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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-277 next last
To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Read the fourth amendment and do your best to fully comprehend it, then get back to me.


151 posted on 06/15/2006 1:40:11 PM 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 75 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

When the nazis have the majority...they rule the day.


152 posted on 06/15/2006 1:41:29 PM 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 63 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Read the fourth amendment and do your best to fully comprehend it, then get back to me.

I read it; there's no requirement for "knock and announce."

153 posted on 06/15/2006 1:42:23 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
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.

LOL! Couldn't have said it better myself. Blackbird.

154 posted on 06/15/2006 1:42:48 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: TChris

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.

Not really.

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.

155 posted on 06/15/2006 1:43:47 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

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.


156 posted on 06/15/2006 1:46:08 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

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

Neocons are not conservative. They adopted the word conservative the same way that other group adopted the word gay.
.
157 posted on 06/15/2006 1:46:24 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Well, all that means is that you would consider a band of masked officers streaming through your door, unannounced, as it splinters into hundreds of pieces to be "reasonable."

I can assure you that most would disagree.

158 posted on 06/15/2006 1:49:16 PM PDT by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
If it could end up with a cop or an innocent home owner dead? It better be a bit more than a "good faith effort".

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.

159 posted on 06/15/2006 1:53:40 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | 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?

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. 

160 posted on 06/15/2006 1:57:50 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Anytime anyone goes to a wrong address the possibility of someone dying rises.
A fire truck going to the wrong address with paramedics could end up accidentally hurting far more people compared to the few numbers of law enforcement people going to the wrong place. Do you therefore want to stock fire trucks and paramedics? Of course not.

I have a cousin who lost a brother in law in Waco.
She with her husband had tried to remove her husband's brother before all that went down, but they were a very bad CULT and no way it would ever end well.
That was not Reno or Clinton or the government's fault, it was the fault of the cult for getting itself into such a position. They had a choice.

Anytime you get wrong address or no drugs at places where warrants were given, the judges will not trust those police as much in the future.
It is never a sure thing with crime though IMO.

You may grab some people in the street, but I think they want to catch some of them at home in possession of lots of drugs so they are more liable and can have all their assets taken as a penalty.

If no one shot at cops or tried to flush drugs down the toiled, I could handle a required knock.
Without a way to prevent being shot at and getting rid of drugs I am not so upset with the ruling.

I agree that what we have is NOT perfect, but it's the best we can do until we can clearly see through walls and all that. :-)

161 posted on 06/15/2006 2:02:57 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: TChris
So this case [Wilson v Arkansas] amended the Constitution?

No.

162 posted on 06/15/2006 2:03:50 PM PDT by Sandy ("You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Well, all that means is that you would consider a band of masked officers streaming through your door, unannounced, as it splinters into hundreds of pieces to be "reasonable."

Under some conditions, it may be.

163 posted on 06/15/2006 2:10:25 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Under what conditions would it be reasonable at YOUR home?


164 posted on 06/15/2006 2:23:33 PM PDT by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

If it's not there then it is up to the states to determine if they want midnight raids being conducted on it's citizens...where mistakes are made time and time again where innocent men women and children are killed as they sleep.

Perhaps you dont have a family or simply don't care about protecting your family, but most of us do. If you make a mistake and bust in my door as I sleep there are going to be a lot of dead bodies strewn about.

No knock home invasions are conducted by thugs all the time...and now we have the police legally in the same business. Are you going to hestitate to determine in your partly conscious sleep state whether it's thugs or the police making a huge mistake? Not reasonable.

Like me , millions of Americans are armed and ready to protect our families and our homes. And you can't guarantee me nor my family that it will never concern us because the police get the wrong address all the time.

The 4th amendment requires a sworn oath regarding who's there, who they are looking for, and what they expect to find. Guess what? Often swat teams are so eager to bust some heads and doors that they'll take some crack head informants word operating only on that single unreliable tip to invade a residence...and often the wrong address. You believe this ok...I do not.

No knock home invasions are unreasonable and risk the lives of the police and the occupants of the home. If your police dept is too scared to knock on the door, then get some help and surround the place with no room for escape and order your suspect out...If your evidence is so skimpy that it can be flushed down a toilet, then cut the friggin water off before you knock...still if it is that small, then why are you wasting my tax dollars and risking all sorts of lives for some sample of a "controlled" substance?
That doesn't seem anywhere near reasonable to me...

Now read the 4th again, and again try to comprehend it. If you don't get it by now, chances are you never will. But do you have any idea why the 4th was placed in our bill of rights in the first place?


165 posted on 06/15/2006 2:23:58 PM 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 153 | View Replies]

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

So, if strangers break down your door unannounced, you won't shoot at them just because they might be cops? If that becomes the message, expect lots of home invasions by the bad guys as a result.

If the cops are invading the wrong house, then it's the cops who will have legal problems. And if I'm on the jury, the cops will have more to fear from the justice system than the residents of the house--unless the cops properly announced themselves ("knocking" isn't the only way to do that, of course.)

166 posted on 06/15/2006 2:29:47 PM PDT by sourcery (A libertarian is a conservative who has been mugged ...by his own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

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

Why do you say it was erroneously called French law? It was French, as well as Spanish, which I believe were derived from Roman Law.


167 posted on 06/15/2006 2:31:31 PM PDT by half-cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
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.

Perhaps before getting arrogant you should learn to read. Breyer did not reference common law - he said it was IN the Constitution - and the person you are insulting directly quoted him!

168 posted on 06/15/2006 2:34:18 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

That's interesting. I have read before that Louisiana was based on "Napoleonic Code" originating from the time the territory was controlled by France.


169 posted on 06/15/2006 2:36:15 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Under what conditions would it be reasonable at YOUR home?

It wouldn't, but then again, I don't engage in the sort of activities that would give probable cause for such a warrant.

Now, conversely, if you are engaged in activities of the sort that would earn a no-knock warrant, that's your problem, not mine. Being a criminal has always been perilous.

170 posted on 06/15/2006 2:38:44 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

It IS part of the Constitution.


171 posted on 06/15/2006 2:41:51 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
If it's not there then it is up to the states to determine if they want midnight raids being conducted on it's citizens...where mistakes are made time and time again where innocent men women and children are killed as they sleep.

I'm sure you have exact figures of "innocent men women and children are killed as they sleep."

(You do, right?)

Perhaps you dont have a family or simply don't care about protecting your family, but most of us do.

And I protect myself by not engaging in the sort of conduct that would give probable cause to a dynamic entry warrant.

If you make a mistake and bust in my door as I sleep there are going to be a lot of dead bodies strewn about.

No there wouldn't. You'd just end up having to change the sheets on your bed and your pajama bottoms.

Like me , millions of Americans are armed and ready to protect our families and our homes. And you can't guarantee me nor my family that it will never concern us because the police get the wrong address all the time.

So, you're now stating that no such warrant is ever served at the correct address.

You can provide evidence to support that claim, right?

172 posted on 06/15/2006 2:45:41 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Breyer did not reference common law

Really? Huh. Must be my inability to read, but I thought for sure that I saw the following quote in Breyer's dissent:

"[W]e held that the “common-law ‘knock and announce’ principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment.” (BREYER, J., dissenting op. at 2).

173 posted on 06/15/2006 2:47:35 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
At least in this case, the police did announce. They simply didn't knock.

.. Detroit police, who called out their presence at a man’s door then went inside three to five seconds later.

174 posted on 06/15/2006 2:57:09 PM PDT by paudio (Universal Human Rights and Multiculturalism: Liberals want to have cake and eat it too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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

Not really. Step 1: show up at suspected drug house. Knock on door. Wait for people inside to flush drugs. When someone finally does answer, ask them for information about some recent crimes, etc. Note: no need for a warrant for any of this.

Step 2: Repeat this procedure, after the dealer has had to explain to his leaders why he flushed thousands of dollars of drugs down the toilet. Again, give the dealer plenty of time to destroy his inventory and then make another social call.

Step 3: Get warrant, then start procedure the same way. But this time, dealer might not want to waste all his drugs. If he doesn't, THEN search the place.

Simple and easy. What's the problem?

175 posted on 06/15/2006 3:14:13 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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.

Tell that to Cory Maye.

176 posted on 06/15/2006 3:16:02 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

No-knock raids, absent demonstrable exigent circumstances, are patently unreasonable since they provide the target of the raid no means to determine within a meaningful timeframe whether the people entering the property are doing so legally, or whether they are dangerous criminals who should be shot immediately.

There are some situations, such as hostage rescue, where the risks posed by such tactics are outweighed by the necessity of rescuing innocents. For the most part, though, no-knock raids subject people to unnecessary and unreasonable danger.

177 posted on 06/15/2006 3:20:29 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Huck
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?

The police should conduct themselves in such a way that a reasonable person could determine their legitimacy prior to surrendering to them. Absent extreme exigent circumstances, the police should not initiate any action that an innocent person could construe as a deadly threat. It is possible to search apparently-unoccupied premises while maintaining such conduct.

178 posted on 06/15/2006 3:24:24 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Zon

agreed


179 posted on 06/15/2006 3:25:16 PM PDT by oblomov (Join the FR Folding@Home Team (#36120) keyword: folding@home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams_Lite
"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."

Given a choice between that, and telling citizens that when their home is broken into they should not shoot at the intruders (they might be cops after all), I'd much rather accept the former.

180 posted on 06/15/2006 3:25:38 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse; lugsoul

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.

181 posted on 06/15/2006 3:25:58 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

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!


182 posted on 06/15/2006 3:30:34 PM PDT by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon
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.

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.

183 posted on 06/15/2006 3:32:09 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

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

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?

184 posted on 06/15/2006 3:32:50 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: supercat
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).

185 posted on 06/15/2006 3:36:31 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

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

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.

186 posted on 06/15/2006 3:37:05 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Huck

It keeps you from shooting them when they burst in and thereby, probably keeping you alive as well.


187 posted on 06/15/2006 3:37:24 PM PDT by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cajun-jack
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.

188 posted on 06/15/2006 3:38:34 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: TheDon; Brian Mosely; LK44-40
Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches.

Agreed.

What penalty was it replaced with in the wake of this decision?

189 posted on 06/15/2006 3:40:07 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I think the dismissal of evidence, no matter how obtained is nothing other than an act of compounding errors; adding an error (letting the guilty go free) to whatever error may have occured in obtaining the "evidence". I do not think the second error represents "justice" in any form.

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.

190 posted on 06/15/2006 3:40:16 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

You can sue.


191 posted on 06/15/2006 3:40:57 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: supercat
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.

Problem is, it doesn't actually work. Nobody gets punished except the public at large.

192 posted on 06/15/2006 3:43:16 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: supercat
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.

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.

193 posted on 06/15/2006 3:44:02 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: TChris
If they're at the wrong address, then a serious tragedy and a massive lawsuit are probably what will happen. And one or more officer's careers should be finished too, at least.

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.

194 posted on 06/15/2006 3:44:39 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
You can sue.

Can you cite statute or precedent for your claim that one can successfully sue police for non-exclusionary errors in executing a warrant?

195 posted on 06/15/2006 3:45:09 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: TChris
I just think that the benefits of the no-knock warrant far outweigh the rare occasions when it goes wrong or is misused. That balance may change at some point, but right now it's mostly a good thing.

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.

196 posted on 06/15/2006 3:46:57 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Drug dealers have just as much right as you to protect their property from unknown intruders.
197 posted on 06/15/2006 3:47:13 PM PDT by KurtZ (Chuck Norris + Ninja Clothing + Time Machine = Black Plague)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Seems we've had similar experiences with the 'revenuers', that's what I call them. I've also found that county cops tend to be FAR better than the vermin, in general, that patrol in the cities. I have absolutely ZERO trust for the police. They are human like the rest of us, and most of them are bad. Very bad.
198 posted on 06/15/2006 3:47:53 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

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

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?

199 posted on 06/15/2006 3:50:12 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

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.

200 posted on 06/15/2006 3:54:41 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-277 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