Two Explosions at Boston Marathon Finish Line

[PoorMansCamaro]

[CamaroSkooter]

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:


An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.


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.

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.

Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.

I've heard of cases where "exigent circumstances" was used to apprehend a criminal who was witnessed entering a specific building by police officers, and the officers pursued the criminal into said building without a warrant because they felt that not pursuing and waiting on a warrant would allow the criminal to get away.

That makes sense.

However, I've never heard of a case where "exigent circumstances" could be used by law enforcement to enter every structure in a given radius without a warrant and without any person witnessing that criminal enter any of those structures.

I fully agree that this guy was a lunatic and a danger to society. No one is arguing that. Of course he was an immediate danger to the public. What we're asking is, does that make it okay for officers to forcibly check every structure in a given radius without any reasonable suspicion that he has entered any of those structures? (i.e. a civilian or LEO witnessing the suspect enter a specific structure)

Let's look at a different scenario. A serial murderer is witnessed exiting a home on foot with multiple handguns and a rifle and law enforcement is notified. Is it then okay for law enforcement officers to enter every home in a 2 mile radius to look for the suspect, even if the witness is unable to specify which direction the suspect went or if he even entered any other home in that two-mile radius?

Let me be clear, for all we know, a neighbor of the home in the video might have seen someone enter the home and wasn't sure if they were a resident or not and they tipped authorities. Considering the number of people they yanked from that house, it's entirely possible one of them stepped outside to have a cigarette or something and a neighbor simply witnessed them walking back in afterwards. Who knows.

What I'm trying to establish is that law enforcement can't just enter every structure in a radius of a "last sighting" unless they have some kind of reasonable suspicion that the suspect entered a specific structure.

[90503]

...Maybe the circumstance of bombs being thrown by the suspect was enough reason...

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I've heard of cases where "exigent circumstances" was used to apprehend a criminal who was witnessed entering a specific building by police officers, and the officers pursued the criminal into said building without a warrant because they felt that not pursuing and waiting on a warrant would allow the criminal to get away.

That makes sense.

However, I've never heard of a case where "exigent circumstances" could be used by law enforcement to enter every structure in a given radius without a warrant and without any person witnessing that criminal enter any of those structures.

I fully agree that this guy was a lunatic and a danger to society. No one is arguing that. Of course he was an immediate danger to the public. What we're asking is, does that make it okay for officers to forcibly check every structure in a given radius without any reasonable suspicion that he has entered any of those structures? (i.e. a civilian or LEO witnessing the suspect enter a specific structure)

Let's look at a different scenario. A serial murderer is witnessed exiting a home on foot with multiple handguns and a rifle and law enforcement is notified. Is it then okay for law enforcement officers to enter every home in a 2 mile radius to look for the suspect, even if the witness is unable to specify which direction the suspect went or if he even entered any other home in that two-mile radius?

Let me be clear, for all we know, a neighbor of the home in the video might have seen someone enter the home and wasn't sure if they were a resident or not and they tipped authorities. Considering the number of people they yanked from that house, it's entirely possible one of them stepped outside to have a cigarette or something and a neighbor simply witnessed them walking back in afterwards. Who knows.

What I'm trying to establish is that law enforcement can't just enter every structure in a radius of a "last sighting" unless they have some kind of reasonable suspicion that the suspect entered a specific structure.

let me ask you something, have you ever heard of a case like this? Where law enforcement know an area of where a terrorist, serial killer, etc, may be hiding? When I say area, I mean a reasonably small area, not a whole state or country/region. if so, can you provide a link?

[PoorMansCamaro]

and honestly, from the video, it wasn't all that bad. the police knocked for a while, and it took 6 or 7 people that long to answer the door. I would think something was up. maybe it's just me.

edit: and I didn't see anyone pointing guns at the people leaving the house.

[bulllett]

First off, a big kudos for most of those within this thread. I'm involved in discussing this subject with other sites and I commend those on here for keeping "mature" parameters with the posts that they make. I've seen quite a bit of derogatory name calling with threads like these. And this one seems to be working quite well (I mean jewel23 notwithstanding .....I'm KIDDING, I"M KIDDING! See the emoticon? )

I just think this is an important subject for people to kick around in their heads.

Anyway;

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

What I'm trying to establish is that law enforcement can't just enter every structure in a radius of a "last sighting" unless they have some kind of reasonable suspicion that the suspect entered a specific structure.

Well, this was a town under Martial Law. I can't find actual "proof" that it was "declared" Martial Law, But by the actions of police it is defacto Martial law. Therefore no need for warrants.

No, I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists that says this was a dry run to see how people would react to martial law. No I'm not saying the government has an active plan to take away our rights (I'm trying to get to my point without being too political. Hopefully I'm being generic enough).

As I have said in the past, precedence has been set. Whether it is legal or not, is almost a moot point (I mean for this conversation. Obviously, if someone in Watertown wanted to try to take this to court, it would be a matter to contend with. Unfortunately, those involved won't/can't/don't feel its important enough to fight. I honestly don't know if I would do that myself). The genie is out of the bottle on this. Another freedom is being chiseled away.

And I'm afraid that some of our citizens' indifference to this event, is just greasing that slope more.

[FenwickHockey65]

Oh lord this thread gets more and more entertaining by the second.

[PoorMansCamaro]

here's the thing, you guys are talking about our rights being taken away, because of some random search. that's not what happened in this case. the town was shut down. no cell phone usage, no public transportation. It wasn't some willie nillie search for a (lack of a better phrase) every day criminal. It was a suspect to a possible terrorist, that could possibly be involved with more terrorist acts soon to come, or to a larger group of people.

[bulllett]

Originally Posted by Jordan23

So under Marshal Law we had a man "car jacked". We had a shoot out. We had the living suspect drive away in the car then get out of that car and evade a Marshal Law police state? Then this guy was found when the order was lifted by a resident?

The martial law was instituted around a specific area in Watertown after the second suspect got away during a shoot out on public streets. People were not allowed to leave their house and they were forced to be subject to unwarranted inspections of their homes.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

let me ask you something, have you ever heard of a case like this? Where law enforcement know an area of where a terrorist, serial killer, etc, may be hiding? When I say area, I mean a reasonably small area, not a whole state or country/region. if so, can you provide a link?

I absolutely agree that this was probably the most extreme situation you could put any civilians or law enforcement agency in.

The only reason I'm posting so much is because I think we can learn from this (being that it was so extreme) and come up with a much more appropriate and legal response.

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

and honestly, from the video, it wasn't all that bad. the police knocked for a while, and it took 6 or 7 people that long to answer the door. I would think something was up. maybe it's just me.

edit: and I didn't see anyone pointing guns at the people leaving the house.

I thought it was a bit humorous how that house was a kind of "clown car" of homes of sorts (like my friend on facebook put it). I'm guessing some of the residents were just friends who needed a place to hang out when the "secure-in-place" was ordered.

But at the beginning of the video, there are at least four guys with their rifles trained on the front door.

As Doug has pointed out to me on Facebook, this is procedurally absolutely correct for an officer who has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is in that specific home. However, what if there is no specific evidence indicating the suspect is in that specific home, yet might be in the area? How does/should that be handled?

[PoorMansCamaro]

as long as they are not harming anyone, I think they should be as cautious as possible. take no chances. They are in the "front line", risking their lives trying to find a suspect. I mean, at that point in time, how do they know he didn't go to a "safe house" with more crazy f***s like him, ready to blow a whole house down.

[CamaroSkooter]

So, what you're saying is, if a terrorist is on the loose, then law enforcement should be allowed to treat every person they come across as a terrorist until they prove they are innocent?

Look, I am all for making the officers as safe as possible, but at some point there has to be a line where citizens are still treated as citizens, even in a quasi-matial law situation.

[PoorMansCamaro]

I think they were still treated as citizens. they weren't cuffed and thrown to the ground. after the initial guy walked out of the house, it seemed pretty civil.

I am curious on what will happen to the guy that was stripped naked, and the money he will get for suing the police department. lol

[CamaroSkooter]

Part of being treated like a citizen is that you have the right to refuse a search... Which gets us back to what was originally being questioned...