Boston Marathon Terrorists Engaged.

[wlawr005]

The police have no probable cause to believe there is a terror suspect in anyone's house just based on the suspect's last known location. I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend a half hour on my front lawn while police search my house the next time a multiple homicide offender is on the loose. I don't have a meth lab or secret weed stash, either. The 4th amendment isn't about protecting criminals, no matter how many cynical prosecutors and police officers think it is. It is common sense to not allow police to conduct door-to-door property searches to catch a criminal, even if he's a mass murderer.

Also, if police enter your house to look for a person and see illegal contraband on the table, they can arrest you under the plain view doctrine. They probably won't in lieu of pursuing the murderer, but they can.

You can only use this argument if you believe the police are in my house "lawfully" while looking for a suspect. According to your earlier posts you believe the police presence in Boston to be unlawful, therefore the plain view doctrine would not be applicable.

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2043-plain-view-doctrine-

 

[wlawr005]

The police have no probable cause to believe there is a terror suspect in anyone's house just based on the suspect's last known location. I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend a half hour on my front lawn while police search my house the next time a multiple homicide offender is on the loose. I don't have a meth lab or secret weed stash, either. The 4th amendment isn't about protecting criminals, no matter how many cynical prosecutors and police officers think it is. It is common sense to not allow police to conduct door-to-door property searches to catch a criminal, even if he's a mass murderer.

Also, if police enter your house to look for a person and see illegal contraband on the table, they can arrest you under the plain view doctrine. They probably won't in lieu of pursuing the murderer, but they can.

So your opinion is less about civil rights and more about personal agenda...a problem we see frequently these days.

 

[Spekkio]

Sorry, I should've stated it as "citizens should not have to subject themselves to a police search everytime there is a murderer on the loose in their neighborhood."

Additionally, you had originally stated that police could not submit illegal contraband found in plain view (e.g. a meth lab in the kitchen) as evidence in court because they were not looking for contraband, but instead a murderer. That is a false statement.

@Wink,

The Miranda warning is required to be read upon arrest. Laws vary by state, but generally any statement you give the police prior to arrest is considered voluntary cooperation and is admissable as evidence in court. The Miranda warning is a reminder to people under arrest; it doesn't serve as a cutoff time when police may submit statements from you.

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

Straight from the source, the United States Department of State:

Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality

The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.


Potentially Expatriating Acts

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one's own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S.or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

<words...>

Disposition of Cases When Administrative Premise Is Inapplicable
The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

1. formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
2. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
3. takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
4. is convicted of treason.

 

[Spekkio]

Yea man you completely ignored the first part of those sentences. He would have to be serving in the armed forces of a country at war with the U.S. As Russia is not at war with the U.S. and he is not a member of the Russian armed forces, those clauses don't apply.

 

[phrogdriver]

No ones rights have been violated...let's get the common sense fairy back over hear and tone down the radical talk.

The circumstances of the Watertown searches haven't all come to light. If the police knocked on people's doors, told them there was a murderer on the loose, asked and were granted permission to search property, then I fully agree that no rights were violated. If people were hauled out of their homes without consent because this guy was somewhere in a large area, then that's illegal. Not giving one's consent to a search is not probable cause to be searched. At this time, though, I'll give the police the benefit of the doubt.

Are you saying that Spekkio is being radical, or that talk of protecting basic American rights is radical? The right to counsel, the right of habeus corpus, etc, aren't some new-fangled liberal inventions. They've been around in common law since before the Constitution even existed. Terrorism is dangerous, but the fact that our rights have been eroded is even more so.

Just as racketeering laws started out as tools against the mafia, but were later used against any target du jour, so are terrorism laws now. Patriot Act law enforcement tools are being used against run-of-the-mill criminals. Along those lines, I can imagine the day when the citizenship revocation provisions above could be construed to encompass any crime, not just insurrection or war. Some rights may seem to just benefit the guilty, but I suspect there are a lot of innocent people who are glad that their constitutional rights ended up protecting them from malicious prosecution. In short, where the "War on Terror" conflicts with constitutional rights, err on the side of protecting rights.

If this were a traditional conflict against a state actor, with some kind of foreseeable end date, emergency suspensions of rights would not be so troubling. However, we are fighting forces with no home base in a struggle that has no defined end. There is no date that things will go back to normal. In WWII, we knew that some day one side or the other would win. That's not going to happen here. So, if we give up this right or that one until the war on terror is over, we'll get that right back, well, never.

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

Yea man you completely ignored the first part of those sentences. He would have to be serving in the armed forces of a country at war with the U.S. As Russia is not at war with the U.S. and he is not a member of the Russian armed forces, those clauses don't apply.

Fair enough, but what about treason?

 

[BigRed389]

Fair enough, but what about treason?

When was his trial again?

 

[wlawr005]

The circumstances of the Watertown searches haven't all come to light. If the police knocked on people's doors, told them there was a murderer on the loose, asked and were granted permission to search property, then I fully agree that no rights were violated. If people were hauled out of their homes without consent because this guy was somewhere in a large area, then that's illegal. Not giving one's consent to a search is not probable cause to be searched. At this time, though, I'll give the police the benefit of the doubt.

Are you saying that Spekkio is being radical, or that talk of protecting basic American rights is radical? The right to counsel, the right of habeus corpus, etc, aren't some new-fangled liberal inventions. They've been around in common law since before the Constitution even existed. Terrorism is dangerous, but the fact that our rights have been eroded is even more so.

Just as racketeering laws started out as tools against the mafia, but were later used against any target du jour, so are terrorism laws now. Patriot Act law enforcement tools are being used against run-of-the-mill criminals. Along those lines, I can imagine the day when the citizenship revocation provisions above could be construed to encompass any crime, not just insurrection or war. Some rights may seem to just benefit the guilty, but I suspect there are a lot of innocent people who are glad that their constitutional rights ended up protecting them from malicious prosecution. In short, where the "War on Terror" conflicts with constitutional rights, err on the side of protecting rights.

If this were a traditional conflict against a state actor, with some kind of foreseeable end date, emergency suspensions of rights would not be so troubling. However, we are fighting forces with no home base in a struggle that has no defined end. There is no date that things will go back to normal. In WWII, we knew that some day one side or the other would win. That's not going to happen here. So, if we give up this right or that one until the war on terror is over, we'll get that right back, well, never.

I think where you see a citizen being pulled out of a home against there will I see a citizen being protected by LEO who reasonably believe there is a terror suspect in the vicinity. What if that dude was hiding in your garage and you didn't know it? Police knock on the door, you deny them entry, police leave...next thing you know you're a hostage.

Let's say locking down those city blocks is a violation of civil rights, what's the alternative? Would you rather he got away? I just don't see the concerted effort by the state to alienate our rights like you do. I see a bunch of guys putting their life on the line to protect their community and then getting shit on for how they do it...

 

[phrogdriver]

If there was reason to believe the guy was in your particular house, like someone saw him running through the yard, then there is indeed probable cause, and they can rush in. If it's just a dragnet over a wide area, then if you don't want the government in your house, then they can't come in just because they want to.

Yes, it is better that he gets away, actually. I'd hope that most Americans are civic-minded enough to allow the police to search them. But, if a guy doesn't want the police to see his pink dildo collection or whatever, then he has every right to say, "Piss off" and do his thing if there's no reason to believe some specific illegal thing is happening in his house. That's his right.

 

[jmcquate]

We need to make the distinction between intelligence and evidence. Right now Law enforcement and the IC want Intelligence; the evidence will come later when he goes into the criminal justice system. It is by no means perfect and I sympathies with the “slippery slope” arguments.

 

[Flash]

Fair enough, but what about treason?

As I have already noted, the Supreme Court has said that you cannot involuntarily revoke someone's citizenship.

"Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Afroyim v. Rusk

Taking an oath to a hostile foreign state can be considered voluntarily giving up your citizenship. Conceivably the government could extend the argument to someone who takes an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda since it is a designated terrorist group that the US is in conflict with but whether or not the Supreme Court goes along with it would be a good question.

It is a moot point though, he would be treated no differently by the criminal justice system and will almost certainly the rest of his life behind bars citizen or not.

 

[squeeze]

Mandatory posting for any thread like this. For all the internet people with GEDs in law.
Part One
Part Two

For the too lazy to watch it: Never talk to the police. Never.

 

[Renegade One]

It is common sense to not allow police to conduct door-to-door property searches to catch a criminal, even if he's a mass murderer.

Our mileage varies. As does our individual interpretation of "common sense".

 

[Renegade One]

Mandatory posting for any thread like this. For all the internet people with GEDs in law.
Part One
Part Two

For the too lazy to watch it: Never talk to the police. Never.

Then never…EVER…call 911. Hint: dialing that number puts you in contact with that hated/feared entity: The Police (and it an't the rock band…).

WTF?