Enforcement Actions in Boston

[jmc]

jmc, were you also knocking on doors and requesting searches then or no? It's pretty clear they started doing that at one point, right?

Those started during daylight hours, which I was not there for. So I don't know exactly how it went down, or exactly how they happened.

[shaggnix]

i guess opinions on this will vary, but if someone is a significant threat to the public i don't see how you can justify an objection to having your house searched with or without your consent. all it would take is 1 otherwise uninvolved co-conspirator that rents an apartment and you have a safehouse. terror suspect on the loose? bust down doors (if the occupants attempt to deny access to law enforcement) and find him before he blows up more people, please. they had planned on setting off their remaining explosives in times square. personal privacy has to take a back seat to things like this.

[Churchill]

Not really.

[Tarage]

If that's the case, this may be much ado about nothing.

Just like your entire fucking argument.

[archibaldcrane]

Just like your entire fucking argument.

so much mad in here lol

[Eurell]

so much mad in here lol

Well fuck dude. First SE takes forever to give him Cait sith, then you make a bad argument. What kind of reaction were you expecting!?!?!?

[Churchill]

lol ffxi

[Helm]

I find these threads a lot more entertaining than I should.

[Niiro]

Unless it's behind a door or it's viewable from the sidewalk (or in most cases, from somewhere other than the property you're trying to view), it doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy so it can be looked at. There's no such thing as exterior private property in D.C. (anything not behind a door is considered public space) but there are some states where "private property" extends to the yard. Guess it depends on the jurisdiction. If anything, going in to the houses might be a no-no or require more evidence, etc. but searching around your house or yard? No way you can argue someone's rights were violated then. There's no privacy if it's in plain view.

Just to be more clear, you're saying that in DC if you have a fenced off front/backyard or the like that it's not considered to be private? ie. Police can poke around your yard for virtually any reason, fence or no.

The plain view argument makes sense considering, when talking about outdoor areas, the distinction is extremely arbitrary. What's not in view for the 5'7" cop may be for his 6'4" partner (or if a house is near the bottom of a hill, etc).

Quasi related anecdote:
Some asshole was burning leaves in their yard last summer and the guys from the FD said they couldn't do anything about it because the homeowner wouldn't let them check out their backyard (by the time they showed up he'd either finished or doused it but the smell was still around for hours).

Might have been because they were FD and not law enforcement tho, seems more than a bit unreasonable that the FD can't even look over your fence.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Just to be more clear, you're saying that in DC if you have a fenced off front/backyard or the like that it's not considered to be private? ie. Police can poke around your yard for virtually any reason, fence or no.

Believe it or not, fence or no fence is not the determining factor. There was actually a case where the SCOTUS said one fence was not meant to make the enclosed area private, but another fence within that fence was intended to make the area private, and thus it was curtilage.

[hey]

Believe it or not, fence or no fence is not the determining factor. There was actually a case where the SCOTUS said one fence was not meant to make the enclosed area private, but another fence within that fence was intended to make the area private, and thus it was curtilage.

What if you have 2 fences right next to each other with no considerable gap between them?

[Niiro]

Then that's not to say a fence isn't the determining factor, just how many fences.

It seems when a mundane "common sense" issue comes to the SC the arguments behind the decision tend to get even more obtuse than normal.

[NynJa]

A lot of cops are people who barely made it through high school with a bully complex.

And who taught you that? The movie A Clockwork Orange?

I mean really, you dont want to be "violated" while having sex (huhuhuhu)...theres a fucking psycho runnin in your neighborhood with a high powered rifle and bombs, and your only concern is "im gonna fuck my bitch raw"? LOOOOOL

[Niiro]

What if you have 2 fences right next to each other with no considerable gap between them?

I'd imagine the space between would have to be large enough to be considered a an area unto itself (ie. able for a person to pass through with relative ease) rather than a void where leaves pile up and badminton cones go to die.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What if you have 2 fences right next to each other with no considerable gap between them?

Depends if you can see over/through the second fence probably. But even then, if the 2nd fence made the enclosed area "curtilage" the police could then just fly over your house with a drone, but more likely a helicopter, b/c you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in your airspace.

And incorrect Niiro, you could have 100 fences b/w your house and the street, but if they don't prevent the police from seeing into the yard, I don't see how that could create curtilage. It's not something studied in detail in law school so I suppose I could be wrong.

It's also important to note though, that some things, like your front porch, are curtilage no matter the circumstances.

[Niiro]

I'm confused, the SC decision you referenced said the distinction was made by there being a fence within a fence, not about how high they were.

Obviously in practice the height of a fence is the most relevant aspect as far as whether someone can see into an area or not but in legal terms it sounded as if the the presence of more than 1 fence was meant to function as an indicator that a given area was considered to be private.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm confused, the SC decision you referenced said the distinction was made by there being a fence within a fence, not about how high they were.

Obviously in practice the height of a fence is the most relevant aspect as far as whether someone can see into an area or not but in legal terms it sounded as if the the presence of more than 1 fence was meant to function as an indicator that a given area was considered to be private.

Sorry, should have been more specific. It is hard to remember every case, I believe the language was along the lines of, "the first fence was not intended to create privacy, however the 2nd fence was." I'm guessing it had to do with height/ability to see through the fence. It wasn't the mere fact that there was a second fence, it was probably more that it obstructed the view.

[Niiro]

Ah, I assumed it was implying some kind of legal standard (being that the SC decided to hear it) rather than just referring to the nature of the fences in the particular case.

[Nephlite]

DC has all kinds of laws like that where it's such a gray area, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. A good rule of thumb for us is to treat any fenced in area like it's private property unless you have to chase someone or suspect someone dumped evidence. Usually though we just stay outta yards. I personally stay out of yards because it seems like 80% of the population in D.C. owns a dog and I hate tangling with them.

I do not know for certain they did the second bold either. However, if they didn't do the second bold, then "exigent circumstances" is irrelevant, right? No need to cite that nebulous legal quagmire at all if warrantless searches are not being executed, right?

You're right in the big picture if they didn't do those three things then the exigent circumstances doesn't matter. But, hypothetically, if they did sweep every house and did it all looking for the suspect, I don't think it's infringing on people's rights because of the exigent circumstances surrounding the incident.

Ultimately the police could pull people out and sweep all the structures etc. etc. but they instead exercised a bit of restraint and just did a normal sweep. We do them a lot in D.C. Foot chase leads in to a huge cluster of houses, you bring in the Calvary and do a thorough sweep of the area starting from Point A to Point B. We have a no chase policy unless it's for something like Armed Carjacking, Kidnapping, or Homicide though so those instances (while common) are quite rare if you compare it to our overall case load.

[Churchill]

And who taught you that? The movie A Clockwork Orange?

I mean really, you dont want to be "violated" while having sex (huhuhuhu)...theres a fucking psycho runnin in your neighborhood with a high powered rifle and bombs, and your only concern is "im gonna fuck my bitch raw"? LOOOOOL

Are you trying for Plowmaz status? You quoted someone and then responded to someone else.

Also, if there was a psycho running through nobles yard I'm fairly confident noble could kill that person and save people the trouble.