Urszula Masny-Latos, Executive Director  -  617-227-7335

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, MASSACHUSETTS CHAPTER,

CALLS ON THE GOVERNMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO EXPLAIN CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS  FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Boston, April 26, 2013:     The National Lawyers Guild, Massachusetts Chapter  (NLG) continues to express its sympathy to those who were wounded and to those who lost family members in the April 15 bombings and in the events of the following days.  We join in the hope for speedy recovery and healing.

While we appreciate that public safety rules usually serve a legitimate purpose in times of crisis in order to protect and maintain an orderly society, our legal system includes other important protections derived from the U.S. Constitution.   Those protections must be upheld, especially in the aftermath of crisis.  Indeed, those protections are designed for times of crisis.   If constitutional protections are denied to some of us, they may one day be denied to all of us.

One week has passed since the lock down of Watertown, as well as Boston and other areas.  This lock down and the widespread use of warrantless searches and seizures imposed by law enforcement on Friday 19, 2013 were unprecedented in our nation’s history.

We are concerned about the widespread use of searches and seizures, in particular, warrantless entries into and searches of many homes, sometimes with guns drawn, without any articulable suspicion to believe that the bombing suspect was located in any particular home.  These widespread searches and seizures, executed by heavily armed officers who more closely resembled special forces military units than they did law enforcement officers, occurred over a 20-block area of Watertown and in the context of a total lockdown of that area, and a more voluntary lockdown of the entire City of Boston, among other places.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects us from just this sort of behavior by the Government, as does the  Constitution of the Commonwealth.

The United States Constitution, Amendment IV states,

“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.

Similarly, the Declaration of the Rights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Part the First, Article XIV states,

“Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.  All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.”

The Supreme Court has carved out a narrowly tailored exception to the requirement of a search warrant, applicable when law enforcement officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.  However, hot pursuit may be invoked only when officers are in immediate and continuous pursuit of a suspect from the scene of the crime.  Here, the officers simply shut down a large area and began indiscriminate invasions of every home in that area over the course of a full day.  Ultimately, the suspect was never even found in that locked down area.  Thus, any claim of hot pursuit is unconvincing.  Based on the facts at this time, we do not believe that or any other exception to the warrant requirement was justified here.

As a legal organization, we are especially concerned that these actions of law enforcement could be used as precedent for the further erosion of the public’s constitutional rights.   Indeed, the Boston Police are already seeking more cameras and drones to saturate the area with surveillance ability “to prevent a similar attack in the future”.  If the police can shut down an entire city in pursuit of one suspect, albeit a dangerous one, what use of force will they consider to be justified when faced with a similar or greater threat?  If we do not take a stand to protect our constitutional freedoms now, they will continue to erode.

The National Lawyers Guild, Massachusetts Chapter calls on the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the Massachusetts Government involved in these searches and seizures to explain to the public what grounds justified the forcible lock down of an entire town for a full day and why constitutional protections were ignored.

The NLG, Massachusetts Chapter also invites any person subject to these searches and seizures to speak with us about your experiences and about your legal rights.

The National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest and human rights bar organization in the United States with a goal to “serve the people to the ends that human rights shall be regarded as more sacred than property interests.”

 

— END —

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, MASSACHUSETTS CHAPTER URGES LAW ENFORCEMENT TO HOLD FAST TO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS IN WAKE OF ARREST OF BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING SUSPECT 

Boston, April 21, 2013:    The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) wishes to express its sympathy to those who were wounded and to those who lost family members in the April 15 bombings near the close of the Boston Marathon and in the events of the following days.  We join in spirit with our fellow human beings to hope for speedy recovery and healing.While we appreciate that public safety rules usually serve a legitimate purpose in times of crisis in order to protect and maintain an orderly society, our legal system includes other important protections derived from the U.S. Constitution. Those protections must be upheld, especially in the aftermath of crisis. Indeed, those protections are designed for times of crisis. If Constitutional protections are denied to one of us, they may one day be denied to all of us.A suspect is in custody, accused of perpetrating the Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent violence. He is likely to be charged with the most serious offenses carrying the most serious penalties. But this suspect, like all who face prosecution by the United States, has a right to the well-established constitutional protections of due process of law. He is entitled to the Miranda warning, namely that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can and may be used against him in a court of law, and that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during questioning and that, if he cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent him at no cost to him.Courts have allowed a limited exception to Miranda where there is an immediate and continuing threat to public safety. However, there is no publicly-stated basis at this time to apply the urgent public safety exception to the Miranda warning because, by the admission of law enforcement before the suspect was apprehended on April 19, it was safe for residents to leave their homes. The protection guaranteed under Miranda must not be discarded unless dire circumstances demand it.Our justice system requires us to hold fast to our values and to the rule of law, especially when the system is tested by those who commit terrible acts of aggression. The danger that comes with the deprivation of legal protection to any criminal suspect is the erosion of this protection for us all. If our government is allowed to selectively respect constitutional rights based on our resentment of the accused, the rights themselves become meaningless.The NLG urges law enforcement, and the U.S. Attorney’s office, to hold fast to the Constitutional freedoms which serve to define us as a civilized nation to the rest of the world at a time when we are being watched so closely. We urge the swift appearance of the suspect before a judge, and access to a lawyer as quickly as possible. It is imperative that we, as a democratic nation, ensure that the world recognizes us at this time as a nation of civilized people in how we treat those whom we accuse of committing crimes.