Police violated the Fourth Amendment in Watertown house to house searches

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Good morning:

We begin today with a history lesson purchased in blood, sweat and tears:

William Pitt declared in Parliament in 1763,

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

The house to house searches by police without search warrants in Watertown violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

With the exception of a few narrow and well-delineated exceptions that do not apply to the house to house general searches in Watertown, the Fourth Amendment prohibits police searches of residences without a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon reviewing a sworn affidavit and finding that it establishes probable cause to believe that the residence to be searched contains evidence of a particular crime. Both the residence to be searched and the evidence to be sought must be particularly described in the affidavit and the search warrant.

Consent to search is one exception; however, consent must be free and voluntary. Mere acquiescence to authority at the point of a gun is not valid consent.

When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given. This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. A search conducted in reliance upon a warrant cannot later be justified on the basis of consent if it turns out that the warrant was invalid. The result can be no different when it turns out that the State does not even attempt to rely upon the validity of the warrant, or fails to show that there was, in fact, any warrant at all.

When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search. The situation is instinct with coercion—albeit colorably lawful coercion. Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.

Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548-550 (1968).

Exigent circumstances is another exception. For example, police can lawfully enter a residence without a search warrant, if they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect for whom they have probable cause to arrest or to prevent the destruction of evidence. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976).

In Santana for example,

Michael Gilletti, an undercover officer with the Philadelphia Narcotics Squad arranged a heroin “buy” with one Patricia McCafferty (from whom he had purchased narcotics before). McCafferty told him it would cost $115 “and we will go down to Mom Santana’s for the dope.”

Gilletti notified his superiors of the impending transaction, recorded the serial numbers of $110 (sic) in marked bills, and went to meet McCafferty at a prearranged location. She got in his car and directed him to drive to 2311 North Fifth Street, which, as she had previously informed him, was respondent Santana’s residence.

McCafferty took the money and went inside the house, stopping briefly to speak to respondent Alejandro who was sitting on the front steps. She came out shortly afterwards and got into the car. Gilletti asked for the heroin; she thereupon extracted from her bra several glassine envelopes containing a brownish-white powder and gave them to him.

Gilletti then stopped the car, displayed his badge, and placed McCafferty under arrest. He told her that the police were going back to 2311 North Fifth Street and that he wanted to know where the money was. She said, “Mom has the money.” At this point Sergeant Pruitt and other officers came up to the car. Gilletti showed them the envelope and said “Mom Santana has the money.” Gilletti then took McCafferty to the police station.

Pruitt and the others then drove approximately two blocks back to 2311 North Fifth Street. They saw Santana standing in the doorway of the house with a brown paper bag in her hand. They pulled up to within 15 feet of Santana and got out of their van, shouting “police,” and displaying their identification. As the officers approached, Santana retreated into the vestibule of her house.

The officers followed through the open door, catching her in the vestibule. As she tried to pull away, the bag tilted and “two bundles of glazed paper packets with a white powder” fell to the floor. Respondent Alejandro tried to make off with the dropped envelopes but was forcibly restrained. When Santana was told to empty her pockets she produced $135, $70 of which could be identified as Gilletti’s marked money. The white powder in the bag was later determined to be heroin.

Santana, at 39-41

Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion upholding the warrantless arrest and seizure of heroin and money from Santana thereby reversing the Third Circuit Court Of Appeals decision. He said,

In United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 (1976), we held that the warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place upon probable cause did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Thus the first question we must decide is whether, when the police first sought to arrest Santana, she was in a public place.

While it may be true that under the common law of property the threshold of one’s dwelling is “private,” as is the yard surrounding the house, it is nonetheless clear that under the cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment Santana was in a “public” place. She was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy. “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own house or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967). She was not merely visible to the public but was as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house. Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 59 (1924). Thus, when the police, who concededly had probable cause to do so, sought to arrest her, they merely intended to perform a function which we have approved in Watson.

The only remaining question is whether her act of retreating into her house could thwart an otherwise proper arrest. We hold that it could not. In Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967), we recognized the right of police, who had probable cause to believe that an armed robber had entered a house a few minutes before, to make a warrantless entry to arrest the robber and to search for weapons. This case, involving a true “hot pursuit,” is clearly governed by Warden; the need to act quickly here is even greater than in that case while the intrusion is much less. The District Court was correct in concluding that “hot pursuit” means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry “in and about [the] public streets.” The fact that the pursuit here ended almost as soon as it began did not render it any the less a “hot pursuit” sufficient to justify the warrantless entry into Santana’s house. Once Santana saw the police, there was likewise a realistic expectation that any delay would result in destruction of evidence. See Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S. 30, 35 (1970). Once she had been arrested the search, incident to that arrest, which produced the drugs and money was clearly justified. United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969).

We thus conclude that a suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place, and is therefore proper under Watson, by the expedient of escaping to a private place. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is


Santana, at 42-43

The police who conducted the Watertown house to house searches did not apply for search warrants. They did not have probable cause to search any of the houses they searched and they did not find the suspects or any evidence to be used against them. These were general searches which are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was ultimately found hiding in a boat outside the area that the police searched. He was discovered by the owner of the boat who promptly notified police. The boat was situated on a trailer parked in the owner’s driveway.

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.

We cannot claim to be a nation of laws when we break our laws.


Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,


183 Responses to Police violated the Fourth Amendment in Watertown house to house searches

  1. aussie says:

    The only gun found was a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic handgun with the numbers filed off. NOT the cop’s gone, I hope.

    No gun was found in the boat, making a lie of the suggestion that Dzhokhar had tried to kill himself.


    • willisnewton says:

      Thanks aussie. I wonder where all those rumors of an M4 came from. Usually (how sad this sort of thing happens so often we can talk about a predictable pattern) by now we’d know more about a mass killer’s “arsenal” of firearms,

    • cielo62 says:

      I would love to know what that throat wound looks like. Also, there is no clear timeline WHEN he acquired that wound. He might have tried shooting himself way before he hid out. We lack answers; it doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy.

      Sent from my iPod

      • willisnewton says:

        It’s now clear that ALL the shots fired in the area of the boat were fired by the police who arrived first on the scene before higher-ups arrived. The 19 year old had no weapon with him in the boat but may have shown his head briefly and in return the police tried to kill him. He may have not been able to raise both hands in the air. We do know he eventually surrendered.

        I’m not defending the actions of this misguided and clearly homicidal individual, but were not the police also misguided and homicidal too?

        There was speculation that the throat wound was self-induced but now we know he had not weapon in the boat at all.

        “The truth is the first casualty of war.”

        • fauxmccoy says:


          also released recently is the fact that the transit cop wounded in the first shoot out and in critical condition was hit by ‘friendly fire’.

          the bombers had one 9 mm gun between them and the amount of ammo is unknown.

          like you, i do not excuse the actions of the bombers, their acts were heinous. i do assert that we must also evaluate the actions of the police state, which arguable terrorized the city of boston just as effectively as the actual bombings.

          • cielo62 says:

            Faux Mccoy~ Absolutely in agreement with you. Yes, the situation is an “unknown” but that doesn’t mean that the cops get to act like superheros and incite complete pandemonium, which is what they contributed to doing. They are supposedly “trained” to deal with these situations ina logical manner. But instead everybody was high on adrenalin and shooting at shadows.

  2. willisnewton says:

    FWIW the boat WAS inside the cordoned off area. The police chief was lying when he said it was outside the area by a block or two. The statement however was widely broadcast and as usual the retraction was less widely reported.

    I also have a hunch that the death of the MIT officer had a a motive the older brother wanting to take an assault rifle from him. Not sure yet what the source of the guns found were but one thing the brothers had was a BB gun. I think they wanted more guns and the older brother took at least the sidearm from the slain campus cop.

  3. fauxmccoy says:

    this is the article about my family friend who is now an amputee courtesy of of the bastards in boston who thought pressure cooker bombs were a great idea.


    to the conspiracy theorists among us, i can assure you this was no actor — prior to the bombing she had a right foot and used it to earn her livelihood as a dancer. she is known to many and loved.

    • @Fauxmccoy

      I saw her on CNN. A very beautiful young woman. I just can’t understand the conspiracy nonsense. What has happened to folks common sense?

      • To me there was no conspiracy with the bombing itself…….

        There may have been a conspiracy within the PD looking for an opportunity (which they got) to test the waters on the 4th amendment.

        Again….think back to Dorner….whatever his crimes were….however bad they were………They DID NOT want him taken alive.

        So 4.2 MILLION to the ladies they shot up…..And how many are pending for people that had their houses shot up by the PD?….are they going to pay for repairs?……Then there’s the other guy in a vehicle they shot at…but didn’t hit….I see another lawsuit there…

        And last word I got was they were still trying to renig on paying out the reward.

        • cielo62 says:

          MMP- well, the guy claiming the reward didn’t really earn it. Those rewards are contingent on arrest and conviction of the suspect. Former was executed before he could be taken alive.

          Sent from my iPod

      • There may have been a conspiracy within the PD looking for an opportunity (which they got) to test the waters on the 4th amendment.

        Again….think back to Dorner….whatever his crimes were….however bad they were………They DID NOT want him taken alive.

        So 4.2 MILLION to the ladies they shot up…..And how many are pending for people that had their houses shot up by the PD?….are they going to pay for repairs?……Then there’s the other guy in a vehicle they shot at…but didn’t hit….I see another lawsuit there…

        I concur about Dorner. No way were they taking him alive.Police lynched him on national tv and due process of law be damned. And in Boston just think about the bullets police sprayed in a residential area? At one point before they apprehended Dzhokhar I saw a policeman running with a little girl in his arms and this was after the hail of bullets. I thought OMG they’ve hit a child.

  4. disappointed says:

    I love reading and learning from the whole group here. I have never left a comment before but today I am compelled to leave one. We are on the same page as far as the worthless p.o.s. ZImmerman is concerned. With that said I do not understand you all defending this 19year old terrorist! That is exactly how your comments come across. Maybe the home owners wanted their homes searched. Last I heard on the news no one complained?. A innocent 8 year old lost his life not to mention the other 3 young adults. At least a dozen lost limbs. Where were their rights? Where was the concern fir their lives? These terrorist are not dumb they carried bombs on their backs through the city and left them. My point is educating people about our laws is 1 thing but maybe wording or remembering the lost and victims so as not to come across as a terrorist defender might go a long way. Disappointed reader.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      dear disappointed

      i can recall a sum total of zero posts which defended the heinous actions of the boston bombers. i am sure that most of us want for him exactly what we want for zimmerman — a fair trial. if you perceive that as support, i question your reading comprehension.

      this article is specifically about the abuse of authorities upon the fourth amendment rights of the residents of boston and the criticism is well deserved. again, in no way does this defend the actions of the bombers.

      i have stated clearly that a friend of my family is still in the hospital with a missing right foot. her husband had the clarity of mind to remove his belt to use as a tourniquet. she was a dancer who will never dance again. my heart goes out to all that have suffered the loss of loved ones and those who sustained horrific injuries usually reserved for the battlefield.

      again, this does not excuse the abuse of residents of their rights. one can condemn the bombers’ actions, applaud the good investigative work done and still condemn some actions of law enforcement.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Looking at how the law and police actions have been applied does not, in any way shape or form, mean that one is supporting the terrorist. We have a rule of law to preserve. We cannot preserve the rule of law, and thus our individual right, if we do not reach a consensus on what those rights are and how they should apply.

      In our analysis we have decided that the general searches were illegal. They did not provide any safety, because the houses where the owners were agree able, obviously did not have the killers inside.
      So, those police searches were a waste of time.

      On the other hand, had the police encountered a house where the killer(s) were already inside, a hostage situation would have prevented the homeowner from consenting to a search, to protect family members who the killers would have been threatening to kill if the police were not sent away.

      In which case, if the police were refuse entry, would they have left? Or would they have then forced their way in? If they forced their way inside, the killer(s) would have believed they had been give up and would therefore move to punish the homeowner by killing hostages.

      So these things need to be thought about. We can’t just sit back and think that we have nothing to look at because whatever the authorities do is right.

  5. Big Willie says:

    Off topic: fyi

    Local 6 launches app for George Zimmerman case
    Users can watch live video, follow Tony Pipitone on Twitter


  6. colin black says:

    Sorry Ay just read your comment was starting at bottom an working up an you said the same thing.

    Suiside by cop on cop by stupidity is right.
    But also a lot of collateral shrapnell flying about.

    Did you see that guys computer chair with a bullet at head hight.
    Anhe only got up a minute before the shot enered his home an chair.

    • ay2a says:

      That’s what I was thinking, colin. Didn’t make sense for a cop to use an SUV as a weapon, not knowing what the guy had up his sleeve, so to speak.

      Then we have the story about D hitting his brother. Eye witnesses can be mistaken, she would not know what the suspect was driving, nevermind know that there were two suspect vehicles, not one.

  7. ay2z says:

    What about the 40 year old man who was forced on the street for 15 miniutes, then ID”d and allowed to go, and the man standing beside him, but with an appearance of middle eastern (a profile) was detained for one hour.

    Was this profiled person the same one marched naked in front of news cameras to the police car?

    What of his rights? Was there a marshal law curfew in Watertown that night when these men stepped outside to see what was going on with the gunfire down the street?

    That image of a naked man, allowed by authorities to be perpetuated as ‘the bombing suspect’they wre looking for, is disturbing.

    The one eyewitness on video claimed she saw a police SUV ram into TT. Another account told of police calling upon TT to hold his shirt up to show if he had a bomb or not.

    What confusion is there between what witnesses thought, claimed, assumed, was the bombing suspect ID’d as TT or DT, who were involved in gunfire, and the other man who was a resident (apparently) onlooker with another resident onlooker, yet not profiled?

    Was the profiled bystander confused by reporters and other witnesses, as the ones involved in the gunfight and were bombing suspects? Did they see his cuffing and shirt raising, and assume this was TT? Just as reporters confused the man on the street frozen eyes shut, as the bomber.

    Who was this profiled ‘middle-eastern looking’ male and why did police parade him naked for cameras? (they could have had one or two officers walk in front of him, protect his face and body.

    Does he have a case of mistreatment and profiling? The suspects were not middle-eastern males.

    Did the cops use this stripped pant wearing ‘suspect’ on the ground, as a camera op, to leave him there for 15 minutes? And the other male… a camera op?

    What wuld have happened if the cops entering houses, found someone who looked too much like middle eastern? Pull him out, strip him or her, lay they on the street for cameras?

    A round up of profiled suspects from the community they happened to be searching?

    • Dennis says:

      I’m hearing witness reports that the police ran over Tamerlan with the SUV and shot him multiple times. It doesn’t sound like they were trying to take these people alive. I remember the ol’ motto “dead men tell no tales”.

      • ay2z says:

        One thing confuses me about that description, Dennis, and that is the description of T being cuffed and also of him raising his shirt to show he had no bombs attached to himself.

        That may involve the other ‘naked’ bystander instead of T, but would police drive an SUV into someone who showing a bare chest, at least one arm was up, if this was T at that very moment?

        If this was not T, then would police drive into a suicide bomber with explosives on him? That would be cop suicide by stupidity unless he were driving something with a substantially more sturdy underbelly than an SUV.


      • colin black says:

        Thing is suiside vests were mentioned an if you run over a terrorist with a vechicle an he is wearing a bomb vest.
        The chances of killing him are nill an even if you did kill him a lot of thease vests detonate when the human bomb releases pressure ie his grip on the trigger.

        So not only he dies but everyone in the vechicle dies wich filled with gasoline also becomes a bomb wipeing out any civilans within a thirty feet radious.

      • colin black says:

        Funny enough neither do men with there thorax an throat obliterated.
        Can possabily authour some tales.
        But this Kids never going to tell a tale let alone talk again.

        At trial they could set up one of those star treck machines with blinking lights to tell his evidence.
        If he goes for speedy trial wont have time to learn sign language,
        Especialy if he is paraplegic.

  8. Dennis says:

    I’ve always said a picture is worth a thousand words. If you still don’t believe the Boston Marathon Bombing was a false flag, then feast your eyes on the pictures that prove who left the backpacks.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      It does disturb me that the backpacks match what these hired agents are carrying. I don’t know how to wrap my head around it. The Tsarnaeva brothers are also captured on video. Who is tracing the source of these pictures?

      There are also plenty of groups who spread disinfo and like to stir people up . . . including our own gov’t intel.

      • Dennis says:

        I know exactly what you are saying regarding disinformation. The field of information on the government cover-up of extraterrestrials and their technology is filled with disinformation.

        There is a documentary coming out soon done by Steven Greer of the Disclosure Project and CSETI. Check out the trailer if you are interested:

      • Dennis says:

        Regarding the source of the photos of the Blackwater or Craft International employees, I have read that the hacking group Anonymous.

        I bet Anonymous also hacked that CBS twitter account and tweeted the pictures of the agents as well.

      • Dennis says:

        The most disturbing part is that these agents were standing near where the things went off. But they had moved away from the scene. The photos also show that the backpack worn by the middle-eastern looking agent is no longer on his back after the explosion.

        Another thing is it doesn’t make sense for them to have been there in the first place. On top of that, security don’t wear backpacks, and hats with phrases that say “Violence does solve problems”. The backpack matches the one that magically disappeared from the agent’s back before the explosion.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I’m not saying I’m in full agreement with any of this because I don’t know what’s going on here, but I ran into this YouTube video and thought you might be interested. FYI, in other words. This is a bit too alarmist for me, but there are some good points.

        If Anon is interested and checking stuff out, they might be on to something.

      • Dennis says:

        @Two sides to a story

        Days ago they said they had a suspect. Then it turns out this supposed suspect was a Saudi and he was being deported back to his country on “national security” grounds. Turns out this guy is connected to at least 7 other terrorizers.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Dennis, I’m not particularly imipressed with the FBI or the CIA. They can’t seem to chew gum and walk at the same time.

        Could be what we’re seeing with the agents running around the marathon is that they’re simply doing their job, checking for bombs and suspicisou activity, probably thinking organized terror cell big, as they seem to have radiation detectors for a possible dirty bomb, but they weren’t prepared for a small-time homegrown attack. Could be as simple as that. And the gov’t would be too damn embarrassed to admit it.

      • Dennis says:

        @Two sides to a story

        Very good video by the way. I am convinced the private contractor left the backpack bomb and got out of the area. I’m sure they assumed the backpack would be torn to bits. Unfortunately for them, the white square from the top of the backpack is still visible and intact.

    • cielo62 says:

      Dennis~ I also have very credible pictures of Santa Claus, grey aliens and someone’s undisputed broken nose. It proves NOTHING without independent

       verification of provence.

      • Dennis says:

        Instead of poking fun at people for being conspiracy theorists, you should try and actually debunk the disturbing elements that these pictures paint.

        • cielo62 says:

          Dennis- debunk what? The very fact that they are NOT VERIFIED is usually sufficient to debunk a bogus picture. No RELIABLE SOURCE EXISTS to confirm the authenticity of those pictures. If you buy into this “conspiracy” you are truly being gullible. There is NO AGENDA.

          Sent from my iPod

      • Two sides to a story says:

        A healthy curiosity doesn’t hurt anything if you don’t get too carried away. Life is sometimes stranger than fiction, as they say.

    • NO Anonymous is NOT producing these pics. they are just looking at the conspiracy theory like everyone. they have no special information or opinion collectively on this, just curious.

      but I saw another set of pics like this too, and I didn’t find any of the the points convincing. like one with victims immediately after the blast, and it appeared to be authentic to me. I didn’t think the scene was fake or victim actors.

      but we do know the FBI had unspecified info and that’s why they were there. so to me it makes even more sense. IDK??

    • Jun says:

      In all honesty, the photo proves nothing

      1) How do we know those are photos verified of the scene with no photoshop at all?

      2) How do we know these individuals were not already checked and cleared? Perhaps their backpacks and identities checked, and their backpacks checked

      • Dennis says:


        1. Pull up the picture of the torn apart backpack and you can see the white square. It is on every picture no matter where you get it from. The same white square is at the top of the backpack worn by the private security guy who works for Blackwater or Craft International. The military and private contractors surely don’t get their gear, which includes backpacks, from your normal retail outlet.

        2. The middle-eastern Blackwater/Craft International agent left his backpack exactly where the bomb went off. Since it matches the actual backpack used in the explosion, it is obvious who did the bombing.

      • Malisha says:

        I don’t think anything about this is “obvious” yet.

    • bettykath says:

      Some things to consider:

      * FBI knew the two accused and had been in touch with them for 5 years.
      * There were announcements that there was a drill happening. (There were drills near the CO theater attack much like what actually happened with EMTs, etc from nearby states. There were nationwide drills including various military and FEMA when the Twin Towers went down.) What if the young men were recruited to take part in the drill and their role was to drop backpacks, not necessarily with bombs? A perfect role for patsies.
      * The force from the bombs for the most part went up, not out. Windows from a storefront blew out, not in.
      * The accused were watched by feds(?),
      * The photo with the guy in the wheel chair with his legs blown off. Looks more like an already-amputee. Where’s the arterial blood?

      • cielo62 says:

        bettykath~ PLEASE don’t add fuel to the conspiracy frenzy! 1. The FBI had these guys UNDER SURVEILLANCE, and NOT “in touch with them” as in friends or colleagues. The older brother especially is a social parasite and leeched off of the hard work of his wife and family. 2. Drills happen all of the time. I have not read ANYWHERE credible that such a drill had been scheduled during the marathon. 3. The bombs just split apart in all directions. Hence the shrapnel killing/maiming people. Glass was shattered both in and out, mostly in. 4. yes, the older brother had been under surveillance for years, but managed to stay under the radar of truly suspicious emails or texts. 5. The guy with the cowboy hat was applying a tourniquet and guiding the wheelchair. The arterial blood was cut off by the tourniquet. No conspiracy here.

      • fauxmccoy says:


        i will believe that a ‘drill’ was taking place when some fine young ER doc acknowledges such.

        i know enough about my own local disaster drills because of my mother’s position as director of nurses for the local hospital and her work on the planning committee that administered such drills.

        all local hospitals and most of their staff know of these drills in advance. yes, they get volunteers to act as wounded (in my area, these are usually college students, we have a fabulous nursing program here and they participate in these drills). obviously fire and police departments are involved as well.

        i need more and concrete evidence before i will believe that disaster drills were taking place.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        PS to bettykath

        i also have a friend of the family who is still in the hospital after losing her right foot in the blasts. although she *was* a dancer and her husband stationed at a nearby military base, i know without doubt that these good folks were not actors or previous amputees.

      • Dennis says:

        Anyone who thinks jet fuel caused the WTCs to collapse needs their head checked. Nine Danish scientists already found the evidence of nano-thermite and other explosive byproducts in multiple samples of the WTC dust. This is a proven fact. I wonder what cielo62 is going to say about this.

        • cielo62 says:

          Dennis~ Prior to September 11, I bet those guys could carry all sorts of bomb making stuff on board, no? No buildings are built to withstand being crashed into by commercial airliners. So, only 9 danish scientists found this? Were the results peer reviewed? Published? “Fact” in only what you want it to be. I don’t know if what they found has any SIGNIFICANCE to provethat there was a conspiracy. Sounds too much like the plot of the Watchmen. (lousy book and even worse movie).

          • U must also consider the other fuel sources….paper….wooden desks, shelves, bookcases, carpeting, draperies, doors….. any and all plastics used in construction…….All these would have acted in combination with the jet fuel (Kerosene)

          • cielo62 says:

            MMP~ Those are probably the same “scientists” who don’t think global climate change is happening. I don’t care if we debate the CAUSE, but it’s ridiculous to deny the reality.

      • Dennis says:

        On of the bombs was inside the storefront. That part is obvious.

      • aussiekay says:

        The guy in the wheelchair already had TOURNIQUETS applied.

        He also gave a description of who placed the bag just beside him, before any video images of the brothers were found.

        Windows in external explosions quite often blow OUT. The blast force reaching them from the outside is not enough to break them. Whatever force goes in through open doorways or other windows, builds up INSIDE the building to be enough to break the glass. Most people got injured outside, not inside, further showing the bombs were not inside.

        FBI spoke with the older brother in 2011,not QUITE 5 years ago. No record of them ever speaking with the younger one (who 5 years ago would have been only 14).

        Drills? a lot of internet talk abut them, none confirmed by those supposedly actually doing them. I can invent a drill going on anytime I like. This seems based on all based on a Tweet warning of a controlled explosion about to happen. That was not a drill. Look at the time. It was a warning for the explosion near the library, to blow up something they’d found they thought might be a bomb.

        UNLESS of course you are saying there are absolutely NO CRAZY PEOPLE IN THE USA except in the FBI and CIA. (SO, where are they getting them from???)

      • aussie says:

        DENNIS that is enough. Seriously.

        There WERE planes, thousands of people saw them and they were recorded on hundreds of separate individual cameras.

        There WAS jet fuel, as planes cannot fly without it (and these were going long distances so they’d have had plenty of fuel).

        Jet fuel burns at high temperatures.

        High temperatures MELT STEEL.

        Columns made of melting steel COLLAPSE.

        What is the chain of custody for the dust your scientists supposedly examined? how do YOU, or more importantly how do THEY know FOR SURE where their samples came from?

        Yes I understand that when the reality is very shocking, it is easier to pretend it didn’t happen. Comforting to think it was some other way. But not very sensible to let fear and horror turn you into a robot that doesn’t THINK.

        • FYI….Thermite is made from Aluminum dust and ferrous oxide (rust)

          Also the steel doesn’t have to reach temperatures to melt……only hot enough to weaken it……..Picture the blacksmith at his forge…..the steel is not melted…..just heated to a state where it’s mailable.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Google the Meridian fire. just for laughs.

          • Aliens had taken control of the terrorist’s minds……Through mind control the Aliens made those men crash the planes on 9/11…..

            This was all done in an effort by the Aliens to distract us from their planned invasion of Earth.

            Oh BTW….The sky is falling…….

  9. Nef05 says:

    I wondered about that. On Friday,I posted to friends on my FB page that I was disturbed by the images of LE in camouflage, clinging to the sides of armored vehicles, rolling through the city streets of Watertown, MA, USA, while it was under lockdown. It reminded me more than a little of the Denzel Washington/Annette Bening/Bruce Willis movie “The Seige”, where the army moved in and shut down NYC after terrorist attacks.

    I saw the reports of the house to house searches, and I distinctly remember media stating the interior searches were voluntary and limited to the home’s exteriors, if the owner did not consent. Even in the moment that seemed like a lot of BS. Who’s going to say no, even if they are uncomfortable and don’t want to do it for reasons that have nothing to do with the bombing?

    IMO – just as bad as the forces that allowed/gave the order for this to happen, are the media who either intentionally falsely reported it, or didn’t bother to get accurate information to report even after the fact. Iraq, anyone?

  10. Boston suspect’s Mom- Their Protector Is God

    • ay2z says:

      Where is the article I read about the background of the family, in which the mother was an apparent instigator of traditional religions views, to the dismay of her own husband. She was said to be an influence on her boys. The father did not require this of his wife, and apparently did not understand her doing this.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I read one about Tamerlan being influenced by a man from his mosque named Misha. The father came home late from work one night wondering why the guy was still talking to Tamerlan. The mom defended it, saying he was teaching Tamerlan good things about religion. I’ve not seen anything more virulent than that. The father seemed to resent an outsider having more influence on his son than he did, or so this story went.

    • you know I was prepared to hear their mom defend them till the end.i expected to hear her cry, be in denial and be angry and severely depressed..

      but something about the way she carried herself while walking to the car, how she seemed bright eyed, and when asked them to repeat the question about him getting a fair trial- she is very alert and clearheaded.
      and then her tone of defiance or something on the phone as she said Allah is this or Allah will know that, that made me feel weird.
      It sounded odd to me somehow. and how she believes they killed him because of his religion sounds kinda off. b/c she’s no shrinking violet. she’s a tough chic. she’s not living under Islamic law or whatever it’s called. and they have money.

      maybe it’s just me. I came from an oppressive religious childhood, so I do know how that feels.
      but I’ve been a strict atheist ever since I was 15.
      and i don’t know of many positive things about their religion either..so that might be in the back of my mind. and I don’t understand her faith and what she believes about it, so maybe i’m just not getting her point.

      what do you guys think about her??

    • Two sides to a story says:

      The family’s pain is heartbreaking.

      • the father seems more real to me. he’s genuine, he’s bitter and angry, he’s blaming the mother. Now that’s a NORMAL reaction to me.
        she and the aunt seem different.

        but I also think they may of had another motive. and it’s not necessarily Jihad. I have an issue with them not killing themselves! no self respecting terrorist I’ve ever heard of is going to run away from their handy work alive only to be shot down on the street by the American police!

      • Dennis says:

        I know exactly what you mean. They refuse to believe their children were capable of doing this. The parents say their children were framed and that the FBI was monitoring/in contact with them for 5 years.


      • Dennis says:

        Speaking of the FBI, it is a proven fact that the FBI cooked the bomb in the first WTC attack in 1993. The dimwitted people they were controlling did not park the bomb close enough to the support column so it did not take down the building.

        BATF was implicated in the Oklahoma City bombing. Their agents were tipped off by their pagers not to go to work. They refuse to release the videos which show a middle-eastern man exit the Ryder truck (not Terry Nichols as they claim). Government sources say this was Hussein al-Husseini and he was working at the Boston Logan airport at 9/11. David Scipphers the man who impeached Bill Clinton, said the same team who did Oklahoma City did 9/11 and the police can’t touch them.

  11. http://t.co/a7v7bViN6Q

    Rush Scumball compares Trayvon to the bomber kid!

    • Two sides to a story says:

      A pox on Rush.

    • kllypyn says:

      Rush is an ignorant moron

    • ay2z says:

      Not going to he link, don’t need to, but was thinking of vigilante fogen getting off and joining Blackwater or some cheap offshoot. He’d have shot everyone dead who wore a white ball cap.

    • Malisha says:

      Certain media (Fox) portray Rush Limbaugh the way certain media used to portray Adolph Hitler. As a decent man trying to save his country from bad people. That comparison is more apt than “Victim of a senseless murder = perpetrator of a senseless bombing.” What keeps us from realizing who the bad people are (Rush included among the worst of them) is that they are facile with the words and they are super-cons who use false equivalencies to distort facts, and stupid people think they are making a point when they get emphatic.

      • did you see what he said? he was saying the media was treating the 19 year old like they ( the media) treated Trayvon, as a cute angelic kid! AS IF@@!!!???
        it’s just so sick to me. I’m just so tired of hearing this boy getting trashed. and it’s all gz’s fuckin fault, and he’s allowed to have his own app!!!!!!!! makes me sick!

      • Jun says:

        My theory is that, Rush Limbaugh, is basically a professional troll, and he trolls the media to get reactions

        They showed plenty of Fogen’s photographs in the media from 5 years ago or so when he was arrested and also when he was a teenager, but for whatever reason the right wing wackos complain about the dead teenager’s photos

        The logic is “all photos of people in the media should show them as scary” is bloodclot ridiculous

        And other part is the media stated that he was the suspect and admitted to doing the crimes, where people died, but his issue is with a fucking picture?

        A kid, a 3 adults died as a result and the admitted criminal caught and his issue is with a photograph

        LOL talk about having your priorities straight

    • Jun says:

      I compare Rush to my feces in my toilet, if that helps at all

  12. colin black says:

    Goverment can do what it wants when it wants end off.
    If your names Bin Laden an G Men want you dead.
    They will dhoot you dead an anyone male female or child gets in the way.
    The use armed forces.
    LE are Goverments armed forces on the streets G Men want you dead your dead.
    They want to tap peoples phones wyhout warrant they do it.

    They want you to leave your house in time of natinal crisis you leave willingly.
    Or they will taze you at beest an carry you out alive.
    At worst dead.
    Goverment can do what it wants when it wants in the name of in defence of the Nation .

    You guys signed your rights away after 9 11 or did you all forget?
    What was it called the homeland act?Or some thing or all bets are of all freedoms suspended for your own good.But they will be realy realy cool an never abuse its ah hem.. TOTAL POWER..

    Because wouldnt that corrupt or something.

    Anyone whom doesnt already know this is nieve.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Hahaha… Don’t go off the deep end on us colin. You are, of course, quite correct, we did surrender the rule of law on account of 911, (ha don’t get me started). But, historically the world has eternally gotten by on illusions and pretense. So, what really matters is; “What kind of pretense are the most vocal and motivated people enamored of”?

      They are struggling mightily to convince us that the rule of law, is what they say it is, and that it otherwise has no empirical function. In this way they can tell us to obey the law, while they pretend they have the power to carve out whatever exceptions they need for their own purposes. After all, they can’t just abandon the law wholesale, since they know that there are too many people who both believe in it and who depend upon it. Thus, all they need the law to do is, fail to stop them from achieving their goal at the specific points in time they choose.

      In short they want a malleable rule of law. Many citizens, who fear for their lives, believe that gov’t can protect them and therefore they should cede their rights in exchange for safety. History shows us, however, that government can’t protect us and doesn’t want us to have any rights either. So, people who seek gov’t protection in exchange for their rights, wind up with neither rights nor protections.
      Just like Ben Dover said! Oh, wait, that was Ben Franklin.

  13. groans says:

    Of course, the great irony – and, hopefully, “lesson learned” for LE – is that the warrantless “general search” was completely ineffective!! It produced NOTHING of value (that I’ve heard of) towards the presumed goal of finding their suspect.

    Therefore, it also was not cost-effective. (And I think they were just plain lucky that their costs were relatively low – e.g., no heart attacks, accidents, misfires, resistance/violence, hostage escalation, etc. – as far as I’ve heard so far. But if they make a habit of this sort of thing, there are bound to be higher costs in such activities eventually.)

    Another irony is the “indoors curfew,” since LIFTING it was what quickly led to finding the suspect! Having people stay home from work was likely an effective strategy (not so sure about cost-effectiveness, though), because it “disperses” eyes and ears more widely around a relatively quiet community. However, in hindsight, it’s probably a good idea to let them step outside their houses and look around a bit for maximum effectiveness!

    And think about this: What if LE had searched the home and yard of the boat-owner guy? Do you suppose he just MIGHT have been suspected of harboring a fugitive?! That guy is lucky he wasn’t searched, because he gets credit for “saving the day” rather than being hauled downtown “for further questioning”!

    • You left out the part about all the overtime the cops got….being called in while off duty….double time…..Yup cost effective.

      • groans says:

        Right. I didn’t “go there” because my guess is that all those cops and overtime costs last Friday were a given – i.e., they weren’t going to be sent home.

        So I was reflecting on what value was gained from activities that violated people’s 4th Amendment rights that couldn’t be gained while respecting those rights. And I saw no value at all.

        Actually, I was reminded of the “debate” about using torture – e.g., waterboarding – to obtain actionable intelligence. Experts said that violating human rights (with torture) – besides being just plain wrong – is not effective for producing actionable intelligence.

        Obviously, if an activity violates constitutional or human rights, arithmetic is not needed to conclude that its COSTS are too high.

        But to convince “less-lofty” folks that violating rights is a bad idea, sometimes a practical approach can be more persuasive. Like pointing out: What was GAINED by violating people’s rights?? NOTHING!!

        And if an activity is not effective, it can never be cost-effective.

    • bettykath says:

      Ah, but they did get something. They got martial law in a large city. And no one complained. If the Bostonians didn’t object, why should you?

      They also distracted everyone from other rights that were being taken away. Privacy is gone. All electronic communications can now legally be listened to and saved. All other movements can now legally be observed and recorded by use of surveillance cameras and the use of drones of all sizes. Even your bedroom is available to drones as tiny as an insect.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      groans says

      It produced NOTHING of value (that I’ve heard of) towards the presumed goal of finding their suspect.

      i would say that in a machiavellian sort of way, that LE gained something of enormous future value — they know that the people will happily give up their 4th amendment rights if enough fear is generated.

      • aussiekay says:

        The fear was generated separately at each door, with the weapons they were carrying. Plus the wide-spread knowledge of heaps of cases where the cops do a “good shoot” on unarmed people for the slightest excuse.

        Several people have been shot dead for (very reasonably and legally) pulling a gun on armed intruders who turned out to be cops raiding the wrong address.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Yep, what a bummer! You’re sitting at home having dinner when suddenly the front door comes off it’s hinges. Heavily armed men come filing in ordering everyone down on the floor. Wha???, but they won’t even discuss it until the house is secured. Now one by one the police are ordering everyone to strip naked, while calls of “clear” are coming from every room in the house.

          Only now do you hear some officer say into his mic, “Okay we’ve got 2314 Sumner locked down and secured”. “But officer…. This is 2413 Sumner…”

  14. aussie says:

    There are guys who think following their wife to a women’s shelter and beating her up is going to persuade her to go back to him.

    The same attitude seems to have spread to the “law” enforcement guys who seem to think shooting at someone is going to make him feel safe to come out with his hands up. It is even going to miraculously bring back to consciousness someone half dead, or in a case like Dorner,someone apparently bleeding to death with his arm shot off (by the persuasive gunfire earlier).

    “Come out and give yourself up, you’ll be safe, we promise”.

    “Oh yeah then why are you machine-gunning me now?”

    The kid never moved to attack the middle-aged resident who found him, an easy target for an armed person. Knock him down, stop him ringing 911, go hide somewhere else. The man told the police the hiding person was covered in blood. Anyone ever hear of 2+2? maybe he’s injured and CAN’T come out with his hands up?

    Oh and since when is not obeying an order you can’t or don’t have to obey bring a potential death penalty? how many have been shot in the back for trying to walk away? one recent case was a guy who’d called the cops himself, and started to walk away when he could see they weren’t going to help him any.

    I still don’t see why a blood-tracker dog could not have found him a lot sooner than searching houses the way he hadn’t run.

    They did brilliantly identifying the likely suspects from the videos. They knew who they were, too, having dealt with one of them before. So why not just quietly wait for them to leave their home early in the morning? not dramatic enough?

    • Bill Taylor says:

      i do find it strange that the people accept the police firing so many rounds without actually having their target in their sights?

      basic self defense use of a weapon DICTATES you do not discharge your weapon until CERTAIN the proper target is in your sights.

      • colin black says:

        Doesnt suprise me one bit LE have shot at a man point blank from about four feet.
        All he did was reach in his back pocket for his wallet .

        One of the officers had allegdly screamed for his ID an he was about to produce it an he was shot dead.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Way too many similar incidents here, Colin.

    • ay2z says:

      aussie, one reason could be that the dog would run his handler right into the target, allowing the suspect to prepare to detonate a bomb, toss one, kill the dog and minimally the hander, perhaps many more who were flanking or following behind.

      Another reason is that all other persons would need to hang back to allow the dog to work.

      The bombers who had been ID’d, were engaging the fight, not fleeing. They arrived in Watertown where the police resources on the street that night, were scant. This would mean their purpose was to set up to take down targets, not trying to get through some blockade and escape town.

      Same with the tracking teams, easy ambush. And with bloodhounds, which are extremely vocal, bred that way so they can run ahead of hunters traditionally, and the owners, hunters, can find them when they tree their game.

      Other tracking dogs will follow footsteps and not blood, and they work a suspects scent from the ground disturbance and from scent carried in the air. They work quietly because they are intent on following small amounts of scent closely. It is possible for a dog like this, to accurately pinpoint a hidden suspect, but not alert the hander until he’s right upon the suspect. Wind can take the scent a few feet away. Not a situation you want to be in, with a suspect who is the aggressor with bombs and guns hidden feet away. Walking into a death trap for everyone in the dark.

      Dogs also have no problem tracking at night, but handlers MUST read their dog’s body language, it’s subtle, the dog may do a quick head jerk action that indicates something, and at night, the handler will not see that.

      Running a dog through fenced backyards, jumping fences in the dark, avoiding objects with dogs, will just raise a ruckus and even problems of fending off territorial dogs. And people inside the houses would be alerted, some may even come out with guns.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      aussie says

      They did brilliantly identifying the likely suspects from the videos. They knew who they were, too, having dealt with one of them before. So why not just quietly wait for them to leave their home early in the morning? not dramatic enough?

      cause then they could not show of their fancy-shmancy armored cars and such. seriously, when did metro police deptartments start buying these things? i guess i am officially an old fart at 48, beause i miss the days of good old fashioned cops in riot gear, occasionally accompanied by mounted police.

      it is a different world now, i suppose. or is it? we have always had the occasional bombings (at least in my life time) what we have not had was the obvious police state. i guess it makes some people more comfortable, but i am not one of them.

  15. Question? Just wondering how was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev able to fire upon police when it was stated he was going in & out of consciousness when arrested? I was listening to a scanner on the web and I heard a hail of gunfire before he was arrested.

  16. fauxmccoy says:

    please, fred and crane, do not take this wrong … but

    <3I LOVE YOU, MAN!! ❤

    now i will read the rest of the comments. i am sure that i made my passion for the 4th amendment abundantly clear last night, hopefully not to the point of appearing ridiculous.

  17. JUN says:

    I’d have to see all the facts before I make a decision

    From what I hear, the suspects and admitted bombers led police on a chase and were throwing pipe bombs and shooting at people and even carjacked someone and killed a cop

    There would have to be existential circumstances, which sounds like that is what happened

  18. elcymoo says:

    What are the chances that the police could successflully plead ‘reasonable cause’ or ‘exigent circumstances’? After all, the suspect they were pursuing was reportedly armed and desperate, and had already killed not only three spectators at the Marathon event, but an MIT campus cop, and had carjacked a vehilce and held the owner captive until he escaped. He could easily have gained access at gunpoint to one of the homes in the relatively small area, and threatened the life of any resident (or the resident’s family members) who revealed his presence to the cops who were going door to door.

    • cielo62 says:

      elcymoo~ I think the same thing.That will be their “reasonable cause.”

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Professor can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that this is the first time these tactics have been used. I know that they have been discussed, and it was determined that they are useless and dangerous tactics. If the killers are already inside, the police presence will excite them to either kill or take hostages. While the person who answers the door is placed in an untenable situation.
        Let the police in and have loved ones killed for it, or refuse and have the police take whatever actions they choose to anyway.

        As I said before, this kind of thing only keeps people safe, who are already safe. Thus it is an unneeded invasion of privacy. While on the other hand, it increases the danger for people who are already in danger.

        Thus the tactic is useless and should be stopped at once! A crime at a store down the street, should not become justification to invade the entire neighborhood.

    • fauxmccoy says:


      yes, the authorities who violated 4th amendment rights of boston residents can and should be sued for ’emotional stress’ and anything else permissible under the law as fred stated above.

      the actions of the suspected terrorist IN NO WAY invalidate a resident’s (does not even have to be a citizen, legal or otherwise) inalienable right to be free of unreasonable search or seizure of one’s body, property or belongings. the suspect’s (now defendant) actions were heinous but that does not present reasonable cause of a resident … the resident is an innocent bystander who presumably did no wrong. i cannot imagine the horror of being driven from my home at gunpoint by those sworn to ‘serve and protect’ and who damn well know the constitution. it is unconscionable!

    • RobertSF says:

      I’m not the Professor nor even a lawyer, but as I understand, “exigent circumstances” is where people are in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But it can’t be just a generalized feeling of danger. It has to be a clear and specific imminent danger.

      The police would have to have probable cause to believe one or both of the bombers were in a specific house. The exigence exception is not a license to go on fishing expeditions, which house-to-house searches are. I know of nothing that allows house-to-house searches.

      This should be upsetting us a great deal more than it is. I was just shaking my head to read the articles where the residents were quoted as being “grateful” and “relieved” that the police searched their homes. Not one of them said no, apparently.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        If they said they would allow their house to be searched, that is an indication that they were not in any danger. For, had the killers been inside the house, the story would have been very different indeed.

        The killers would take hostages and warn the person they sent to the door to either send the police away or the hostages would be killed.

        So, if someone refused to let the police search, would they have had enough sense to pull back and watch the house?

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      I don’t see the point, the police actions would only have revealed a hidden hostage situation and very possibly made things even worse. It would have been much better that they simply keep an eye on the area and maintain a passive alert stance.

      Because, what they actually did was create even more and unnecessary dangers. They are entering peoples homes with no idea of whats going on inside. Things that they discover could seem threatening to them, then what? They wind up shooting someone for nothing. They also run the risk of meeting resistance, what then? What do they plan to do if the home owner objects?

      Is this to be a creeping encroachment on privacy rights? A chance to see how much the people will put up with? Such that if they wanted to search an area willy-nilly, simply announce that there’s a man-hunt under way in the area for a dangerous suspect or two.

      The point is, this is something new, they’ve so far always managed to do without doing these things before, so why now?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @lonnie, who says

        The point is, this is something new, they’ve so far always managed to do without doing these things before, so why now?

        your thoughts echo my own, buddy!

    • You’re talking about the public safety exception that was the basis for the SCOTUS upholding the warrantless entry into a residence to arrest an armed robbery suspect who had entered the residence a few minutes ahead of the police. See: Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967)

      Notice that in Warden, the police knew which residence the defendant had entered. There was no house to house general search like the one in Watertown, which is the specific harm that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit.

  19. ay2z says:

    If and when you have time, now or later or sometime in the future.

    This begins with Naomi’s description of her arrest two days prior, peacefully walking on a sidewalk in Manhatten, strolling in front of an event they had been invited to, had attended.

    This is an example of someone who decided to not back down to the use of force against her by a police officer and she was cuffed, her boyfriend was cuffed, just peacefully and legally walking in front of this event at Huffington Post.

    Luckily she knew there were lawyers at the event, and she called out to others to please contact the lawyers to meet them at the precinct.

    She talks about her feelings in the cell, with dried blood or feces on the walls, about the only difference between those people in this situation in countries where there is not democracy, is ‘the rule of law’. “The cell as the same, the rule of law was the difference”.

    ‘Disobeying a lawful order” was her charge, and an individual police officer they claimed was deeming the situation a ‘safety issue’ and she was released with this summons, next time will be a ‘real arrest’.

    Naomi’s arrest was AFTER she had found out what the law was, and purposefully obeying the law, she still could not avoid arrest.

    Then, she found out by citizen reporters coming to the precinct, that the whole street had been blocked off,they were told ‘Homeland Security’ blocked off access.

    The Permit law she was arrested undet only prevented the event’s ‘red carpet’ people from blocking a sidewalk, not citizens walking on that same sidewalk.

    Naomi Wolf says it’s ‘easy’ to foretell the closing of a democracy, it’s predictable by the steps used historically. How terror threats are used to destroy civil society– she argues SUStAINING DEMOCrACY in the face of terror threats, is the best way to fight terrorism.

    Worth a listen.

    • Malisha says:

      Efforts to sustain democracy and defend our constitutional rights are being recharacterized as anti-Government and anti-American conduct, deserving of all kinds of invasion/censure/ punishment by the “under attack” government. It is as if the government (all levels) has a serious case of constant adrenalin overload. It is “protecting” us against our own freedoms with such vigor it reminds me of Fogen “protecting” his neighborhood against “suspicious guys.”

      • Rachael says:

        …constitutional rights are being recharacterized…It is “protecting” us against our own freedoms with such vigor it reminds me of Fogen “protecting” his neighborhood against “suspicious guys.”

      • Two sides to a story says:

        It’s very not good, and those of us who are old enough to remember a different world should be alarmed. I am.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I’m not saying it’s not possible to snap back, but there’s more cause for alarm now than in the McCarthy era. We now have militarized police forces and many other things that didn’t exist back then.

  20. PYorck says:

    Now that it has happened already, do the residents have any recourse to the courts?

    • To do so would probably get their names put on one of the governments many lists.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I hope someone is courageous enough to speak up and file a case. If people don’t stand up . . .

      • fauxmccoy says:

        I’m your huckleberry. my name is surely already there for civil disobedience. as i said last night, i would risk arrest for refusing entry into my home without warrant, for no reason other than it is my right.

  21. Law enforcement has accomplished a trifecta in the hall of shame

    * 2 for the price of one by violating the fifth and sixth amendments refusing to Mirandize Dzhokhar Tsarnaev prior to interviewing him

    * General searches house to house without search warrants or probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment

    • ay2z says:

      So the court hearing that took place that did Mirandize DT, was AFTER he was questioned without being given his Miranda warnings?

      Sorry I was thinking the hearing came first– bad assumption.

  22. Two sides to a story says:

    Will anyone do anything about it is what I’d like to know. Or are we going to see more and more violations of the 4th amendment in the future?

    • The remedy for the Miranda violation is suppression of his statements.

      The defendant has no remedy for the Fourth Amendment violations because his property was not searched and he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of the houses searched in Watertown.

      The owners of the properties searched have causes of action for compensatory damages for emotional distress, physical injury, and damage to property caused by the cops who searched their homes.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        the dear professor states

        The owners of the properties searched have causes of action for compensatory damages for emotional distress, physical injury, and damage to property caused by the cops who searched their homes.


        • Lonnie Starr says:

          It was also exceedingly dangerous. Consider, if the gunmen had entered your home, they’d certainly have moved to secure it for themselves. Meaning they’re going to hold you and your family, plus anyone else who is there, at gunpoint. So that would be the conditions under which the police then appear at your door, attempting to order you out. How could you obey their orders knowing you’d be leaving your loved ones behind, in the hands of these terrible people? While on the other hand, what will the police do if you do not comply?

          They’ve placed you in an intractable situation and placed your family at risk. Obviously they intend to enter the house without your consent, but your captors will not know that. They will believe that you agreed to let the police in, and so they will punish you by killing your people.

          In fact, the only way these methods will work is if, the killer are not in the house at all. Thus they are useless.

          • Agreed………Do their uniforms happen to be brown?

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            If not and they keep this us, at least their pants will be.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Lonnie Starr commented on Police violated the Fourth Amendment in Watertown house to house searches.

            in response to mountainmanpat:

            Agreed………Do their uniforms happen to be brown?

            “If not and they keep this us, at least their pants will be.”

            Aha, this time I caught wordpress changing letters on me.
            I wrote: “If not, and they keep this UP, at least their pants will be.”

            the ‘P’ got changed to an ‘S’.

            WordPress needs an edit button because they can’t keep the words from getting mangled over the net.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            lonnie states

            In fact, the only way these methods will work is if, the killer are not in the house at all. Thus they are useless.

            agreed, bro!

  23. Follow…..

    If these 2 truly were the bombers, or even if they weren’t…

    The cops could have handled it in a much different way than violating the 4th amendment……

    How many times do we hear of hostage situations where the cops evacuate the neighbors? The same could have been done here…..anyone that refused?…..surround the house while waiting for a warrant…all legal…

    What I saw out of the cops in Boston was a bunch of hob nail boots on a mission….screw peoples rights

  24. Professor, you are literally the Constant Defender. You really can’t help it!

    You are a good person.

    • Prof, i tweeted your post and now they’re telling me on twitter that the owners gave permission.

      but i’d think if i had pot laying around on my coffee table and the PoPo came banging on my door talking about terrorists hiding out somewhere off Biscayne blvd.. and these police are all geared up with machine guns like they were in Boston, i’d have a pretty hard time saying no to them!

    • X’s 10!

      I’m loving this class. The professor rocks! No doubt about it!

      • Prof……are a fan of Thomas Paine by chance?

        • cielo62 says:

          MMP~ I think from his latest post… YES he is!


        • Yes, I am.

          I am by nature rebellious and have always questioned authority.

          • Well there’s some commonalities…..Thomas Paine and

            “I am by nature rebellious and have always questioned authority.”

            That is why I try to stay as independent as possible……To me….most people and authorities are jokes….I’m sure U being a lawyer have heard of many strange laws…..Years ago I was nearly arrested because I questioned the authority of a supermarket mgr. as to why I couldn’t buy a steak….to the point the cops were called….and I stood my ground…..only wanting to know why I couldn’t buy it……….It seems in Calif. If there’s not a union butcher on duty….they can’t sell cut meat……It was after midnight….and the steak was to be cooked for me for winning a bet.

            Here in Colo. it’s illegal to kill a Bear attacking your pet…….BUT….it’s entirely legal to kill one attacking your livestock….Make any sense to you?

            Now how about Sun Tzu, Huxley & Orwell?

          • fauxmccoy says:

            professor says

            I am by nature rebellious and have always questioned authority.

            amen brother!

    • Mary Davis says:

      Hey Shannon. Love your gravatar.

      • @mary,
        isn’t it pretty! they love each other! there’s a really rich island called fisher island and they have real live flamingos, and i couldn’t believe how pretty they were! BTW.i get kinda *stooped* about pink, it’s my favorite! lol

    • cielo62 says:

      >^..^< My whiskers are twisted trying to understand this. Can all those people SUE for having their rights violated by the police?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        YES!! (and you know that i would as soon as my mamma bailed me outta the pokey;) )

        • cielo62 says:

          faux mccoy~ you are too much! I envy your courage. The threat of Going to jail would terrify me into submission; the claustrophobia would debilitate me.


          • fauxmccoy says:

            cielo says

            The threat of Going to jail would terrify me into submission

            sweetheart, that is what they bank on! mind you, i was raised by a gun toting cowboy who was also a retired federal agent (and bi-polar, may he rest in peace). i was taught to defend my rights from a young age and have been doing so. my mother was far more like you and i suspect that my dad and i scare her to some extent, but it takes people like us to hold the government’s feet to the fire whenever necessary, to the best of our ability. if that means a night in jail, i have done that before for civil disobedience and i would gladly do it again.

      • Yes, they can sue, but it would be a waste of time and money to do so unless they were roughed up, sustained a significant injury and emotional distress. By significant injury, I mean an injury that required a trip to the ER and some time off from work. By emotional distress, I mean distress that was documented and sufficiently upsetting to require counseling and possibly some medication.

        In other words, a person’s damages would have to be significant enough to make it worthwhile for a lawyer to agree to represent the person. It’s a numbers game, basically.

        Lawyers are not going to agree to get involved just for the principle involved.

        The rule of thumb is to total up the special damages (out of pocket costs for medical treatment, medication, counseling, lost income from missing work, transportation to and from treatment providers, parking fees, etc), triple them to estimate the amount of general damages for pain and suffering, and add the general damages to the special damages to get an estimate of what the case is worth.

        A lawyer would take 1/3 to 1/2 of that amount as the fee. I don’t think any lawyer would agree to take the case unless the estimated fee was at least $5,000 for little more than a demand letter and a few phone calls. That would be a bottom feeder working for a mill that makes its money by taking a high volume of low fee cases and settling them quickly, often for amounts that are significantly less than the claim is worth.

        Some possibility of collecting punitive damages awarded as punishment for egregious misconduct (limited to 10 times the total of specials plus generals) is an added incentive to get the sharks in the game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: