When Can the Police Conduct a Door-to Door Search

As we probably all saw the terrorist act last week in Boston and the final result; the query is; the Governor had "locked down" the city and in a wide area police were going door-to door searching for the suspects, in a situation like that are the police legally able to goo door to door and enter property (your home or yard) Without any type of a warrant? they may have reasonable suspicion a suspect is hiding in a wide area, say 20 square blocks, so may they "use" that reasonable suspicion to enter door to door in such a large area?

Bostonian here:

They do not need a warrant if they have consent from the homeowner. And they did.

If a resident/owner of a home refused them entry, unless they could provide probable cause, they definitely would have been able to argue exigent circumstances and searched any home falling under such claim. Other than that, they were at the whim of the resident/owner. I suspect the searches were with permission given the situation.

I know they don't need a warrant if they have consent from the property owner; I suppose it comes down again to "reasonable suspicion", in that context, it would appear then that the police could enter Any dwelling in the City with or without consent then, since they knew the suspect was loose somewhere in the city

there was no reasonable suspicion in any of the home searches.

Quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

the only argument I have heard put forth that might allow the searches sans warrant was: were the searches unreasonable and if so, can the state prove an exigency that would allow the search without first obtaining a warrant. the latter was obviously met. the first is the big question but i do not believe such random searches without not only probable cause but not even reasonable suspicion would be considered reasonable.

martial law would have to have been put into effect for the searches to be allowed to be mandatory

at least that's my take on it all

I cannot provide the definitive answer as I do not know the level of intel that the police knew. But, there is also a community caretaking exception involved as part of the exigency exception and it could very well be that they would make entry and conductive a protective sweep anyway - damn the torpedoes. With this guy there would be the real possibility that he could be holding people hostage, that he could be planting additional devices, etc.

I recall once when we were looking for a man who had just slit a little boy's neck from ear to ear. We conducted what would effectively be a checkpoint on I-5 stopping every car looking for the suspect as it had been reported he was trying to flag down a car. Why did we stop these cars? Because we felt it possible that he could be holding a driver hostage and for the safety of the public at large we were checking every vehicle. We also stopped everyone in the area of the murder to see if they were the guy. As we knew what he looked like, these detentions were short-lived. In one instance we found a backpack of marijuana - several pounds, a felony. You know what? We seized it but let him go on his way. Why? Because we didn't give a rat's behind about the dope at that moment. Turns out we missed him by minutes because he was arrested the next day in Los Angeles when he stabbed a woman in the neck and surprisingly confessed to the arresting detectives about killing a little boy.

I suspect that it was much the same here in Watertown. If the cops bullied their way in to any home, it was to look for the bomber and they didn't care about anything else. Heck, they may well have told the residents the same thing - King's X on anything we find.

This sort of thing might offend some civil libertarian point of view, but when you are looking for a mad bomber or a killer of children and he could very well be a real and imminent threat, you do what you have to do and deal with the fallout later.

I believe there have been court rulings upholding traffic stops such as you describe. Heck, I recall when there was a bank robbery inmy area and subsequent murder of a state trooper. There was a checkpoint at the state line. You pulled up to face several troopers with guns drawn. They looked in the car and you went on your way. That is quite different than a home search though. I do understand your point of the possibility of the suspect holding them against their will though. I suspect ultimately it would be ruled an allowable action given the circumstances.

It's a tough balance sometimes and that "unreasonable" can stretch a long way sometimes.

From experience, I can tell you that the last thing on the mind of the officers in this sort of situation is to try and bootstrap some search for dope, weapons, or anything else. The ONLY thing on your mind is the safety of your partners and the public, and nailing the SOB before he can strike again.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

From experience, I can tell you that the last thing on the mind of the officers in this sort of situation is to try and bootstrap some search for dope, weapons, or anything else. The ONLY thing on your mind is the safety of your partners and the public, and nailing the SOB before he can strike again.

---

and as such, I suspect you won't find too many people that believe they were searched illegally. If there are any, of course they are allowed to chase it through the courts.

NCC 1701, let me ask you a question.

Were you in the greater Boston area Friday?