Sounds like searching houses is now Std Operating procedure

We were doing a house-to-house search and in some cases were searching attics and storages,” Calaveras County Sheriff’s Capt. Jim Macedo said Saturday night. “It’s a difficult area to search. It’s rural, it’s remote.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/9-y...unt-starts-for-man-that-fatally-stabbed-child

In California the 2nd and 4th amendments are like the 13th floor in an elevator.

Carthago Delenda Est

It does not say that the cops are stacked up outside the house with fully automatic assault rifles at the ready, and then busting in or intimidating the homeowner/resident into "letting" them do the search. And then again it does not say that's not what is going on.

When the places for a killer to hide are houses, because the surrounding area is open countryside, then you ought to expect killers to try and hide in houses.

So long as the cops merely have their fweelings hurted when Harry Homeowner says he will check out all the hidey places and let them know if there is a child killer anywhere, then I'm not upset at the cops wanting to search likely hiding places. If they are insistent they can go get a warrant based on a sworn statement that explains why they think the child killer is hiding in my house as opposed to any other house anywhere else.

Sworn statement/warrant not up to snuff? See y'all in court. Have a nice day.

Tell me you are coming in without a warrant? I'll stand in the doorway and they can bodily move me. I won't actively resist. They may cuff & stuff me or not. Does not matter. See y'all in court. Have a nice day.

If someone wants to pull a ¡No pasarán! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_shall_not_pass I hope their affairs are in order and their survivors know where the will is kept. Now one day I might pull that myself, but it will be over something a lot bigger than trying to find a child killer.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

It does not say that the cops are stacked up outside the house with fully automatic assault rifles at the ready, and then busting in or intimidating the homeowner/resident into "letting" them do the search. And then again it does not say that's not what is going on.

When the places for a killer to hide are houses, because the surrounding area is open countryside, then you ought to expect killers to try and hide in houses.

So long as the cops merely have their fweelings hurted when Harry Homeowner says he will check out all the hidey places and let them know if there is a child killer anywhere, then I'm not upset at the cops wanting to search likely hiding places. If they are insistent they can go get a warrant based on a sworn statement that explains why they think the child killer is hiding in my house as opposed to any other house anywhere else.

Sworn statement/warrant not up to snuff? See y'all in court. Have a nice day.

Tell me you are coming in without a warrant? I'll stand in the doorway and they can bodily move me. I won't actively resist. They may cuff & stuff me or not. Does not matter. See y'all in court. Have a nice day.

If someone wants to pull a ¡No pasarán! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_shall_not_pass I hope their affairs are in order and their survivors know where the will is kept. Now one day I might pull that myself, but it will be over something a lot bigger than trying to find a child killer.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

It does not matter what the reason is .... they have no idea or even a guess as to the whereabouts of the killer ... it starts here with a heinous crime and then it will be for any reason soon

stay safe, hope that a crime does not occur within 10 miles of your dwelling

davidmcbeth said:

It does not matter what the reason is .... they have no idea or even a guess as to the whereabouts of the killer ... it starts here with a heinous crime and then it will be for any reason soon

stay safe, hope that a crime does not occur within 10 miles of your dwelling

Click to expand...

Perhaps you did not understand. Perhaps I did not write clearly and directly enough.

Based on what was and was not reported, we just do not know if the cops forced their way into homes to search them. Since the report did not say they did, it creates the presumption that they did not.

Searching for a child killer is what we pay cops to do - within the boundaries of the 4th Amendment. If they know who the child killer is (they did not) and saw him run into a specific house you and I both agree they can search for him in that house without violating any 4A rights. If they do not know who he is but can eliminate all the wide-open spaces as places where he is not hiding, then they have pretty much eliminated every place but houses.

Now comes the difficult part. Cops are paid to search for and find/apprehend the child killer. They think he might be in some house among many houses. They do not feel like throwing a perimeter around all the houses/neighborhood and sending someone to see the magistrate/judge about a warrant for each house. They can ask if it is OK to come in and look for the child killer, or they can force their way in and go looking for the child killer - either by breaking down the door and barging in or by making Harry Homeowner think he will "get in trouble" if he does not let them search, regardless of how much he does not want them rummaging around where they might find evidence of his innocuous and legal deviant behavior that would be socially embarassing if anybody found out about it.

You make the bald assertion that these searches were forced on Harry Homeowner without a warrant and against his will. I say we just don't know that for a fact, but there is information that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that was not the case.

But as for "searching homes is now "Std Operating Procedure" - it may pain you to learn that it has been SOP for quite a long time. The issue should not be that the cops are searching likely places where the child killer may be hiding, but whether they are violating any rights while doing so. You have taken the position that if a cop does something it axiomatically must violate some right. I would rather have a little bit of evidence backing up such an assertion.

Personal note - I appreciate your good wishes. Unfortunately, crimes happen every day within 10 miles of my home. Some of the times cops search for the criminal(s) and some times they go into houses/businesses to do that. So far they have done so without violating anybody's 4A rights by coersion or intimidation. I do not know why that is, given that they manage to screw up so many other things. I cannot speak for every cop in the two jurisdictions that are within 10 miles of my place, but a goodly number know of me and I'm pretty sure they would not feel the need to search my house as they suspect a criminal would not survive trying to hide in my house.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

So far they have done so without violating anybody's 4A rights by coersion or intimidation.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

You're lucky that they have not violated your 4th amendment rights... In Boston they would have came up to your door brandishing a M16 .. hardly consensual after that display of force (6 guys with M16 ... grandma is going to so no, right?)

I would like to know more about the nature of the searches .... but we are only lowly citizens so we'll never know all the facts...at least at this time.

There is little facts from the initially posted story stated that would justify a "house to house search"...

After door-to-door sweeps proved fruitless, law officers urged residents to lock their doors and keep a close eye on streets and yards for the man. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/04/28/search-continues-for-calaveras-county-girls-killer/

An update above.

We must remain vigilant in protecting our 4th amendment rights ... even in the worst scenarios its important.





Here's one story talking about SWAT teams coming to people's houses .... A SWAT team showed up at his house Saturday night and told him to stay inside, Ballew said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/2...bbing-death-8-year-old-girl-in/#ixzz2Rt3IaVUu

So, were people coerced into allowing searches? Once again, grandma v. 9 SWAT team members at the door...

David -

Please read this. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...the-art-of-the-manhunt-15393081?click=pm_news

Then go argue with the author.

You seem to be sure of yourself and the assertions you make. That must be because you have facts and other information nobody elsde has and for your own reasons you do not want to share with the rest of us.

stay safe.

There are videos of multiple officers in tactical gear, carrying military-styled weapons, banging on doors, while on the streets there are military-styled vehicles.

To any reasonable person, there is no option to consent or not consent. Compliance will reasonably seem to be mandatory with consequences for noncompliance of detention or arrest (or even possibly death).

This is analogous to being stopped on the street by multiple cops, or by cops with firearms drawn, or by cops issuing forceful directions. All of these have been ruled by courts as creating a situation where a reasonable person would feel that he has been seized. I have no doubt that, were the police actions in Boston to be tested in the courts, they would rule that the entries into the homes in the videos I have seen were entirely non-consensual as any reasonable person would feel that he has no choice but to comply.

skidmark said:

David -

Please read this. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...the-art-of-the-manhunt-15393081?click=pm_news

Then go argue with the author.

You seem to be sure of yourself and the assertions you make. That must be because you have facts and other information nobody elsde has and for your own reasons you do not want to share with the rest of us.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

The premise behind the OP is sound AND has recent facts/examples to prove the OP's point. It seems more facts (information) are being made available that may further bolster the OP's position.

What we "have" in the stories provided in this thread is the/a cops version and "some statements" from citizens re the killing and the perp. It seems to me, and I could be way off base, that the questioner did not ask the citizens how the cops gained entry into homes or if cops were "requested" to go get a warrant by any one or more citizens.

You are correct, we do not know what the cops did to gain entry into the homes of citizens. So, lawful entry or unlawful entry, who knows. What information do you have that indicates that the cops did not violate any citizen's rights during their search?

skidmark said:

David -

Please read this. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...the-art-of-the-manhunt-15393081?click=pm_news

Then go argue with the author.

You seem to be sure of yourself and the assertions you make. That must be because you have facts and other information nobody elsde has and for your own reasons you do not want to share with the rest of us.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Don't mean to offend, but I think you are looking at the world through rose covered glasses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ8mlC3mWW4 rcg song

This month, its police with M16s ... next month it will be Army soldiers knocking on our doors.

The Pop. Mech. article was a nice read (after I closed all the popups, not Skid's fault) .. I like where the cop says "we ask politely" ..yeah! With a M16 staring at me from guys with ballistic shields, body armor, etc.

Just noting another example of "door-to-door" searches that result in ziltch, other than show that they can come into anyone's house that they want.

Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, shame on me.

kurt555gs said:

In California the 2nd and 4th amendments are like the 13th floor in an elevator.

Carthago Delenda Est

Click to expand...

LOL :banana::banana::banana: