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.
It wouldn't, but then again, I don't engage in the sort of activities that would give probable cause for such a warrant.
You obfuscate the point. If LEOs go to the wrong address and bust into your house by mistake it has absolutely nothing to do with your activates being probable cause. But you already know that. That's why you chose to obfuscate your way around addressing the point.
It's obvious to me that you dug your own hole and demonstrate that you don't have the integrity to extricate yourself. But hey, that's your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. Makes no difference to me.
You mean the police were required to knock first? What's the point? To give criminals time to hide evidence? If no one was home did that mean the police couldn't enter the premises? What an insanity!
Well, in your little fantasy world, where fragging those you dislike is perfectly OK, the cops never get the address right.
In reality, they get it right far more often than not.
And when it does happen, there are legal remedies for damages inflicted.
In theory there are. In practice, they don't work. A cop who uses illegal means to get evidence that lands convictions will be told "Don't do that again, wink wink".
Cops who violate crooks' rights are likely to violate the rights of innocent people as well. The exclusionary rule doesn't just protect crooks. It also protects innocent people by discouraging cops from violating anyone's rights.
What is so bad about telling cops that if they want their evidence to be usable, they must follow the rules in acquiring it?
It would help if the rules had a passing resemblance to reality. I was a cop during the worst part of the Supreme Court's war on police search & seizure. Implementing whatever stupid idea entered the heads of five guys in black robes wound up getting me a bullet in my left lung (which is one of my two favorite lungs).
Actually, it's in the bit about "No unreasonable search and seizure". Cops executing search warrants are supposed to do so in such fashion as to reasonably minimize the harm to the target (other than such harm as may result from the acquisition of evidence against the target, of course). To be sure, cops often act with callous disregard for the hardship their actions might impose on others, but even ransacking a person's apartment doesn't endanger them the way no-knock raids do.
It keeps you from shooting them when they burst in and thereby, probably keeping you alive as well.
Actually, it gives criminals time to arm themselves and shoot the cops when the cops finally attempt entry.
Agreed.
What penalty was it replaced with in the wake of this decision?
How would you propose punishing police who obtain evidence illegally? Police departments sometimes promise to do so, but if the agents' cases hold up, the agents aren't punished.
Having a court throw out evidence that a cop gathered illegally may seem a rather blunt "weapon", and it is, but it's the only thing that's been shown to actually work.
You can sue.
Problem is, it doesn't actually work. Nobody gets punished except the public at large.
For the record, I support the exclusionary rule, but Scalia makes a good point in his opinion that, in my mind, the dissent does not adequately refute. At the time that Mapp was decided, 42 USC 1983 wasn't an available option to those wronged by Fourth Amendment violations--it wasn't until decades later that 1983 actions were allowed against municipalities. So while the Court in Mapp (and the dissent echos) that there is no adequate remedy, that might have been true in 1961--but with the passage of 1983, is it still true? I don't know, but the dissent does not adequately address this.
Wrong-address raids happen. Very seldom is anyone punished. Given that police departments are unwilling to punish wrongful no-knock raids, they shouldn't generally be allowed such raids at all.
Can you cite statute or precedent for your claim that one can successfully sue police for non-exclusionary errors in executing a warrant?
One of the "benefits" of no-knock raids is that a crook who smashes into someone's dwelling and yells "POLICE!" can thereby gain a significant tactical advantage over the homeowner.
The vast majority of no-knock raids are a patently unreasonable abomination.
Suppose a cop has a warrant indicating someone is suspected of possessing a stolen piano. The cop breaks into the person's dwelling with a sledge hammer and proceeds to smash everything in sight. Within the smashed remains of the person's desk, the officer finds a quantity of drugs.
Should the drugs be admissable as evidence? Why or why not?
Well, in your little fantasy world, where fragging those you dislike is perfectly OK, the cops never get the address right.
That's a lie and you know it because I've explained a few times to you that I don't condone fragging. I also know that most of the time LEOs do get the right address.
And when it does happen, there are legal remedies for damages inflicted.
If LEOs raid the wrong address -- your house -- on a drug bust and it is your wife and children that are killed that's okay with you because there are remedies for damages inflicted. And if it was you that is killed, what remedy is there that brings you back to life?
I understand no-knock entry when there is an immediate threat -- hostage situation, murder or rape in progress, etc. No-knock is unwarranted when there is no immediate threat to life. To the contrary, no-knock puts life in immediate threat.
LEOs have some serious inspection, critical thinking and introspection to do. Or, they can just carry on as they have, in denial.
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.