Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/15/2006 7:53:40 AM PDT by NinoFan
Breaking... Major 5-4 decision. This case was reargued and apparently Alito cast the deciding vote.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Then they have to say: "So we'll huff and puff and blow your door in"....three times, take two steps backwards and announce: "If we don't hear "not by the hair of my chiny, chin chin" in three seconds, we're coming in"..."ready or not"....so help me God!!
You're joking, right? Do you honestly believe that the drug business doesn't involve any other crime than the sale and receipt of the drugs? You've got to be kidding.
The act of possessing drugs or selling drugs is consensual -- it violates no persons right to life or property. You created a straw man argument. Which in that it is irrational. Though your argument is invalid from the start I will address the issue of crime as it relates to illicit drugs. See alcohol prohibition. Crime spawned by alcohol prohibition was a derivative of prohibition -- an unintended consequence. With knowledge of past experience from drug prohibition, the "unintended" consequence of crime in the illicit drug business is intended. Politicians and bureaucrats knew that drug prohibition would spawn crime and escalation thereof. In short, the crime is a result of the laws that prohibit drugs just as the laws that prohibited alcohol did.
Do you think police agencies dreamed up no-knock warrants just because they like to bash in people's front doors? They exist, and the overwhelming majority of people support them, because critical evidence was being destroyed before officers could get into the building. It's not imaginary, it really happens. It happened a lot. That's why they created the no-knock warrant.
Yeah, you guys (if you're still a LEO) take one drug dealer off the street and there's ten more waiting to take his place. Arresting drug dealers is a job opportunity for them. And innocent drug users have their lives ruined by criminal records yet they violated no persons right to life or property. The LEOs ruined their life. The illicit drug culture is in the hands of criminals rather than a capitalist, and government regulation. Just look how well the alcohol culture is handled compared to drug prohibition. You don't see beer dealers waging turf wars. You don't see indeterminate quality of alcohol as often happens with illicit drugs because the alcohol quality and potency is regulated whereas it's not with illicit drugs.
See LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought even a search warrant has to be "served" before it is valid. The knock represents the serving of the warrant. I didn't think we allowed secret (non-served) warrants to be acted upon.
Horse-pucky. You kill a cop coming through the door, and you'll be dead or on death row.
Yes..
( from wikipedia: writ:
In law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction. In modern usage, this public body is normally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are types of writs, but there are many others.
But, I don't see where in the Constitution they are forbidden, unless you are going to argue that they are a denial of due process.
They can be eliminated legislatively; there is no reason for the courts to impose on the legislative branch. We've gotten a lot more bad law than good through that route.
"Unreasonable" in my mind is the grounds for the search found in the warrant and nothing more.
The first time this is used by the BATF they'll get it. Unitl then, save your breath.
Not a straw man at all. The drug trafficking is still illegal. Whether you think it should be or not is a legislative issue, not an enforcement one. The violent crime associated with drug trafficking is absolutely a legitimate concern, your philosophical analysis notwithstanding.
The power of the congress to enact laws is still part of the Constitution. The power of state legislatures to enact laws is part of each state's constitution. Some laws you don't like? Fine. Deal with that through the legislature. But don't slam on LEOs for doing their job and enforcing the laws that have been enacted.
You want to live in a place where nobody can tell you what to do? That's a holdover from adolescence, and such a place does not exist. Anywhere. You can imagine, dream, wish, insist, demand and delude all you want, but it... Does. Not. Exist.
Want to smoke your pot without anybody ruining your buzz? Move to the Netherlands.
Not a straw man at all.
If it's not a straw man then how is a transaction between a buyer and dealer not consensual? Your argument didn't address that. Your argument addressed non-consensual interactions -- ie., crimes.
Deal with that through the legislature.
I addressed that issue in my previous post. Alcohol prohibition was constitutionally valid because it was made law via an amendment to the constitution. Congress knew that was the only way to make alcohol prohibition constitutionally valid.
But don't slam on LEOs for doing their job and enforcing the laws that have been enacted.
I'll not slam any person. I will point persons that support and take part in supporting unconstitutional laws. When politicians, bureaucrats and LEOs violate the constitution it is their error, not mine for pointing it out. No amount of rationalization on your part will change the facts, nor make it right to violate the constitution.
You want to live in a place where nobody can tell you what to do? That's a holdover from adolescence, and such a place does not exist. Anywhere. You can imagine, dream, wish, insist, demand and delude all you want, but it... Does. Not. Exist.
Interning that you concoct a hypothetical scenario that suits your agenda and imply that your hypothetical is my position. When in fact it is as if you are trying to frame my position while disregarding the input I already supplied. My position is that I and every person may do whatever they chose so long as they do not violate the live or property rights of another person.
To quote you "You want to live in a place where nobody can tell you what to do?" Authoritarians with collectivist ideal tell people what to do and expect them to comply with their demands. Individualists tell people to do nothing -- they demand nothing of others -- nothing, save for don't violate my life and or property rights. It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.
Want to smoke your pot without anybody ruining your buzz? Move to the Netherlands.
Now you're just making an a$$ of yourself. I don't do illicit drugs.
See LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). A fast growing segment of persons that have or have had careers in the justice system.
The Court did decide that "knock and announce" was implicit in the term "reasonable search." But even Scalia agreed with that part, because that was based on rulings going back to the time the Constitution was ratifed.
I don't really get what the difference is if you knock or not, if you have a warrant. It might give me time to flush some drugs down the toilet, but how does it provide me any greater rights? They've got a warrant. I don't get it.
The courts (including the decisions 200 years ago) gave two reasons for the rule: (1) it protects the police from being shot by someone who thinks they are burglars breaking in, and (2) it protects the homeowner from having his door kicked in if he's willing to open it.
As far as the risk to evidence, I believe that there has been quite enough violence done to the 4th Amendment in the name of the War on (some) Drugs. It needs to end.
Those of you arguing that "knock and announce" is not spelled out in the Constitution are missing the whole point.
The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of all the rights the people enjoy. Indeed, many founders objected to the BOR precisely because some individuals would read it as exhaustive.
The knock and announce requirement was well enshrined in British law, Colonial American law, and then United States law. It was common understanding to our founders, so they did not need to include it by name in the BOR.
The founders also did not enshrine "guilty until proven innocent" in the Constitution, but how many of you would also want to ditch that?
Shame on the intellectually fradulent "orginalists" on the court for not going back to the framers of the Constitution for guidance. If they had, this decision would have been 9-0 against no-knock warrants.
ooops. That should read innocent until proven guilty, obviously....
Radley Balko, a Cato policy analyst and author of the upcoming Cato White Paper "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Drug Raids in America," says: "The Supreme Court's decision today in the case of Hudson v. Michigan is regrettable. The rise of paramilitary-type police units conducting 'no-knock' raids on American citizens is a disturbing trend in domestic law enforcement. Police excess, procedural errors, and reliance on 'confidential informants' of dubious character have caused hundreds of violent raids to be waged on completely innocent civilians. Dozens of nonviolent offenders, bystanders, and innocents have been killed or injured as a result. Because the courts have set the bar extremely high in allowing victims of botched raids to sue police officers and their superiors, the only real defense left against wholesale disregard for the rule requiring police to 'knock and announce' before entering private residences was to exclude evidence seized in illegal raids. Today, the Supreme Court removed that defense.
"Because of today's decision we can expect to see an even more pronounced increase in the use of illegal, military-style no-knock raids. And we can expect to see more innocent civilians wrongly targeted."
In "No SWAT," Balko writes that 'no-knock' raids are "often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of 'wrong door' raids we read about in the news. In fact, there's a disturbingly long list of completely innocent people who've been killed in 'wrong door' raids. It's impossible to estimate just how many wrong-door raids occur. Police and prosecutors are notoriously inept at keeping track of their own mistakes, and victims of botched raids are often too terrified or fearful of retribution to come forward."
I agree with this guy
If it could be proven that the occupants of the house shot a police officer who did not announce himself before breaking down the door, I'd have a hard time voting for a conviction.
Actually there are no other ways. The cops are almost never punished.
Of course you would. But, then, that's you, siding with a meth dealer.
It's an ancient common law principle, predating the 4th Amendment by centuries. Its purpose is to protect the of the homeowner/occupant's property (generally the front door), dignity (giving him time to get un-naked, for instance), and life (eg, so he doesn't get killed while trying to defend himself against unknown intruders).
I guess they've had to decide what is "unreasonable."
Not in this case, but yes, the knock and announce rule is considered to be part of the 4th Amendment's reasonableness requirement (Wilson v Arkansas, 1995). In the present case, there was no question that the 4th Amendment was violated; the state conceded as much. The question was whether evidence suppression is a required remedy for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court said not necessarily and went with a costs/benefits analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.