Islamist Terrorism in the West

[EgejskaMakedonia]

But I don't find the police actions legal in some cases, unwelcome by home dwellers, yet still searching their homes. Why? Because there's a criminal on the loose? So what -- now it's up to the government to decide when the Constitution does and doesn't apply and they can shut down a city and do warrant-less searches based on the fact that their is a criminal on the lose? What are the consequences -- to what kind of criminal action will they extend this to next? The legal and social consequences are enormous.

I'd like to briefly put this scenario in a Victorian law context, since I'm more familiar with this particular jurisdiction. Perhaps Vic, Gocka or any other American resident here could highlight any similarities/difference that may exist between Victorian Criminal Law and that of the US, or respective state jurisdiction. But for the most part, I think they are comparable.

Firstly, I think that your statement regarding the police actions as being beyond the law is somewhat pushing it. It is definitely a grey area, but much of this is left to the discretion of the courts whether or not the actions of the police were legal or illegal. There are instances whereby arrest without warrant is perfectly legal, and I'm sure your aware that most arrests exercise this provision. In regards to police being 'unwelcome by home dwellers,' that is beside the point if the police have authority to enter and search a premises for the offender. In this case the police need to believe on 'reasonable grounds' that a serious indictable offence has been committed. In this case there is absolutely no doubt that the offence is classified as such. In addition to this, the police must also believe, once again on reasonable grounds, that the offender may be at the place they are seeking to search and enter. The location of the perpetrator was confined to a specific town, so wouldn't that provide some grounds to assume that he may be hiding in a residential property? One would think that the nature of the crime and urgency to detain the offender would give the police some degree of leeway to search houses in a particular vicinity, especially since the town in question is relatively small. Like I said earlier, it is a rather grey area, but to say outright that the police were acting beyond their power is an overstatement. If the authorities had to rely on a court issued warrant for every arrest, there would be criminals on the loose everywhere, and the quality of society would severely deteriorate. It's a matter of finding a balance between the rights of citizens and police authority.

Your example above that depicts a hypothetical conversation between an officer and resident isn't a valid argument in itself. Who's to say the resident is telling the truth? They may be hiding the criminal in question, but could easily spin the same kind of story that you devised. As for the Miranda rights not being read out, I'm more inclined to agree with you here. However, the right to communicate with and have a lawyer present is something that should not delay the questioning or investigation process in this instance. It should be obvious to everywhere here that the likelihood of further attacks deemed the questioning or investigation as 'so urgent, having regard to the safety of other people, that it should not be delayed.' It is unreasonable to allow the offender to waste time when the lives of the public are potentially at stake. It's a matter of national security.

As for the large police presence, it will always be like that after what happened with 9/11. In Australia the department of public prosecutions prioritise different crimes. It is entirely up to them whether or not they file charges or not. It is impossible to expect all crimes to be met with a similar police resource allocation, as you have alluded to. The fact is, terrorism is high on the agenda, which is why the US Government allocated all resources of the FBI, etc, to try and resolve this crime as soon as possible. If they only sent a few officers to go and capture the terrorist, what kind of message is that conveying to the public and the rest of the world? Well first of all, the public would lose confidence in the system and would generally feel that their safety is under threat. Secondly, it would demonstrate to terrorist organisations and other lone-wolfs that the US is vulnerable and susceptible to terrorist attacks. No doubt they will perceive this as a weakness, and this once again undermines the safety of the public.

I'm all for supporting and protecting rights, but I don't believe there has been any clear breach of such in this latest incident.

[Vangelovski]

EM,

The two qualifications (for searching a residence without a warrant) that you provided are in relation to specified properties, not any and every property in the vicinity of the suspected whereabouts of an offender. Further, these qualifications are relevant under Australian, specifically Victorian, law and not American constitutional law. Even so, I think that the police search without a warrant still fails in this particular instance.

I agree that there was reasonable grounds to believe that a serious indictable offence had occured. However, there were no reasonsable grounds for the police to believe that the offender was in any of the specific houses searched. Police need to reasonably believe that an offender is in a specific residence in order to enter that residence without a warrant. This qualification does not allow for what you suggest - that police can enter any and all residences in a particular vicinity because they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offender may be in that vicinity.

The fact that they ordered a general search in the vicinity shows that they had no idea where the offender was and therefore could not have had reasonable grounds to believe that the offender was in any of the specific residences that were searched.

The reasonable belief must be in relation to a specific property, not the general vicinity. The right to have your private property respected is individual, not communal and so are the requirements that overide that right.

But this is beside the point. The inicdent happened in the US, not in Australia and not in Victoria. The fourth Amendment reads (I realise it has already been posted):

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.

The Fourth Amendment states that people and their property shall shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches without a warrant. The right is an individual right and protects individuals and their property from unlawful searches. The police did not have a reasonable belief that the offender was in any of the specific residences that were searched. As noted above, they simply undertook a blanket search in the hope that they would find the offender. This is unconstitutional, pure and simple.

Further, the Fourth Amendment states that a warrant can only be issued if the following requirements are met:

1) There is probable cause;
2) There is evidence to support probable cause;
3) It needs to specifically state which property is to be searched; and
4) It needs to speifically state who or what is to be seized.

This is relevant because it shows us what the measure of 'reasonable grounds' to search without a warrant is - i.e., the same grounds as if a warrant was issued. This lends further support to whether their actions were reasonable or not.

While we could assume probable cause (a terrorist on the run), there was no evidence to support that the terrorist was hiding in the residences of any of the individuals whose rights were violated in this particular instance. This again suggests that there was no reasonable grounds for the police to search the property of those individuals without a warrant and under the fourth amendment, its unlikely that a warrant would have been issued - and for good reason.

Like I said earlier, whether this action prevented further violence is another question, which is, in my mind, less clear.

[Gocka]

I haven't got the time right now to dedicate to this thread some of my stronger views but I'll get back to you and that bullshit artist and amateur manipulator, Gocka later today.
In the meantime I suggest you exit your Rachmaninov isolation chamber and suck up some of the real air outside .

I'm assuming that you forgot an "and" when you said manipulator and bullshit artist and therfore were referring to victor and not me?

[Gocka]

And Goce, your reference to Phoenix and my self jumping on Vangelovski's bandwagon for the sake of it (or something along those lines) is silly. As TM said there has been many times where we differed and not just with Vangelovski, but all the admins. It's all fine, we can't always agree. So it's a shame during our conversation on this topic, you resort to tactics like this in order to discredit what we say. Another attempt was I jumped in to the discussion simply because Vic is involved, like I have an agenda against him. This is not true, I don't have any issues with Vic, I have never had a discussion with him, if I have....then it couldn't have been bad for me to hold any grudge and store it.

I even defended you a couple of days ago, i respect almost everyone n here, so no hard feeling mate and keep punching above the belt.

Look back a few posts I apologized. If you didn't see it, I apologize again, it was below the belt. No hard feelings then?

[Bill77]

Look back a few posts I apologized. If you didn't see it, I apologize again, it was below the belt. No hard feelings then?

I noticed your apology its what brought me to your comments so i could see what you were apologising for. But I still needed to comment on the issue inorder to clear the air. All forgotten now.

[vicsinad]

Bill:

I didn't know the officer in Watertown would be able to speak Macedonian. As far as if I were harboring the terrorist, or any criminal for that matter, it still doesn't give the police any right to come into my house...without a warrant, without exigent circumstances, or if I let them in voluntarily.

Imagine if there is probable cause that a dangerous fugitive criminal (non-terrorist) is on the loose in my town. This Boston Scenario where you think anyone in the town could be hiding the terrorist now sets precedence for cops to enter any house in any town where a dangerous criminal, who they know will probably hurt or kill again, is suspected of being.


EM:

Vangelovski pretty much answered the issue. Though it does go beyond looking at the Constitutional Amendment itself and examining the case law. As I've said before, I believe this Boston example fails the exigent circumstances hurdle. And for me, EM, it's more about setting precedence and boundary pushing.

It is the same thing as why they aren't reading the suspect his Miranda Rights -- they're claiming the Public Safety exception. However, that exception arose from a case where a suspect was just handcuffed at a busy supermarket and the police wanted to know where he threw his gun before a child could grab it. Then the officers read him his rights. Here, after his arrest, you have the mayor and the police chief stating that it's safe for Bostonians to go about their daily lives -- yet, the federal officers say the Public Safety Exception still applies....because they want information out of him, not because of any imminent potential harm. Imagine if this now becomes the standard (as in, it actually flies in a court if it gets challenged)? Anyone suspected (not proven) of being a dangerous criminal could not be read his rights...no longer based on any imminent or immediate threat to public safety, but because of a potential threat of safety (as in, this terrorist might have information of other terrorists, this gang member has information of other gang-member's next moves, etc.).

How far should they push the line?


As far as the resources they used, I'm sure the cops could have had kept their 9,000 police officers on public property, streets and sidewalks...and into people's homes who let them search their property.


Phoenix:

Why are you making the assumption that I'm not using my laptop outside?

[Phoenix]

A walk through this thread is an interesting journey of evolution.
From the first steps into the unknown, to finally reaching the destination, albeit with the aid of a good dose of hindsight.

The initial posts were largely speculative as news filtered out from the chaos and confusion in Boston.
The first confusing story insinuated a “third bomb” somewhere in the vicinity of the JFK Presidential Library. Later this turned out to be an isolated incident unrelated to the bombings.

In the meantime the finger was pointed at “terrorists”, tyrannical nutcases, the Israeli secret services and an inside job to implicate the new whipping boys, Iran and Syria.

Gocka (post#10) was even hedging bets, swinging from an “invasion is imminent” if it’s pinned on Syria or Iran, to most likely an American as perpetrator.

I doubt it will get pinned on Syria or Iran, if it does then I think invasion is imminent but again I don't think it was an "inside" job as you say. Its going to be an American most likely.

By Post #13, we’re receiving reports that “Ricin was sent via mail to an American Senator” and all of a sudden we’ve returned to the dark days immediately after 9/11.

By Post #15 we have a news article, not verified by the FBI but pointing the finger at Middle-Eastern and/or dishevelled looking men with backpacks as the chief suspects.

http://www.infowars.com/boston-bombing-culprits-found/

Post #18 brings news of a massive explosion in Texas of a fertiliser plant, claiming many lives and destroying surrounding homes.
News of the fertiliser plant explosion ‘sparks’ an interest in our pianist friend Vic who in Post #26, alludes to some “terrorism” connection by associating the Texas accident to something allegedly terrorist related in France, some 12 years earlier.

Posts #32 & #33 reported the early news that the suspects have been identified and are being pursued by the authorities. Confusion continues to reign, another policeman shot dead, another injured, one suspect apprehended, then confirmed dead after a shoot out with police. Stories abound of gunfights and various explosive being detonated. Finally the identification of the brothers and alleged links to Chechnya.

Post #37 brings this little gem from Gocka

This is a constantly developing story and new details emerge every 10 minutes.

So far the one brother is dead (the older one) the younger one is at large.

Everyone they interview about the younger brother who is on the run says that he was quiet, a good kid, never showed anger, never talked about politics. So in short anyone who knew him is shocked.

They found an apartment with explosives, that's still unfolding.

I'm sure they will catch him very soon, if he hasn't committed suicide yet.

Something tells me they did not plan this alone. They were heavily equipped and their actions were well planned. I wouldn't be surprised if they are part of some cell that's within the USA. They didn't just wake up one day and decide to start making bombs.

I think they had help and we may soon find out that others were implicated.

Slowly a picture begins to emerge of the 2 suspects, albeit a very confusing one. Allegations of previous FBI investigations into the activities of the older brother, concerns from Russian intelligence services about the older brother, confusing and contradictory stories from family and friends about the brothers and allegations that they were “set-up”.

This is a mere microcosm of the jig saw puzzle that the investigators have to sort out and piece together, to be one step closer to apprehending the suspects and keeping citizens safe.

Louis Joseph Freeh , former FBI Director put it this way –

“Collecting intelligence information is like trying to drink water out of a fire hydrant. You know, in hindsight It's great. The problem is there's a million dots at the time”.

In hindsight, it’s easy to question whether people’s constitutional rights were violated, to dissect the philosophies and concepts of liberty and apply them to the confusion and danger above, to climb up on your soap box clutching the 4th, 5th or whatever number Amendment was ‘soiled’ in Watertown that night but let me remind you that nobody had any concerns for their liberty when IED’s were being exploded in public places and some very long bows were being drawn to wider conspiracy theories, involving terrorism.

[Rogi]

The Amendments are there to protect the people, including the protection of their rights and their liberties. More so than any one single police action.

Your argument is very much one of not seeing the forest for the trees.

[vicsinad]

Post #18 brings news of a massive explosion in Texas of a fertiliser plant, claiming many lives and destroying surrounding homes.
News of the fertiliser plant explosion ‘sparks’ an interest in our pianist friend Vic who in Post #26, alludes to some “terrorism” connection by associating the Texas accident to something allegedly terrorist related in France, some 12 years earlier.

Though the cause of that explosion is undetermined, it probably isn't criminal in nature. Still, I believed it warranted mentioning, as in it's hard to ignore patterns when it comes to terrorism, and to discuss whether Boston was potentially an isolated incident or part of some greater attack.

I like the pianist term...that was a nice touch.


But back to your point:

In hindsight, it’s easy to question whether people’s constitutional rights were violated, to dissect the philosophies and concepts of liberty and apply them to the confusion and danger above, to climb up on your soap box clutching the 4th, 5th or whatever number Amendment was ‘soiled’ in Watertown that night but let me remind you that nobody had any concerns for their liberty when IED’s were being exploded in public places and some very long bows were being drawn to wider conspiracy theories, involving terrorism.

Actually, this "questioning" didn't happen in hindsight. I may have posted it on this forum in hindsight, but the questioning began as soon as the process began.

Many Americans said the same thing about the Japanese-Americans during World War II: "We were at war with Japan, you don't understand the potential danger that could have arose from letting Americans of Japanese descent roam free through our streets...you may now claim in hindsight that their Constitutional liberties were violated, but you don't understand what it's like to keep America safe from the dangers we faced in WW2, especially from the Japanese."

Is this case as extreme as that? No, it's not. But our Bill of Rights (which I may add,the United States of America would probably never have came to be if some good-ole anti-federalists didn't fight for them to be tagged on to the Constitution) was attached to the Constitution in order to protect citizens ESPECIALLY at the times of extreme danger, threat and confusion. That's why it's there. As bad as things can and will get, there are some fundamental aspects of being a human being and an American citizen that we, the government, will not take away from you.

And something about hindsight -- so what if people are analyzing the things after-the-fact? That's the same thing the war-criminals argue all the time: you don't know what it was like during the war, the dangers we faced, the decisions we made. Yeah, whatever, excuses. We're going to analyze the situation after-the-fact to determine whether you did something you weren't supposed to do. Because that's how citizens can help keep a check on their leaders and their government.

[Phoenix]

The Amendments are there to protect the people, including the protection of their rights and their liberties. More so than any one single police action.

Your argument is very much one of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rogi, the point I'm trying to make is not against the Amendments or anything that would diminish a mans liberty or any other hard won rights.

The question I ask is given the extraordinary circumstances of this case against the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings and viewing that through the prism of past terrorist acts in the USA and the fast and dynamic and confusing nature of the crimes unfolding...how best do American law enforcement agencies protect their citizens?

[Gocka]

Rogi, the point I'm trying to make is not against the Amendments or anything that would diminish a mans liberty or any other hard won rights.

The question I ask is given the extraordinary circumstances of this case against the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings and viewing that through the prism of past terrorist acts in the USA and the fast and dynamic and confusing nature of the crimes unfolding...how best do American law enforcement agencies protect their citizens?

I agree with most of what you said above. The circumstances were murky and there was a ton of speculation and there still is. Hindsight is always 20/20 but the fact that the constitution was violated still remains a fact.

I am not blaming law enforcement. As I said above "I don't think they meant any malice". I think their intentions were genuine for the most part. What you have to remember is that our system of law is based on case law, precedence. Once a precedence can be given in our legal system it can be used to justify future actions which may be the same or similar to the original, which may not have such genuine intentions, do you follow?

In the future someone can now use the Boston bombings precedence to basically make the constitution irrelevant and make the rules up on the fly. Because the clear and present danger was vague, because the probable cause was vague, because the whole situation was rather vague, in the future someone can for vague reasons call for unlawful searches, marshal law, and all sorts of things that all stem from this one precedence.

It's how our judicial system works, and I presume even your Victorian system since they both have the same roots.

Just because their actions today were not ill intentioned, that doesn't mean someone in the future someone with ill intentions won't use this as an example. It's a fine line and our laws saw that they crossed it. It wouldn't be the first time that something naive caused lots of harm later on, or that someone manipulated and took something out of context to justify something completely different. It happens all the time, and this is no different.

[Phoenix]

I agree with most of what you said above. The circumstances were murky and there was a ton of speculation and there still is. Hindsight is always 20/20 but the fact that the constitution was violated still remains a fact.

I am not blaming law enforcement. As I said above "I don't think they meant any malice". I think their intentions were genuine for the most part. What you have to remember is that our system of law is based on case law, precedence. Once a precedence can be given in our legal system it can be used to justify future actions which may be the same or similar to the original, which may not have such genuine intentions, do you follow?

In the future someone can now use the Boston bombings precedence to basically make the constitution irrelevant and make the rules up on the fly. Because the clear and present danger was vague, because the probable cause was vague, because the whole situation was rather vague, in the future someone can for vague reasons call for unlawful searches, marshal law, and all sorts of things that all stem from this one precedence.

It's how our judicial system works, and I presume even your Victorian system since they both have the same roots.

Just because their actions today were not ill intentioned, that doesn't mean someone in the future someone with ill intentions won't use this as an example. It's a fine line and our laws saw that they crossed it. It wouldn't be the first time that something naive caused lots of harm later on, or that someone manipulated and took something out of context to justify something completely different. It happens all the time, and this is no different.

Gocka, believe me I "follow" what you're saying, I don't necessarily hold your same fears in terms of any precedence that this could create.

Tell me, how do we allay your fears considering the asymmetric threats posed by terrorism and the counter strategy of law enforcement to respond with speed and overwhelming power.

[Gocka]

Gocka, believe me I "follow" what you're saying, I don't necessarily hold your same fears in terms of any precedence that this could create.

Tell me, how do we allay your fears considering the asymmetric threats posed by terrorism and the counter strategy of law enforcement to respond with speed and overwhelming power.

This is the debate that needs to happen.

As it stands our laws make it clear, maybe our laws need to be redesigned to take this new age threat into account, maybe laws need to be in place to say explicitly when and to what extent certain actions can be taken in regards to a terrorist threat. As of now though those mechanisms are not in place.

All I am saying is that you cannot overstep boundaries that are in place without having an honest and open debate before hand. An honest and open debate needs to happen over the many concerns that have been voiced.

If you look at the progression of events since 9/11 you will see we are headed on a dangerous path. Little by little we have been chipping away at things that used to be sacred, and our safety as proved by the Boston bombings has not fundamentally improved. Despite the patriot act it's still not very difficult to commit violent acts if you really want to.

The main genuine fear I have is that the "terrorist" label will be abused in the future. Given the many recent cases of not giving due process to an accused because they are a "terrorist". It's a vague word that can really be aimed at anyone in a given context. Then we learned that a "terrorist" even if they are US citizen can be taken out without a warrant or due process. Now we learned that a "terrorist" can be searched for with blanket searches and other people's rights can be violated to search for said "terrorist". It's a pretty deep subject that can't be described only using Boston as an example, which is only but a piece of the puzzle.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

EM,

The two qualifications (for searching a residence without a warrant) that you provided are in relation to specified properties, not any and every property in the vicinity of the suspected whereabouts of an offender. Further, these qualifications are relevant under Australian, specifically Victorian, law and not American constitutional law. Even so, I think that the police search without a warrant still fails in this particular instance.

I agree that there was reasonable grounds to believe that a serious indictable offence had occured. However, there were no reasonsable grounds for the police to believe that the offender was in any of the specific houses searched. Police need to reasonably believe that an offender is in a specific residence in order to enter that residence without a warrant. This qualification does not allow for what you suggest - that police can enter any and all residences in a particular vicinity because they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offender may be in that vicinity.

The fact that they ordered a general search in the vicinity shows that they had no idea where the offender was and therefore could not have had reasonable grounds to believe that the offender was in any of the specific residences that were searched.

The reasonable belief must be in relation to a specific property, not the general vicinity. The right to have your private property respected is individual, not communal and so are the requirements that overide that right.

But this is beside the point. The inicdent happened in the US, not in Australia and not in Victoria. The fourth Amendment reads (I realise it has already been posted):

The Fourth Amendment states that people and their property shall shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches without a warrant. The right is an individual right and protects individuals and their property from unlawful searches. The police did not have a reasonable belief that the offender was in any of the specific residences that were searched. As noted above, they simply undertook a blanket search in the hope that they would find the offender. This is unconstitutional, pure and simple.

Further, the Fourth Amendment states that a warrant can only be issued if the following requirements are met:

1) There is probable cause;
2) There is evidence to support probable cause;
3) It needs to specifically state which property is to be searched; and
4) It needs to specifically state who or what is to be seized.

This is relevant because it shows us what the measure of 'reasonable grounds' to search without a warrant is - i.e., the same grounds as if a warrant was issued. This lends further support to whether their actions were reasonable or not.

While we could assume probable cause (a terrorist on the run), there was no evidence to support that the terrorist was hiding in the residences of any of the individuals whose rights were violated in this particular instance. This again suggests that there was no reasonable grounds for the police to search the property of those individuals without a warrant and under the fourth amendment, its unlikely that a warrant would have been issued - and for good reason.

Like I said earlier, whether this action prevented further violence is another question, which is, in my mind, less clear.

Tom,
The qualifications for searching a private property without a warrant are indeed in relation to a specific property, but it's of the court's discretion to determine whether these provisions have been followed. If the officers can convince the court that these requirements were met, then there is no issue. Although the whereabouts of the suspect was confined to a small town, that could still possibly be justification for searching specific houses based on the scale of the crime committed and need to detain the suspect as soon as possible. It may seem like an extremely vague excuse to search a private property, but we can't just assume that such actions were illegal. None of us know, it is for the court to decide that.

I already mentioned that it was for Victorian law, but a lot of the principles between Australian law and US law are similar and comparable. We both use the common law system. Since I'm more knowledgeable in my local jurisdiction, I gave my own perspective using that as a basis. If this crime were to occur in Victoria we'd be asking the same kind of questions. Australia generally protects the privacy of individuals on their own property a fair bit, perhaps even to ridiculous margins in some specific scenarios. This kind of argument could fail and I may very well be wrong, but as I mentioned above it's a matter for the court to determine the legality of such actions.

Even in the fourth amendment, the key word (as you pointed out) is unreasonable. What is 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' is rather subjective. When the lives of people are at stake, I don't think it's unreasonable at all. The requirements for a warrant to be issued seem like they would fail, solely based on 3. While this may support your argument in relation having a reasonable belief that the suspect is at a specific address, this approach seems rather counter-productive. If they can't search with or without a warrant, how are they meant to find the terrorist in a timely manner?

Technicalities aside, I don't know why people would refuse to have their house searched anyway, as a few others here alluded to earlier. It should be in their own interests that the terrorist is caught and brought to trial as soon as possible. It's like those smartasses you see on youtube filming police officers and talking about rights while being asked basic questions, that are generally non-incriminating at all. Unless you've got something to hide, I don't know why people would be a pain just for the sake of it. God forbid they find themselves in a situation where they require the presence of an officer, I bet they'll be glad they're there to help then.

At the end of the day we can speculate all we like, but it's up to the court to decide on the legality of these kind of actions. The authorities acted swiftly and decisively to prevent any furthrer threat and if people are going to have a whinge about property rights when others were robbed of their right to life, then I think they need a reality check.

Bill:

I didn't know the officer in Watertown would be able to speak Macedonian. As far as if I were harboring the terrorist, or any criminal for that matter, it still doesn't give the police any right to come into my house...without a warrant, without exigent circumstances, or if I let them in voluntarily.

Imagine if there is probable cause that a dangerous fugitive criminal (non-terrorist) is on the loose in my town. This Boston Scenario where you think anyone in the town could be hiding the terrorist now sets precedence for cops to enter any house in any town where a dangerous criminal, who they know will probably hurt or kill again, is suspected of being.


EM:

Vangelovski pretty much answered the issue. Though it does go beyond looking at the Constitutional Amendment itself and examining the case law. As I've said before, I believe this Boston example fails the exigent circumstances hurdle. And for me, EM, it's more about setting precedence and boundary pushing.

It is the same thing as why they aren't reading the suspect his Miranda Rights -- they're claiming the Public Safety exception. However, that exception arose from a case where a suspect was just handcuffed at a busy supermarket and the police wanted to know where he threw his gun before a child could grab it. Then the officers read him his rights. Here, after his arrest, you have the mayor and the police chief stating that it's safe for Bostonians to go about their daily lives -- yet, the federal officers say the Public Safety Exception still applies....because they want information out of him, not because of any imminent potential harm. Imagine if this now becomes the standard (as in, it actually flies in a court if it gets challenged)? Anyone suspected (not proven) of being a dangerous criminal could not be read his rights...no longer based on any imminent or immediate threat to public safety, but because of a potential threat of safety (as in, this terrorist might have information of other terrorists, this gang member has information of other gang-member's next moves, etc.).

How far should they push the line?


As far as the resources they used, I'm sure the cops could have had kept their 9,000 police officers on public property, streets and sidewalks...and into people's homes who let them search their property.

Is there any existing precedent for this type of case, or is the first of its' kind? If it is a first, then we'll just have to wait and see what precedent is set.

The strong presence of officers forms a part of the argument I outlined in my previous post. 9000 is probably a bit excessive, but it's also about maintaining that strong, resilient image. If a 9/11 type of attack were to occur again I'm sure you'd be asking where all these officers/fire-fighters/paramedics are.

[Phoenix]

EM, I admire your pragmatic approach to this issue.