Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ May 1 2013, 10:23 PM) You can set a perimeter around the suburb, keep it locked down, and catch the sh*tbag when someone notices him in their shed. 100% constitutional, and JUST as effective as house to house illegal search.
Yeah that sounds practical
Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ May 1 2013, 10:23 PM) EDIT: And for the record, I'm right about hot pursuit. You have to be in an ACTIVE chase. The "while you observe" covers "dude just slipped around the corner and john doe says he's in THAT house."
That's not exactly what you said. You said,
QUOTE (Sundance_)The hot pursuit exception to a warrentless search of a dwelling is WHILE YOU OBSERVE the suspect enter that house as you are in ACTIVE pursuit.[/quote]
Which is not correct. If you read the link I posted, you would have found:
QUOTE The Supreme Court stated 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'" (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]). Hot pursuit also applies when the lives of police officers or others are in danger. Thus, the Court has recognized two specific conditions that justify warrantless searches under the rule of hot pursuit:
the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.
The Supreme Court enunciated the rule of hot pursuit in 1967, in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782. It had used the term before, but in Warden, it explicitly condoned a certain form of this warrantless search. In this case, police officers pursuing a suspected armed robber were told that he had entered a dwelling moments before their arrival. They entered the dwelling, searched it and seized evidence, and then apprehended the suspect in bed. The man alleged in court that the warrantless search of the premises had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it disagreed, justifying the search under exigent circumstances.[/quote]
So in that case, the police did not observe anything. The suspect escaped, and was out of their sight. They were only going on the word of some guy who said, "he went in there" and the Supreme Court said it was justified.
You might be able to quibble with how long the "active pursuit" is allowed to last, but clearly according to the Supreme Court it lasts longer than just having the suspect in sight. I would argue that given the circumstances, the police in Boston were in hot pursuit of a dangerous terrorist. After all, it was only a matter of hours that the chase lasted, and then they called off the search once it was clear that they lost him.
In addition, as I stated earlier, there are exceptions for exigent circumstances which includes more than just hot pursuit. So even if hot pursuit doesn't apply, the exigent circumstances exception certainly does.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
