something serious enough to hide that the police, while in the middle of a search for goddamn Niko Bellic himself, would take the time to stop and arrest them for it.
(ie. they're not going to care about the bong on your coffee table but the huge meth lab in your garage is going to no pun warrant their attention)

-The person is adamant enough about their right to privacy that they're willing to inhibit an ongoing search for a very dangerous person in order to preserve it on principle alone.

I'm not sure what your point is - we aren't having trouble coming up with reasons why you would refuse the request for a search.

[archibaldcrane]

I am happy to say, there isn't a single material thing I own that is more important than doing the right thing by assisting/not hindering the police in their search for a guy who blew up 200 people. Maybe you shouldn't wrap yourself so much in objects.

How unreasonable does their warrantless search parameters have to be before you're like "man, fuck these cops coming in here"?

That's the question, this limit exists for everyone.

[Niiro]

I'm not sure what your point is - we aren't having trouble coming up with reasons why you would refuse the request for a search.

Yes...and those reasons are largely invalidated by the urgency of the situation.

[hey]

Aside from the fact that you may not know that for sure, they can't take you on your word, that's why they want to do the search. A dragnet search is already a method of last resort and it's useless if it can't be done thoroughly. Given the extraordinary circumstances there are a scant few reasons why someone would decline them access (especially from their point of view).

-The person is hiding the suspect/is an accomplice.

-The person is turning them away under duress.

-The person has something serious enough to hide that the police, while in the middle of a search for goddamn Niko Bellic himself, would take the time to stop and arrest them for it.
(ie. they're not going to care about the bong on your coffee table but the huge meth lab in your garage is going to no pun warrant their attention)

-The person is adamant enough about their right to privacy that they're willing to inhibit an ongoing search for a very dangerous person in order to preserve it on principle alone.

lol.

I'm not even sure what the point being made at this point is.

A single cop cannot just decide to search someone's house. They need a warrant, which requires at least one other person, if not two or three (a judge, lawyer, and police captain/whatever), to agree that the search is warranted, which typically only happens if there are actual reasons for it, and not just the one cop being an asshole who just likes trampling over other people's rights. No, judges aren't perfect. Yes, they make mistakes. Yes, they can abuse their authority, but it's still important to have something in place to prevent abuse.

[Ksandra]

How unreasonable does their warrantless search parameters have to be before you're like "man, fuck these cops coming in here"?

That's the question, this limit exists for everyone.

I think that a guy who blows up 200 people shouldn't be a limit to anyone.

[Niiro]

A single cop cannot just decide to search someone's house. They need a warrant, which requires at least one other person, if not two or three (a judge, lawyer, and police captain/whatever), to agree that the search is warranted, which typically only happens if there are actual reasons for it, and not just the one cop being an asshole who just likes trampling over other people's rights. No, judges aren't perfect. Yes, they make mistakes. Yes, they can abuse their authority, but it's still important to have something in place to prevent abuse.

Lovely, so we're in agreement that laws are arbitrary and only as valid as the institutions that enforce them are diligent.

Also known as: how human civilization has functioned since always.

[archibaldcrane]

I think that a guy who blows up 200 people shouldn't be a limit to anyone.

Lol