A house to house search? I had quite the discussion over chicken wings and beer over whether folks would allow LE into their home, regardless of circumstance. Just curious given the current situation in Boston, if LEOs showed up at your doorstep wanting to search your home, what if a citizen told them that no one with that description was in their home and said No, not without a warrant, THEN closed and locked the door? Could Law Enforcement make a forced entry, arrest the homeowner for any number of made up charges, and conducted the search without permission? Would the search be legal when the homeowner flat out refused? Does the homeowner have the right to self defense once the door was battered down?
Good question! I’d let them in to avoid problems since I’m legal…
Interesting question and a decision I hope I never have to make.
Boston.com has a quickie article on about the house to house searches.
Interesting question. I would be very curious to know the legalities surrounding such an issue.
I’m guessing in a situation like Boston you could refuse … but they might very well come in anyway claiming exigent circumstances. Regardless, I don’t think any evidence of criminal activity unrelated to the crime being investigated (i.e. the suspect they’re looking for) could be used in a criminal case.
And if you actively resisted law officers who had informed you they were conducting a search for an armed and dangerous suspect posing a threat to public safety you would be in a world of hurt.
I, like others, will be interested to hear the response of folks that actually know this shit.
Violent and dangerous criminal on the loose.
Refuse all you want, that is a warrant you do not served on your home.
Edit; you cannot legally defend yourself or home against LE working inside the confines of the law. You do not make that determination, regardless of what you believe the situation to be, if you shoot at uniformed officers conducting a door to door you will either be killed or be arrested, there is no legal defense for what you propose.
Beer and fried wings, only the best conversations happen here.
From what I’ve read the police were going house to house and asking residents if they had seen anything or anyone unusual and if they had checked around their respective homes. They also asked for permission to search the homes interior. If permission was declined they did not force the issue. All of the home exteriors and any out buildings, unattached garages, etc. were thoroughly searched.
If the police had specific information leading them to believe that the suspect was inside then they could force entry and do a warrantless search under the exigent circumstances exception. The other option would be to secure the perimeter and obtain a search warrant.
You can refuse the consent search. But the exigent warrantless and the warranted search can not be refused. To do so would put you in the position of obstructing a police officer conducting official business, obstructing justice and/or aiding & abetting a criminal.
Personally I have nothing to hide and although I don’t like the thought of a warrantless search of my house, I would probably give consent.
As far as actively resisting the search. I would not recommend it.
If the homeowner refused the search, I would think that any seized evidence not related to the terrorist activity would be inadmissible in court.
Civil court is where you would want to defend yourself and not physically resist officers entering your home while trying to locate an armed terrorist.
Let me add one further element to the question:
What if you’re armed in your own house and they come up? Or you have a firearm within plain site of the officer?
I’ve been thinking about this all day as my sister and her husband where right next to Watertown and their friends house was within the searched area. My wife and I have been talking about it all day, and damn right a firearm would be out in condition one in our house if this was taking place in our neighborhood.
So what happens when an officer comes to the door and sees your armed in your own house?
Are you suggesting that one must accept their rights to be violated first and then try and defend them after the fact in civil court? Isn’t that merely being “possibly” compensated for having your rights violated? And if so do you really have rights?
Legally, yes you can refuse a warrantless search. Citing the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, without a warrant police cannot search your home if you say NO.
However given the circumstances, the cause and urgency of apprehending the suspect, and the gravity of his crimes, I would not have refused. If it happened in my town, I’d have my guns out…and gladly welcome a LEO into my home, provided he (they) knew I was armed and protecting my property, my life, and my family…and that I would STAY armed while they were inside. If they had a problem with that…door closes and locks.
Warrantless searches can be refused…but sometimes its better and more helpful to allow them, especially if you KNOW your property is secure due to your own training and alertness.
This would have been my response too. I would have offered any help to get them to quickly move on to the actual threat.
But, here’s the deal. This seems to be becoming SOP (small armies of heavily armed police officers descending onto a community to respond to a single suspect). You have LA and now Boston. It is pretty apparent that their training and tactics are well thought out and well executed and in the case of both of these incidents you had a very violent and deranged individual on the loose.
The danger I see though is that this becomes standard for say the drug dealer down the block. The gang member on the run from across town. The drunk driver that fled his burning, exploding vehicle into the forest twenty yards from my house last year.
Giving an inch can result in the taking of a mile. I fear this is a slippery slope that our society is heading down.
The majority of us willingly disarm themselves, then offer more guns to the authorities, then let their fear allow those authorities to shut down entire metro areas while doing door to door searches. This is scary times for this country, and those of us that believe in our right to self defense and self determination are in the minority right now.
That is pretty much how I would treat the situation.
You can.
But there would be repercussions. Plan on how you would deal with them. And not just the police at your door. In court.
Simple…I’d hold up a copy of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and ask “any questions?!”
For those that aren’t well versed in the 4th Amendment, and the exceptions to it:
The “hot pursuit” exception is an example of exigent circumstances. That applies if you are engaged in a pursuit, maintaining contact with the suspect, then he enters an area (i.e. residential house) that normally requires a search warrant to enter without permission.
Such as LEO chasing suspect on foot, then the suspect runs into a house and locks the door. Said LEO can then forcibly enter the house to arrest the suspect.
“Hot pursuit” does not mean that you have a vague idea that the suspect is in a certain part of town. You cannot use that as an exception to the 4th, to force your way into every structure in that part of town.
“Dangerous criminal on the loose” is not exigent circumstances. Unless you have good evidence that the suspect is located in that particular structure/ property.
Personally, what happened in Waterford/Boston area today was tap dancing on the line of martial law. I can’t find a legal justification for “locking down” an entire city for an indefinite amount of time, looking for one man. When we start giving up an entire city of people’s freedom, we are headed in the wrong direction as a country. What happens next time there is a bombing, active shooter, deranged madman on the loose? “Lock down” entire cities, counties, states? What if it takes days, or weeks to find the suspect? Are we all just going to sit at home, not go to work, grocery store, doctor, school? Where does it end?
I’m career LE, and I do not support the “locking down” of a community for an indefinite amount of time. Clearing out a neighborhood based on decent evidence/information? Sure. I am not in favor of making it commonplace to suspend civil rights to catch a suspect. Lots of criminals don’t get caught. I’m ok with that fact if it means preserving our liberties.
Ben Franklin’s quote of " those that would give up liberty for the sake of safety deserve neither," comes to mind.
ETA: While conducting my job, I have no issue with people invoking their civil rights. Be it the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th. I understand the rules under which I have to do my job. I’ve had to let lots of criminals walk, even though I knew they were guilty, because of those Amendments. We are not all “jack booted thugs” and the majority understand the Bill of Rights. If myself or my shift were tasked with going door to door, and someone refused entry, without a warrant or visible evidence I would not force entry. Ever.
“Am I being detained? Am I under arrest? I’d like to go about my business”
The fact that they were asking consent is somewhat of an acknowledgement that there isn’t probable cause/reasonable suspicion, OR exigent circumstances. Things aren’t as simple/cut and dried once you give consent then “try” to revoke it. No I would NOT have given them consent to enter. No there would be NO worry on my part that there was some unknown area of my property that needed searching. I only have one acre, two buildings and cameras everywhere. Had I came home from vacationing or something like that I would have very well entertained letting them in, but having been present prior? no.
I know the local guys and probably wouldn’t have an issue with them, but in some place like philly, boston, chicago, new york? no way in hell.