Enforcement Actions in Boston

[quannum]

freedom vs security. round #43

[Nephlite]

For those who are asking about how far the search extends in pursuit of a suspect, you should look at the relatively new Domer case. That manhunt spanned hundreds of square miles which hundreds if not thousands of homes were searched during that time frame looking for that guy and he was (in terms of firepower) was a bit less dangerous than these two. It all depends on how much ground you believe the suspect can cover and by what means does he have to cover that distance. A suspect on foot who's hauling can cover a fairly large distance in a short amount of time. Ever seen a crackhead run?

To break it down a bit more, I'll use myself as an example. I average about a mile every 6-7 minutes and I'm fairly old and fat and I smoke. Imagine if I took off running through an area where I might be somewhat familiar like a heavily populated urban area and I'm running away from the dragnet. Think about your own house for a second. How many places on the outside can you hide an average sized person? Now do a systematic search of the exterior of your house and time how long it takes for you to do it. Should take no more than 2 minutes. Now leave a window open or a door unlocked which could potentially have a person run inside. It takes (on average) 3 minutes to clear a single story house not including any crawl spaces or garages. 7 minutes tops for a full breakdown plus a thermal scan.

So lets say the police were doing quick sweeps and it takes on average about 5 minutes to clear an average sized property (house plus yard, maybe 1/4 of an acre or so). Now times that by 30 houses in a cluster with random cars, boats, RV's, sheds, tree houses, dog houses, anywhere you think you can hide a person. For every house you hit that the suspect isn't there, that tacks on about 8/10ths of a mile on to your perimeter. That's police logic right there. Unless your coming in with a full broad evolving perimeter that starts on the outskirts of your perimeter and works its way in. The perimeter starts about 3 miles from last contact and full sweeps spiraling inwards (like a massive circle). How many 30 house clusters do you think you can fit in a 3 mile radius? 5? 10? So about 300 homes inside that perimeter on average 5 minutes per house you're taking about 1500 minutes or around 25 hours to completely sweep that area for the suspect.

But what if you're wrong? What if he slips the perimeter? Well you gotta expand. Add more time on to that and more resources. If it were a perfect world, this wouldn't happen but in order to do something like that (make a perfect perimeter where no one could escape) and you'd probably need around 100,000 cops to keep it tight enough so that no one could get through.

And while granted I'm an advocate for peoples rights, I don't see how this case is such a huge deal and "infriges" on peoples rights. Like I mentioned before, people are trying to feed off the publicity that a terror suspect was captured to make a name for themselves by nitpicking the little things. Not one person who was in that city at that time is complaining that the police came in to their house looking for the guy. So all those complaining are third and fourth party people who have no real case or no real evidence that anyone's rights were violated (mostly since the people involved sure aren't complaining). How can you blame the police for doing everything they can and being completely thorough in their search for a very dangerous person? What if they never caught the guy and he killed more people? Then people would be blaming the police for not doing their jobs completely and we'd have a whole new issue to discuss.

Exigent Circumstances and Fresh Pursuit circumvent the law for a reason. The test of time has proven people (in general) can't be trusted because people keep getting hurt or killed in these incidents. And guess who gets killed a lot? The police! Why do you think everyone who was part of any mass shooting that was seen coming out of the hot zone was handcuffed and frisked? Because the past has shown suspects try to blend in with the crowds and slip away or blend in to kill more people. The police don't want to infringe upon your rights or violate you. They wanna catch the badguys. Just be happy the guy was caught and stop making it a bigger deal than it is.

[jmc]

Ya, you can't have it held against you, but afaik they could take it and you wouldn't get it back.

I highly doubt in this situation, however, the police gave two shits if they saw some mj in the homes when they were looking for the killer.

I really hope people are not raving about violated rights because of some MJ, considering possession in MA is a civil and not a criminal offense.

Also I have not heard a single person say no to any searches, and even if they did all it would accomplish is adding 2 mins to the overall search that the police would make anyways. You say no, and there would be a search warrant executed 2 minutes later.

[Ksandra]

I really hope people are not raving about violated rights because of some MJ,

Nope, just having to put the sheets back on the bed.

It's an awful thing to think about, really.

[jmc]

Nope, just having to put the sheets back on the bed.

Just reminds me of that 911 skit from family guy.....

[BerenTebogo]

I really hope people are not raving about violated rights because of some MJ, considering possession in MA is a civil and not a criminal offense.

Also I have not heard a single person say no to any searches, and even if they did all it would accomplish is adding 2 mins to the overall search that the police would make anyways. You say no, and there would be a search warrant executed 2 minutes later.

If being in possession of Michelle Jenneke gets me arrested then so be it.

If a cop busts down my door when she's laying all over my table I'd hope they were more worried about terrorists than about her jumping up and down before running off somewhere.

[hey]

and even if they did all it would accomplish is adding 2 mins to the overall search that the police would make anyways. You say no, and there would be a search warrant executed 2 minutes later.

If that's what they actually did/would have done if needed, then there's no issue.

[Ksandra]

If that's what they actually did/would have done if needed, then there's no issue.

BUT WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE MISPLACED PLACE MATS?

[hey]

BUT WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE MISPLACED PLACE MATS?

lol

[jmc]

If that's what they actually did/would have done if needed, then there's no issue.

Not enough time to pull that off for every single house in the search zone.

[Plow]

If I'm not mistaken, if the cops were searching for the younger brother, and say stumbled onto someones drug stash, since the search was specifically for the brother...any findings cant be used legally, right?

Eventually it would almost certainly have to come down to whether or not you gave them permission.

Ex: If they're there on a search warrant, for, say, a 15 year old runaway, you don't give them permission, they come in and find a bag of weed. They can't do shit about the weed.

Ex opposite: They're conducting a search of the neighborhood for said kid, and you consent to allow them to search your house. Anything they find once you've given them permission to look is fair game.


To put it simply, they can't do shit about anything unless it's what they're specifically looking for in terms of a warrant or probable cause; they can do something about anything they find once you give them permission to search.

[hey]

Not enough time to pull that off for every single house in the search zone.

So don't? The vast majority obviously cooperated. The issue is when people don't, and you just push them out of the way and search anyway.

[archibaldcrane]

So don't? The vast majority obviously cooperated. The issue is when people don't, and you just push them out of the way and search anyway.

The question is, did that happen or not?

[Nephlite]

The question is, did that happen or not?

Didn't happen. Just a bunch of people trying to make a bad situation even worse.

Eventually it would almost certainly have to come down to whether or not you gave them permission.

Ex: If they're there on a search warrant, for, say, a 15 year old runaway, you don't give them permission, they come in and find a bag of weed. They can't do shit about the weed.

Ex opposite: They're conducting a search of the neighborhood for said kid, and you consent to allow them to search your house. Anything they find once you've given them permission to look is fair game.


To put it simply, they can't do shit about anything unless it's what they're specifically looking for in terms of a warrant or probable cause; they can do something about anything they find once you give them permission to search.

You're forgetting about Inevitable Discovery. You conveniently leave a brick sitting on your table when a search warrant is executed. If it's in plain view, it can be seized and you can be charged with it since 1. it is illegal to possess it, and 2. it would have been discovered anyway without turning out anything (opening doors, looking under stuff) and could have been seen by the casual browser. This is how cops are able to prosecute people for guns though their warrant might specifically call for a search for drugs, the guns would be inevitably discovered by the search and can be considered as proceeds of crime (or more specifically, used in criminal action for the commission of selling drugs i.e. drug paraphernalia).

In the end I'm sure during those house sweeps, the cops probably saw a few things but I haven't heard/seen any charges not connected with the bombings. Discretion is key here. Even if i busted in a house and saw some plants being grown that look like marijuana, I'd probably let it go. Take a picture maybe and keep it moving. Terror suspect on the loose in my city or drug guy (especially something so low as marijuana). Would be an easy choice for me.

[hey]

Didn't happen. Just a bunch of people trying to make a bad situation even worse.

The question then becomes would it have happened if anyone said no?

[chazzyphizzle]

yes, and then it is called rape

[BaneTheBrawler]

Homes can't be legitimately raped!

[jmc]

What it comes down to is would the officers searching your house even have jurisdiction and would be able to charge you for what they found.

There were 6 groups of swat teams doing searches in Watertown.

Boston PD Swat (no jurisdiction for anything minus the fugitive)

Transit PD Swat (no jurisdiction for anything minus the fugitive)

NEMLAC Swat (no jurisdiction minus the fugitive)

Cape & islands Swat (no jurisdiction minus the fugitive)

State police swat (Had jurisdiction in the town, more worried about getting hit by a IED than they are finding drugs)

FBI HRT (had jurisdiction, but really don't care about anything minus the fugitive)

[dejet]

What it comes down to is would the officers searching your house even have jurisdiction and would be able to charge you for what they found.

There were 6 groups of swat teams doing searches in Watertown.

Boston PD Swat (no jurisdiction for anything minus the fugitive)

Transit PD Swat (no jurisdiction for anything minus the fugitive)

NEMLAC Swat (no jurisdiction minus the fugitive)

Cape & islands Swat (no jurisdiction minus the fugitive)

State police swat (Had jurisdiction in the town, more worried about getting hit by a IED than they are finding drugs)

FBI HRT (had jurisdiction, but really don't care about anything minus the fugitive)

this is one of the questions. The bigger one is if someone said no(if it happened or not does not matter) what would the cops have done?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is little reason that every house could have been seen as an accomplice. Or that probable cause that he was in a given house. Forget that its Boston.

If someone breaks the law and is wanted, do the cops have the power to just search as they please if they "think" he might be in a given area. How many people rape more then 10 people in their lives? do you close a city down for that if you think he might still be in a city and search every home?

I go back to the person who murdered and rapped at least 10 people(that we know of) on Long Island. should the cops at the time have shut down the area and went house to house? This is the question that I think more people want an answer to.

[Eurell]

He had fucking bombs lol. And they had very good reason to think he was in the area. This wasn't some open case they were trying to crack. This is someone that just blew up 200 people and ran over his brother in a stolen car to get away while throwing fucking bombs at people.