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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last
To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
101 posted on 06/15/2006 10:57:01 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Huck

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!!


102 posted on 06/15/2006 10:57:30 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TChris

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).

103 posted on 06/15/2006 10:58:04 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Huck
They've got a warrant. Isn't that due process?

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.

104 posted on 06/15/2006 10:58:09 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
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.

Horse-pucky. You kill a cop coming through the door, and you'll be dead or on death row.

105 posted on 06/15/2006 10:58:21 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Were warrants also common law?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ

106 posted on 06/15/2006 10:58:48 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I don't like the idea of no-knock raids, generally. They seem to me to run against the American ideal, except, of course, in a situation where life or limb is at immediate risk.

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.

107 posted on 06/15/2006 10:58:57 AM PDT by B Knotts (Newt '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Huck

"Unreasonable" in my mind is the grounds for the search found in the warrant and nothing more.


108 posted on 06/15/2006 10:59:33 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

The first time this is used by the BATF they'll get it. Unitl then, save your breath.


109 posted on 06/15/2006 11:02:21 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Zon
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.

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.

110 posted on 06/15/2006 11:10:25 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: TChris

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.

111 posted on 06/15/2006 11:49:31 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Huck
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."

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.

112 posted on 06/15/2006 11:53:44 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Um, you may not understand this, but the risk to the cops is far greater if they kick in the door without knocking.

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.

113 posted on 06/15/2006 11:59:14 AM PDT by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

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.


114 posted on 06/15/2006 12:00:25 PM PDT by ModerateGOOPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModerateGOOPer

ooops. That should read innocent until proven guilty, obviously....


115 posted on 06/15/2006 12:02:27 PM PDT by ModerateGOOPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

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


116 posted on 06/15/2006 12:04:59 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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.

117 posted on 06/15/2006 12:06:37 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: LK44-40
There are better ways to punish overly aggressive cops than by throwing out evidence and letting criminals go free.

Actually there are no other ways. The cops are almost never punished.

118 posted on 06/15/2006 12:09:06 PM PDT by JTN ("I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jess35
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.

Of course you would. But, then, that's you, siding with a meth dealer.

119 posted on 06/15/2006 12:10:44 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Huck
where is the "knock and announce" protection in the Constitution? Something the SCOTUS invented along the way?

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.

120 posted on 06/15/2006 12:16:06 PM PDT by Sandy ("You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Nice to see Kennedy didn't go wobbly and assume O'Connor's position.


121 posted on 06/15/2006 12:19:04 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

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

Wilson v Arkansas

122 posted on 06/15/2006 12:19:05 PM PDT by Sandy ("You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Don't worry, they will, just as soon as they finish flushing their contraband.


123 posted on 06/15/2006 12:20:21 PM PDT by oblomov (Join the FR Folding@Home Team (#36120) keyword: folding@home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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

Boggles the mind, doesn't it!? Blackbird.

124 posted on 06/15/2006 12:22:45 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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

It's also sad and scary.

125 posted on 06/15/2006 12:22:54 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

It's not about siding with a meth dealer. It's all about standing up to the police powers of the state when they abuse the trust we put in them. If anyone busts down my door and I have a firearm nearby, I'm going to shoot.


126 posted on 06/15/2006 12:24:44 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Schuck
Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals"

I guess people haven't noticed that we're busy criminalizing everything.

I predict that within two years, we'll see warrants issued against parents for allowing their kid to take a Twinkie to school.

127 posted on 06/15/2006 12:28:38 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
I agree with this guy.

Me too.

128 posted on 06/15/2006 12:33:12 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
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.

No, it didn't say not necessarily, it said that no it is not a required remedy. You are correct that it used a costs/benefits analysis, but that's as much O'Connor-esque reasoning as you'll find in the opinion. . The Court gave a clear answer on the question of the exclusionary rule's applicability to otherwise legal searches conducted in violation of the no-knock rule. The majority opinion is airtight, which is probably why Breyer isn't very happy in his dissent. Even Justice Kennedy, not an originalist by any means, states in his concurrence that in the case of even massive and routine violations of the no-knock rule there is still not the required causal relationship to justify requiring the exclusionary rule.
129 posted on 06/15/2006 12:33:24 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: TChris

If a drug is produced in, say, Ohio, and sold there, from where does the federal government derive its jurisdiction to regulate this production and sale?


130 posted on 06/15/2006 12:37:01 PM PDT by oblomov (Join the FR Folding@Home Team (#36120) keyword: folding@home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Zon
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.

What you actually wrote, to refresh your memory, is:

Besides that, drug users and even dealers engage in consensual "crimes". They are not murders, thieves or rapists whose targets/victims do not consent.

"They are not murders[sic], thieves..." I disagree.

Many drug dealers are murderers and thieves. Now you want to change what you wrote to mean that the drug trafficking itself is not harmful to anyone else, but that isn't what you wrote, and it's a significant difference in the context of this debate. In fact, if drug dealers were not frequently violent criminals, I'd assert that SWAT teams bashing in front doors would be entirely unnecessary, and therefore rare to nonexistant, to take them down.

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.

Not really. A related whine that prohibition was really really mean too isn't an answer. Both laws were legal and valid. Your argument seems to be that congress should be barred from passing legislation that you don't like.

I will point persons that support and take part in supporting unconstitutional laws.

Which laws are unconstitutional? The no-knock warrant, or laws against illicit drug trafficking and use?

And whose definition of "unconstitutional" do we use? You seem to be claiming the right to define that word yourself, since the definition used by five of the nine Justices doesn't sit well with you.

The word "unconstitutional" seems to be a favorite among libertarians much in the same way "fascist" is for liberals. It's used as an emotional hammer, with little regard to its actual meaning.

No-knock warrants and anti-drug laws are constitutional. They were passed by a majority of elected representatives and signed by the POTUS. State anti-drug laws were passed according to the provisions of their state's constitution. You just don't like them, so "unconstitutional" is the negative label you choose to hang on them.

My position is that I and every person may do whatever they chose[sic] so long as they do not violate the live[sic] or property rights of another person.

That may very well be your position, but that isn't what the Constitution says, nor is it the legal environment in which the Framers lived and for which they hoped. And it isn't the world in which you live now, though you may wish it were.

Laws that don't fit with your philosophy are not, therefore, unconstitutional.

It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.

Oh come on, you can do better than that! Call me a poo-poo head or something.

131 posted on 06/15/2006 12:49:18 PM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

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

Wilson v Arkansas

So this case amended the Constitution?

132 posted on 06/15/2006 12:50:10 PM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Horse-pucky. You kill a cop coming through the door, and you'll be dead or on death row.

If the cop has the wrong address or name and you as the resident have a clean record no 12 people will agree upon conviction. A reasonable law abiding person has every right to believe someone bashing down their door while they are coming out of the bathroom etc {out of hearing range} is a hostile intruder especially when those Morons are not in PATROL police uniform.

I do not agree with no knock unannounced entry EXCEPT under hostage situations. As long as judges let any cop swear the warrant and the cop who swears the warrant {for example an undercover bust} is not there to present said warrant innocent people both police and citizens are going to get shot. If the cops can't handle that then they need to find another profession. But a cop swearing a warrant stating the offense should be required to be on scene to serve it yes even undercover cops.

A lot of mistakes come from where Cop A goes to the judge & swears a warrant and Cop B and company serve it while Cop A is elsewhere or even off duty etc. Cop A knows the actual location on a visual. A typo by a clerk, cop, or anyone else in the process makes for these types of mistakes.

I'm pro-law enforcement but I believe a person has every right to assume they are safe in their own home and it is a GOD given right of the innocents to protect their property. Police need to dump their ninja suits and fatigues also except again under hostage situations where innocent life is at stake. Do the raids in Patrol uniform. They bring much of this on themselves not doing so IMO.

133 posted on 06/15/2006 12:51:50 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TChris

No, the founders understood that "knock and announce" was an essential part of the justice system of their day to protect the rights of the people, and they could not even imagine a day when people would think the contrary. The BOR is not an exhaustive list of the rights of the people.


134 posted on 06/15/2006 12:52:32 PM PDT by ModerateGOOPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
If a drug is produced in, say, Ohio, and sold there, from where does the federal government derive its jurisdiction to regulate this production and sale?

Since the production and sale of illicit drugs is illegal in all fifty states, and therefore "under the radar" by definition, how is the Fed Gov to know if it is or is not sold only within that state? Can you name any drug trafficking organization that rigorously confines its operations to a single state? The reality is that drug trafficking is an interstate crime in practice.

Such questions are fine for philosophical discussion but become blurrier issues in the real world. And, AFAIK, the feds don't usually get involved much with small-time stuff like a local meth lab.

135 posted on 06/15/2006 12:55:58 PM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

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

I guess the federal agents who kicked in the door to get Elian Gonzalez out of the house were right after all. Turns out Janet Reno and Bill Clinton were conservatives after all.

136 posted on 06/15/2006 12:58:47 PM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

You might want to read about the case of Cory Maye.

No criminal record.

Police got tip that his next door neighbor was selling drugs.

Police raid next door neighbor and Maye's residence late at night (two halves of duplex).

Maye was asleep near his infant daughter when police kicked down the door.

He picked up his gun and fired at the intruders, killing a police officer, but threw down his gun immediately upon police identifying themselves.

Police found no drugs in their search of Maye's home, though much later did another search and claimed to have found a single marijuana cigarette.

Jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Interestingly enough, the neighbor had bagloads of drugs, but was never charged with a crime and today cannot be located to serve as a witness. (Can you say coverup?)


137 posted on 06/15/2006 12:59:16 PM PDT by ModerateGOOPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ModerateGOOPer
The BOR is not an exhaustive list of the rights of the people.

Nor does the phrase "unreasonable searches and seizures" specifically demand "knock and announce". Though it may have been accepted and understood as such at the time, current developments have made the no-knock warrant a "reasonable" search in some, not all, circumstances.

138 posted on 06/15/2006 12:59:46 PM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Well, smart guy, the knock and announce rule goes back (at least!) to 1603--long before the U.S. Constitution was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Case after case after case in England required officers or sheriffs to "knock and announce," and it was a clear feature of the common law LONG before the formation of this country.

Of course, after the revolution (and after every state adopted the English common law), a number of states even saw the need to write statutes that authorized the breaking of a door if entry was refused--such was STRONG presumption against entry without announcement.

Maybe the phrase "knock and announce" isn't in the text of the Fourth Amendment because the Founders were well acquainted with the common law and knew method of entry into a dwelling was part of the "reasonableness" of a search or seizure? Perhaps, since it had been the common law of England (and the States) for the past 200 years, the Founders assumed that such a notion would be incorporated into the Fourth Amendment.

It's worth noting that every single member of the Supreme Court agrees that the "knock and announce" requirement is a requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and today's holding DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. Scalia acknowledges that a failure of police to knock and announce IS a Fourth Amendment violation--he merely states that exclusion is not the proper remedy. No one--no one--claims that a failure to knock and announce is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Shoot, even the State conceded there was a Fourth Amendment violation in this case.

I'm not Justice Breyer, but this answers your question.
139 posted on 06/15/2006 1:01:44 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
It's worth noting that every single member of the Supreme Court agrees that the "knock and announce" requirement is a requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and today's holding DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. Scalia acknowledges that a failure of police to knock and announce IS a Fourth Amendment violation--he merely states that exclusion is not the proper remedy. No one--no one--claims that a failure to knock and announce is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Shoot, even the State conceded there was a Fourth Amendment violation in this case.

Then, it's your position that every no-knock warrant is a blatant, judicially sanctioned violation of the Fourth Amendment?

140 posted on 06/15/2006 1:05:26 PM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ModerateGOOPer
You might want to read about the case of Cory Maye. No criminal record. Police got tip that his next door neighbor was selling drugs. Police raid next door neighbor and Maye's residence late at night (two halves of duplex). Maye was asleep near his infant daughter when police kicked down the door. He picked up his gun and fired at the intruders, killing a police officer, but threw down his gun immediately upon police identifying themselves. Police found no drugs in their search of Maye's home, though much later did another search and claimed to have found a single marijuana cigarette. Jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Interestingly enough, the neighbor had bagloads of drugs, but was never charged with a crime and today cannot be located to serve as a witness. (Can you say coverup?)

Yep sounds like that and a stupid defense lawyer also. Of course to many as long as their beloved Party wins a victory no matter how wrong it doesn't matter to them the cost in freedom and liberty. Likely the some ones who cursed the Reno DOJ for their tactics.

141 posted on 06/15/2006 1:05:55 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Hi Dead,

I don't think that law enforcement intends mistakes while going out to bust bad guys.
The few times I've read about the mistaken address situation, it was always a good faith effort by law enforcement and there would be a lapse by the person who was supposed to verify the address, or the address was unreadable on the building.

I don't think it makes enforcement's day to be in the wrong residence.

So far the remedy I've seen has been retraining and maybe firing the employee who was to double verify information.

In some cases where there are suspected weapons inside, so I like no knock raids. Why advertise you are outside the door so they can grab their machine guns and armor piercing bullets to fire at you? Why give an edge to bad guys?
142 posted on 06/15/2006 1:07:43 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; colorado tanker
I can't believe they were really trying to argue that the fact that the police only wait 3 seconds before rushing into your house with a warrant instead of 20 seconds renders any evidence collected inadmissible.

The fact that 4 of the members of the SCOTUS apparently agree is indicative of why our society is screwed up.

The cops announced their presence as they were coming in.

Send all lawyers to the Moon or Mars.

143 posted on 06/15/2006 1:08:10 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: TChris

The Court has crafted exceptions to the knock and announce rule, and I am of the opinion that these exceptions are wrongly decided. Unfortunately, these exceptions are yet another Fourth Amendment casualty of the War on Drugs.

Regardless of my opinion, though, the Court has created a number of exceptions--but, of course, the rule is clear, and still is after today's decision: a no-knock warrant is generally unconstitutional.


144 posted on 06/15/2006 1:09:52 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
You didn't realize the Constitution guarantees every citizen 20 seconds to flush down the evidence before the police can come in? Why, it emanates right next to the penumbra.
145 posted on 06/15/2006 1:12:55 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
after every state adopted the English common law

49 of the states adopted English common law. Louisiana's Constitution is based on codified, or Roman law (sometimes erroneously called French law.)

146 posted on 06/15/2006 1:25:33 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

Yes, I suppose I should have been more clear: every state that was around at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

But you're right--civil law rules in LA.


147 posted on 06/15/2006 1:31:23 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
No, it didn't say not necessarily, it said that no it is not a required remedy.

Well that's what I meant. Sorry for my vagueness.

148 posted on 06/15/2006 1:34:43 PM PDT by Sandy ("You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you. :)


149 posted on 06/15/2006 1:35:33 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
A welcome indication of the conservative leaning of Justice Alito.

"The Fourth Amendment has been virtually repealed by court decisions, most of which involve drug searches"...Steven Duke, professor of law at Yale University
.
150 posted on 06/15/2006 1:38:38 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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