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.
Just busting in violates the due process rights of an innocent door.
Subjunctive? What's a subjunctive?
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?
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.
Yeah. A jury's going to take the side of a bunch of scummy meth dealers when they kill a cop.
Are you high?
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?
you'll find it in hitlers handbook though
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.
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.
It's seventeen lines below the "Right to Abortion." Get your eyes checked. :)
Yes, they will--at least sometimes. I would, almost without exception. And then there's those cases where the cops get the wrong house.
All I have to work with here are your (overbroad) title and the sketchy AP report. And your reference to Mapp.
But the news here seems to be the lack of a knock requirement, not the conduct of a search pursuant to warrant.
Do you really mean to say that there is NO exclusionary rule for no-knock searches?
"A welcome indication of the conservative leaning of Justice Alito"
conservatives: less govt, less govt interference in our private lives, adherence to the constitution.
This decision is not conservative...a true conservative on the bench would protect individual rights and the rights of the people to be safe and secure in their homes. No knock home invasions are extremely dangerous for both the police and the homeowner...and when mistakes are made as they often are, innocent people die.
Alito and the others are traitors to we the people and our constitutionally guaranteed protections.
I have been critical of a lot of SCOTUS decisions regarding search and seizure, especially warantless ones such as DUI checkpoints.
But in this case, they had a warrant, so I don't have a Constitutional problem with this decision - due process was followed, the issue was how the search was executed, which IMO the Constituion is much less explicit about once a warrant is obtained.
Cops getting the wrong house is an entirely different matter.
Maybe juries in your state will, but a Texas jury will side with a dead cop against a meth dealer, every time. And this Supreme Court decision will be used to reinforce the judgement.
The cops did announce themselves. I really don't have an issue with this decision. The problems you raise are more of a practical matter than a Constitutional matter, since the cops had a warrant and due process was followed.
Indeed. Bursting into a house unannounced is much riskier for the cop than knocking and letting a person calmly answer the door.
Other languages (like Greek) are more explicit because there are different forms of the verb that distinguish between counterfactuals, probabilities, and improbabilities.
FR unwritten rule #117 - the first person to invoke Hitler or Nazis loses the debate.
No, my title isn't overbroad. The question involved in this case was whether evidence that was obtained via a questionable no-knock search, including if it was an improper no-knock search (in other words, non-emergency no-knock) must be excluded from trial. IOW, in legal speak, whether the exclusionary rule applies in the situation where there is a warrant, but the no-knock aspect of the searching was illegal. The Court said it did not apply. This is a major decision. I'm shocked we got it out of Kennedy.