Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: No exclusionary rule for no-knock searches

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito; billofrights; constitutionlist; evidence; fourthamendment; govwatch; justicealito; libertarians; noknock; policesearch; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; warondrugs; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last
Anyone find an article on this yet?
1 posted on 06/15/2006 7:53:44 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

I would argue that, in a 5-4 decision, 5 votes are deciding.


2 posted on 06/15/2006 7:55:33 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Supreme Court upholds police evidence in searches without knocking
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.
Justice Samuel Alito broke a 4-4 tie in siding with Detroit police, who called out their presence at a man’s door then went inside three to five seconds later.
The case had tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said “whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house.”
The court did not say how long police officers must wait after knocking before they enter a home to execute a search warrant.
Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches.
The outcome might have been different if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.
She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so Alito could participate in deliberations.
Hudson’s lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.
Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given “a get-out-of-jail-free card” to him and others.
“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal justices.
Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say “it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry.”


3 posted on 06/15/2006 7:55:52 AM PDT by Brian Mosely (A government is a body of people -- usually notably ungoverned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan; Sandy

bump for later. sounds interesting. Paging Sandy...you're wanted at the courtesy counter.


4 posted on 06/15/2006 7:56:21 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Look, the decision was 4-4 after O'Connor left, they needed to break the tie so they reheard the case once Alito got on the Court.


5 posted on 06/15/2006 7:57:05 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
Alito cast the deciding vote

Any of the five justices could've been the deciding vote. I can't imagine eight justices sitting around in anticipation for Alito to cast his vote.

Don't buy into MSM hooey.

6 posted on 06/15/2006 7:57:05 AM PDT by Doohickey (Democrats are nothing without a constituency of victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

Yes, they sat around in anticipation. They had heard the case earlier in the term and were deadlocked 4-4. They needed to break the tie, so once Alito got on the Court, they reheard the case (oral arguments were geared toward him) and he cast the deciding vote.


7 posted on 06/15/2006 7:58:03 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
The outcome might have been different if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wasWERE still on the bench.

Not that writers should know how to write or anything.

8 posted on 06/15/2006 7:58:17 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely

Good thing old Sandra Dee is GONE!

Bush legacy BUMP.


9 posted on 06/15/2006 7:58:43 AM PDT by Kryptonite (Keep Democrats Out of Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

A welcome indication of the conservative leaning of Justice Alito.


10 posted on 06/15/2006 7:58:57 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote...

Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Breyer, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? Oh, guess not.

11 posted on 06/15/2006 8:00:30 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

If you are willing to assume that O'Connor would've ruled otherwise, then Alito's vote was "deciding."


12 posted on 06/15/2006 8:00:55 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal justices.

I'm not really a big law enforcement kinda guy, but where is the "knock and announce" protection in the Constitution? Something the SCOTUS invented along the way? I guess they've had to decide what is "unreasonable." 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.

13 posted on 06/15/2006 8:01:17 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.

Nothing new there.

14 posted on 06/15/2006 8:01:37 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The transcript of the first round of oral arguments gives every reason to suspect that O'Connor would have gone the other way. Unlike some of the other justices, she made clear her thoughts on the matter.


15 posted on 06/15/2006 8:02:06 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TChris

True, but "unreasonable" is a nebulous term that the SCOTUS has basically defined over time. There's no getting around that. I just don't see what difference it makes if they knock. They've got a warrant. How does knocking make a difference?


16 posted on 06/15/2006 8:02:23 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves

"Knock, knock this is the police with warrent to search for drugs. If you have any you have 5 seconds to get rid of it."

17 posted on 06/15/2006 8:02:36 AM PDT by SamAdams_Lite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I don't get it

Actually you do.

18 posted on 06/15/2006 8:03:02 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Breyer, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? Oh, guess not.

Maybe he found it in a Paraguayan statute.

19 posted on 06/15/2006 8:03:35 AM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Actually, it is new. While the Court has made plenty of minor exceptions to the exclusionary rule, it is the first time the Court has really bucked the Warren Court's Mapp v. Ohio ruling and refused to apply it to a fairly common situation.


20 posted on 06/15/2006 8:04:49 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TChris

It's right next to the separation of church and state clause. Near the right to abortion amendment.

It's all in there, you just have to look with the special socialist glasses the ACLU hands out.


21 posted on 06/15/2006 8:04:49 AM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches.
Dangerious, very dangerious.
22 posted on 06/15/2006 8:05:47 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Reading transcripts is like reading tea-leaves. A justice may ask tough questions not as an indication of how he or she may rule, but rather to reinforce their own reasoning. The decision is made after oral argument, not during (generally).


23 posted on 06/15/2006 8:06:16 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Huck
How does knocking make a difference?

Consitutionally, it doesn't. If you're a drug dealer with "product" needing disposal, it would make a BIG difference. :-)

24 posted on 06/15/2006 8:06:41 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: I still care

THIS IS GREAT NEWS! THE GOOD GUYS WIN ONE. THE DEMOCRATS MUST BE CRYING IN THEIR BEER.


25 posted on 06/15/2006 8:07:11 AM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle

I agree.


26 posted on 06/15/2006 8:07:54 AM PDT by 300magnum (We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

1rudeboy, look, I've read plenty of SCOTUS transcripts and sometimes you are right, especially when it comes to O'Connor. However, in this case, it was obvious where she was going to go. Trust me. Even if we didn't have the transcript to assist us, we know her style. This decision flatly refusing to apply the exclusionary rule to this situation wasn't her MO at all.


27 posted on 06/15/2006 8:08:15 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
...collected with a warrant...

If they've got enough probable cause to get a warrant, why give the alleged perps enough warning to get rid of any evidence? Actually, I'm po'ed that it was 5-4. This seems like a legal no-brainer to me.

28 posted on 06/15/2006 8:08:25 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

"What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected...is one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Hudson v. Michigan (04-1360)


29 posted on 06/15/2006 8:09:35 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kjo
THE DEMOCRATS MUST BE CRYING IN THEIR BEERTOILET FLUSHABLE SUBSTANCES
30 posted on 06/15/2006 8:10:45 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Fair enough. I'm just leery of the O'Connor-as-stabilizing-force meme in the media.


31 posted on 06/15/2006 8:11:27 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Exactly right. Can you imagine Sandra going along with something like that? No, when she gave the originalists a victory, she always refused to join clear statements on the law, only narrow ones that refused to say anything and left her wiggle room to side with the lefties later. This is the first of many decisions in which Alito will make a very important difference, not just in the line-up of the vote, but in the quality of the opinions.


32 posted on 06/15/2006 8:12:08 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
"The court did not say how long police officers must wait after knocking before they enter a home to execute a search warrant."

Obviously, they don't have to wait at all.

33 posted on 06/15/2006 8:12:37 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

The first reply to this by DU was, of course, "Police state." I'm actually shocked they didn't get a mention of Hitler in there.


34 posted on 06/15/2006 8:13:39 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

It is mind boggling how so many here consider the expansion of the power of the state to be "conservative."


35 posted on 06/15/2006 8:14:09 AM PDT by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
If the police don't announce themselves, they leave themselves with no legal protection against righfully being shot and killed by the residents of the abode as they break and enter. The residents would be able to successfully argue self defense against unknown intruders, with reasonable justification to assume that the unknown, unannounced entrants had harmful intent.
36 posted on 06/15/2006 8:14:59 AM PDT by sourcery (A libertarian is a conservative who has been mugged ...by his own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Oh, I agree. The reason the media puts it in every article about the Court is clear. However, this is the rare case where I think we can honestly say that Alito cast the deciding vote.


37 posted on 06/15/2006 8:15:06 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
This decision flatly refusing to apply the exclusionary rule to this situation wasn't her MO at all.

O'Connor's style was to come up with complex decisions based on fine-tuned application of minutae. Believe me, she would have ruled for AND against with a series of "tests" that police must follow to differentiate between legal and illegal knocking.

38 posted on 06/15/2006 8:16:11 AM PDT by PackerBronco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PackerBronco

Exactly. And neither police nor citizen would have any idea how the decision applied to the real world.


39 posted on 06/15/2006 8:17:57 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Lug, they have to have a warrant. So with a warrant in hand, why risk the cops and/or losing evidence by making like an Avon lady and knocking?


40 posted on 06/15/2006 8:19:51 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Just busting in violates the due process rights of an innocent door.


41 posted on 06/15/2006 8:20:02 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Subjunctive? What's a subjunctive?


42 posted on 06/15/2006 8:20:28 AM PDT by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
It is mind boggling how so many here consider the expansion of the power of the state to be "conservative."

Surely you're kidding. There is nothing in the Fourth Amendment about knock-and-announce. The warrant gives law enforcement the right to enter in any way they see fit.

Or are you merely arguing the contrarian position?

43 posted on 06/15/2006 8:22:27 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

lol. Momma used to hassle me about grammar. When you are describing a condition contrary to fact, you use the subjunctive. I know you know, I'm just sayin'. The reason for it, in case any readers care, is that if you say "If O'Connor was on the court," it leaves open the possibility that she may have been, but you're not sure. By using the subjunctive, it makes clear that she was not on the court; you are merely discussing a hypothetical what-if.


44 posted on 06/15/2006 8:24:35 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
If the police don't announce themselves, they leave themselves with no legal protection against righfully being shot and killed by the residents of the abode as they break and enter. The residents would be able to successfully argue self defense against unknown intruders, with reasonable justification to assume that the unknown, unannounced entrants had harmful intent.

Yeah. A jury's going to take the side of a bunch of scummy meth dealers when they kill a cop.

Are you high?

45 posted on 06/15/2006 8:24:57 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

They've got a warrant. Isn't that due process? I just don't see how knocking first makes a difference. Let's say they knock and no one answers, but they've got a warrant. Do they have to leave and come back?


46 posted on 06/15/2006 8:26:18 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TChris

you'll find it in hitlers handbook though


47 posted on 06/15/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by takenoprisoner (Sorry Mr. Jefferson, we forfeited the God given rights you all put to pen. We have no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Maybe you have a point and maybe decisions wouldn't have to be made like this if we lived in a perfect world, unfortunately we don't. I believe post #17 is a good example of the lack of common sense by those of the lefty persuasion.


48 posted on 06/15/2006 8:29:30 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
AP: Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Evidence is not "fruit."

Police investigations are not "trees."

Police errors are not "poisons."

There are better ways to punish overly aggressive cops than by throwing out evidence and letting criminals go free.

The Exclusionary Rule was invented by liberal, activist judges who always side with defendants and against the community's interest in justice and security.

Time to wave it bye-bye.

49 posted on 06/15/2006 8:30:14 AM PDT by LK44-40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment.

It's seventeen lines below the "Right to Abortion." Get your eyes checked. :)

50 posted on 06/15/2006 8:30:25 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson