Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

No, you are not right to be disturbed.

Why would I have any worry about searching on most anything?

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.There is no equivalency there.If you have a gun while drinking in an area where there are other people would be equivalent and there, you should be charged and IMHO, your right to ever again have a gun taken away.Your next assertion is also flawed and nonsense. If you are searching the internet for information on the Boston Bombing, pressure cookers and back packs then yes, it is reasonable to be questioned about why you are searching for that information.In the example in the OP I see no threat or violation of anyone's freedoms.

Bullshit. I am throwing no rights away and you have never even suggested what rights I have thrown away. I cannot even imagine why anyone would want to search my house based on this conversation and would really think anyone suggesting that was a little nuts. I'd laugh a lot and show them my weapons, ammunition, knives but sadly, no pressure cooker. I do have some plastic bottles, co[sub]2[/sub] cylinders and espresso machines.But that of course is totally unrelated to what happened in the case in the OP.Just what rights were infringed in the example in the OP?

But there was no unreasonable search.Go back and read the actual account of what happened as opposed to the editorial comments.

quote:

---

The story later took on a different complexion when police finally explained that the investigation was prompted by searches a family member had made for pressure cooker bombs and backpacks made at his former workplace. The former employer, believing the searches to be suspicious, alerted police. Catalano said the family member was her husband.

---

There is no expectation of privacy when doing searches on a work computer.

Actually I don't see it as unreasonable at all.The police asked permission to come in and to search the house, the search was cursory, no one was charged or accused of anything.Where is there any indication even of "unreasonable search"?

But they didn't search until they asked if they could search. I don't think it is unreasonable to take the time to investigate reports that could be related to terrorism.The police did not force entry, did not do anything more than ask questions and do a cursory search and only after asking and receiving permission.Where is there any indication of an unreasonable search?

Too funny.Damn good thing that isn't what happened then.

The first thing I say is "Why?."

I'm very cool with how this went down, in fact I think it was handled extremely well.And yes, I think the police should have been there in the first place. They received a report that an employee or ex-employee had been researching the Boston bombing as well as pressure cookers and backpacks on a company computer system.Had the police not investigated I would think they were very derelict in their duties. I also imagine that had they not investigated and had there been a terrorist attack they would have been loudly condemned by the entertainment system jokingly called "News" in the US ever since the US Conservatives destroyed reporting and news.

More sophomoric rhetoric and misrepresentation of what actually happened.I have never said that anyone should trade freedom for temporary security. I do not see any indication that any freedoms were traded or rights infringed.

Please show where I said that.What you might THINK I suggested is irrelevant to what I have actually said.

But that is NOT what happened.The reality is that the police got a report and investigated the report.It really is that simple.

Well, we only have the somewhat colored and suspicious report from the wife for that. But three SUV's and six cops in something that might be terrorism is not unreasonable at all. Note that no where even in the wives account is there any mention of drawn guns or threats or force or even intimidation.It seems from both accounts that the police were mannered, polite, the search cursory, that no attempt to look in cabinets or closets or most any potential hiding places was made. Permission was asked, questions answered and the police left.Sorry but I see nothing but very reasonable and appropriate response.

Seems you must be easily intimidated.Sorry I see no trickery. How is asking something tricky?