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
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.
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.
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.
49 of the states adopted English common law. Louisiana's Constitution is based on codified, or Roman law (sometimes erroneously called French law.)
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.
Well that's what I meant. Sorry for my vagueness.
Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you. :)
Read the fourth amendment and do your best to fully comprehend it, then get back to me.
When the nazis have the majority...they rule the day.
I read it; there's no requirement for "knock and announce."
LOL! Couldn't have said it better myself. Blackbird.
Many drug dealers are murderers and thieves.
Some are but most aren't. But that's besides the point. The act of possessing drugs and the act of buying and selling drugs is not murder rape or assault. They are consensual interactions. So perhaps we had a misunderstanding.
Zon: Besides that, drug users and even dealers engage in consensual "crimes". They are not murders, thieves or rapists whose targets/victims do not consent.88
It is clear that the context I wrote about was the act of possessing and dealing drugs is consensual. Whereas the acts of murder, thievery and rape have targets/victims that do not consent.
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.
I didn't change the context. It's right there in my 88 post. I was talking just about possession and trafficking. I even differentiated the "crimes" of illicit drug possession and trafficking from violent crimes of murder, thievery and rape by means of the former being consensual and the later being non-consensual.
It is you that changed the context. Not I.
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.
In my last post I addressed the context that you had changed to. You changed to the context of crime that is spawned by the prohibition of drugs. Like alcohol prohibition before it, drug prohibition spawned crime.
Yes really. Your denial of reality is a delusional.
Aside from the rest of your misguided post the below is the only real comment worth responding to.
Laws that don't fit with your philosophy are not, therefore, unconstitutional.
I see nothing in the constitution that it permits congress to prohibit drugs. If it were the 1920's I could point to the part of the constitution that prohibited alcohol -- the 18th amendment.. Please post the part of the constitution that you think permits congress to prohibit drugs.
You claim that I want the constitution to say whatever I want it to when in fact you are projecting. For it is you that want the constitution to to say what you want it to. Drug prohibition is unconstitutional. Apparently you find it difficult to acknowledge having lived your life under a false premise and chose to rationalize continued living under a false premise.
Zon: 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.
I couldn't resist responding. What argument do you give for supporting unconstitutional laws even if you weren't aware that they were unconstitutional? You give a group-think response in support of the laws being valid. They aren't valid. You've been manipulated, via your own lack of critical thinking and research, you've gone along to get along.
See LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). A fast growing segment of persons that have or have had careers in the justice system. In the trenches of the drug war, so to speak. You don't want to believe me, fine. Perhaps persons in similar fields as yours will get through to you.
Well, tell that to the nine Supreme Court Justices and the line of cases going back 400 years that says it is a right.
Have we been wrong for the past 400 years? I'm just curious.
I can assure you that most would disagree.
Think about it... Waco was technically a raid that DID NOT NEED TO HAPPEN. They could have nabbed any number of the Davidians on their trips into town.
Then there are the monthly list of drug raids gone bad. Wrong addresses. No drugs found at the Right address. Ect...
Why not just grab 'em when they aren't at home? Get 'em on the street where they can't hole up, aren't near their weapons cache, and can be SEEN fro mall sides? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than an o-dark-thirty raid on a closed box.
Note: I'm not arguing Constitutionality or the rightness of the SCOTUS decision. I just think the whole "no-knock" proceedure itself is lazy fricken police work that has a LOT to recommend against it.
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?
If you're regarding the commerce clause, the original intent of the CC was to prohibit the states from setting up barriers to entry. For example, charging a tariff to a saddle maker to transport his saddles into or through a state. The original intent had noting to do with regulating what products could be transported into or through a state. Nor did the original intent of the CC grant the government permission to regulate a product because it crossed state lines. A huge number of laws created in the last seventy years have been passed under a misinterpretation of the commerce clause. The misinterpretation of the CC has been as intentional as misinterpretation that the constitution is a living document is intentional.