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

Yes, they will--at least sometimes. I would, almost without exception. And then there's those cases where the cops get the wrong house.

51 posted on 06/15/2006 8:30:57 AM PDT by sourcery (A libertarian is a conservative who has been mugged ...by his own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
No exclusionary rule for no-knock searches

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?

52 posted on 06/15/2006 8:32:01 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

"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.


53 posted on 06/15/2006 8:32:46 AM 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 10 | 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 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.

54 posted on 06/15/2006 8:34:00 AM PDT by dirtboy (When Bush is on the same side as Ted the Swimmer on an issue, you know he's up to no good...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Yes, they will--at least sometimes. I would, almost without exception. And then there's those cases where the cops get the wrong house.

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.

55 posted on 06/15/2006 8:34:35 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
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.

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.

56 posted on 06/15/2006 8:35:25 AM PDT by dirtboy (When Bush is on the same side as Ted the Swimmer on an issue, you know he's up to no good...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
why risk the cops

Indeed. Bursting into a house unannounced is much riskier for the cop than knocking and letting a person calmly answer the door.

57 posted on 06/15/2006 8:36:29 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Thanks. I knew the distinction, but the reason for it makes sense.

Other languages (like Greek) are more explicit because there are different forms of the verb that distinguish between counterfactuals, probabilities, and improbabilities.

58 posted on 06/15/2006 8:36:35 AM PDT by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
you'll find it in hitlers handbook though

FR unwritten rule #117 - the first person to invoke Hitler or Nazis loses the debate.

59 posted on 06/15/2006 8:36:37 AM PDT by dirtboy (When Bush is on the same side as Ted the Swimmer on an issue, you know he's up to no good...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

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.


60 posted on 06/15/2006 8:38:06 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | 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.

And what about when the police make a mistake and go into the wrong address?
It happens, not nearly as often as some would like to make out, but it happens.

Does his argument hold any water then?

61 posted on 06/15/2006 8:38:32 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
And what about when the police make a mistake and go into the wrong address?

That's a different matter and dependent on the circumstances.

62 posted on 06/15/2006 8:41:20 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Alito and the others are traitors to we the people and our constitutionally guaranteed protections.

Well it looks like there's 4 on the court that aren't traitors according to your statement.

63 posted on 06/15/2006 8:41:40 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

My mom's always had a gift for languages. She learns languages like it's nothing. She used to tease us as kids by writing the contents of our wrapped presents on the outside--in heiroglyphics! Some of it rubbed off on me, at least the constant drilling on grammar. But I'm a slang guy, so I don't really follow the rules all time. That one always stuck with me. She used to also say "you lay something down and it lies there" to help us understand the difference between lay and lie.


64 posted on 06/15/2006 8:44:44 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

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

Just curious, what about this was conservative?

65 posted on 06/15/2006 8:46:04 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TChris

The knock and announce requirement is not specifically in the Fourth Amendment because it predates that amendment by decades--it was a common law right long before the Constitution was written. I would, however, refer you to the Ninth Amendment.

Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals" arguments here echo those of gun-grabbers with regard to the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights is not a menu at a Chinese restaurant--if we do not have all of its protections, then we have none.


66 posted on 06/15/2006 8:48:22 AM PDT by Schuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

"righfully being shot and killed by the residents of the abode as they break and enter."

So, don't knock and announce then enter, you take a chance on getting shot by a great American who didn't know who you were. Do knock and announce then enter take a chance on getting shot by a guy who DOES know who is there and why. This is why I support the Zarqawi / F-16 "bark" the terrorist method. The Israeli military deliver their search warrants from a helicopter, but they skip trying to save any evidence.


67 posted on 06/15/2006 8:51:23 AM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Schuck
it was a common law right long before the Constitution was written. I would, however, refer you to the Ninth Amendment.

Were warrants also common law?

68 posted on 06/15/2006 8:51:52 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (My head hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: TChris
I don't think there is a Constitutional problem with a no knock situation. Where the problem will happen is if and when the bad guys have a shootout with the police and one of them lives.
If, at 3:00am in the morning, the police knock down the door of my home by accident, they will have just under 10 seconds to find me before there is going to be a major problem. My alarm system will go off, and I can be awakened, up , and armed with a .223 w/night scope before my alarm horn ramps to full volume - it's happened. Someone is not going to live through the encounter because I am not going to wait and see who it is. Had they announced themselves and that they had a warrant, although annoyed at the mistake, I would let them in and we could correct it since I have no desire to engage LE in an armed conflict.
Lets take the situation back at the bad guys house: 3:00 am, the police break down the door and the bad guys are sitting around armed, in the back room of the house. Officer is shot and killed and bad guys are arrested and hauled to jail.
Court day where bad guys is on trial for murder and he gets off simply because he makes a successful self defense argument, after all, the scumbag had his three year old and wife asleep in the house and had no idea that it was the police who were entering. It makes no difference what the truth was, that is without a doubt - reasonable doubt as to the bad guys intentions in killing the officer.

While not (IMHO) a Constitutional issue, I believe no-knock warrant executions are very foolish and extremely dangerous.

In addition this statement is extremely troubling to me "Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches. "
Since the police have immunity from prosecution the ONLY avenue to assure that the police observe the law is to simply make it useless not to. In this particular issue, would agree that just because they didn't knock first (assuming they did have a legally acquired warrant) is no reason to throw out the charges. However, as a general, broad viewpoint this gives LE the green light to do anything they please regardless of the law because the end justifies the means. I STRONGLY disagree!

Cordially,
GE
69 posted on 06/15/2006 8:52:42 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Erroneous writer: "What's a subjunctive? Is it contagious?"


70 posted on 06/15/2006 8:58:25 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Just curious, what about this was conservative?

IMO, the part about sworn officers serving a lawful warrant.

71 posted on 06/15/2006 9:00:16 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I thought it was Godwin's Law, from the days of USENET.


72 posted on 06/15/2006 9:05:17 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I see. So others who are not described as conservative are opposed to that?

Would it have been conservative if it was decided that the waiting time should be 30 seconds instead of five?

Like I said, I'm just curious because I don't think every decision by nine justices comes down to conservative vs liberal.

73 posted on 06/15/2006 9:05:25 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
In addition this statement is extremely troubling to me "Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches. " Since the police have immunity from prosecution the ONLY avenue to assure that the police observe the law is to simply make it useless not to. In this particular issue, would agree that just because they didn't knock first (assuming they did have a legally acquired warrant) is no reason to throw out the charges. However, as a general, broad viewpoint this gives LE the green light to do anything they please regardless of the law because the end justifies the means. I STRONGLY disagree!

I think there's a big difference between a good-faith error and LE abuse, etc.. In either case, people who have their door smashed in, hit with a flash-bang, etc. at the wrong address have a legitimate beef, and can successfully sue the responsible government agency. As a former LEO, I can assure you that mistakes like those are not taken lightly by their superiors.

If you were to defend your home against perceived intruders, especially if they were found to be at the wrong place, I seriously doubt that you'd have any legal problems to worry about. Plenty of other problems, but I doubt anybody would be throwing you in jail for it.

I agree with the ruling. Mistakes with no-knock warrants are clearly the exception, which is why they make great news stories. The overwhelming majority of the time, these are used effectively to take down bad guys.

However, as a general, broad viewpoint this gives LE the green light to do anything they please regardless of the law because the end justifies the means.

I believe this is an overreaction. LE never has the green light to do "anything they please". Yes, there are cops who get way out of control. They're a problem, and should be dealt with severely, IMO. But that's no reason to take a critical tool--no-knock warrants--out of the hands of the large number of good, honest, dedicated officers who simply want to nail bad guys before they have the chance to flush all the evidence.

74 posted on 06/15/2006 9:05:35 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
conservatives: less govt, less govt interference in our private lives, adherence to the constitution.

Would you please cite the constitutional clause requiring the police to knock and say "pretty please with sugar on top" prior to attempting entry while serving a search warrant?

75 posted on 06/15/2006 9:06:54 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Schuck
Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals" arguments here
Me TOO! That IS scary!
76 posted on 06/15/2006 9:08:47 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I don't think every decision by nine justices comes down to conservative vs liberal.

I would absolutely agree with that. I would add that I'm no authority on Constitutional law but I personally believe it should be interpreted using common sense and not how some flaming liberals have have read liberal intent into it. I feel that Justices leaning to the conservative side are more constructionist in rulings.

77 posted on 06/15/2006 9:18:21 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

No doubt that is your rule and the the rule for others who would defend nazis til death. Nazis aren't dead. They're busy executing home invasions just like the nazis did in the forties in nazi Germany. Sorry you don't like the comparison but the truth is the truth no matter how you and others would like to disguise it.

More tragic now, this deadly force has been sanctioned by a nazi court. The same nazi court that removes states rights and sanctions the slaughter of unborn children.

"Give me liberty or give me death." I wonder which FR rule that most revered quote breaks?


78 posted on 06/15/2006 9:19:22 AM 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 59 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely

I would like to see an entire national re-write of the laws and the "court" findings with respect to evidence and how it is obtained.

I would like to separate the applicability of the evidence - it's either factually correct or it isn't - from any error in obtaining the evidence, and any legal repurcusions of any such error.

There should be repurcusions for injury to our rights in the process of obtaining evidence but those repurcusions should not hide the facts, the evidence. Maybe someone should be fired, demoted, reprimanded, receive loss of pay and maybe even face civil suit by wrongfully accused persons. But, meanwhile, don't throw out the baby (facts) with the bathwater (evidence).

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.


79 posted on 06/15/2006 9:21:37 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

Agreed.

80 posted on 06/15/2006 9:29:17 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

But the door is innocent.
You got something against the rights of doors or are you just insennnnnnnnnnsitive?
81 posted on 06/15/2006 9:35:08 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TChris
and can successfully sue the responsible government agency.
Your point is well taken, although I disagree. I can sue only in the unlikely event that I survive the encounter.

I would also disagree that "LE never has the green light to do "anything they please". Yes, there are cops who get way out of control. They're a problem, and should be dealt with severely,"
The only reason that LE doesn't have a green light is because if they don't follow the rules it is useless and the bad guys get away. I have seen things from a non LE point of view a few times.
The city of Mobile has a "traffic " court that isn't even a legal court system according to an attorney that I used. It is a sham where you are not allowed representation and intimidation is used to get you to pay up and shut up.
How you handle it, according to my attorney, is you go, plead innocent, you are found guilty, then you request an appeal, demanding a jury trial. Now you get into a legally operating court system. It is a lot of hassle, and the city makes lots of money because it is simply easier to pay and be quiet.
This is why I moved out of Mobile. I have gotten several "speeding" ticket from the city's mobile, roadside, tax collectors. Only one of which I was actually speeding. Technically two, but 32 in a 30 is really hard to determine on the speedometer.
One I got because I had a radar detector (I believe). Mind you, they are not illegal. I was in bumper to bumper, 4-lane traffic running about 42 in a 45. She pulled me over and gave me a ticket for 69 in a 45. She wrote on the ticket that she clocked me using radar. After reading the ticket, I pointed out that she didn't have radar and she just laughed and said - and I quote -"prove it".
Second instance I pulled up to a red light that had a red arrow pointing to the right. Officer pulled up behind me flashing his headlights and blowing his horn trying to get me to turn right on red. He did not have his blue lights on so I didn't. When the light turned green, I have the turn and he zoomed by me, flipping me off.
Turns out that a red arrow pointing to the right was not defined y Alabama law at the time. I called to complain and was referred to internal affairs. I called, and they took down my information. Within three weeks I had 3 speeding tickets and a reckless driving ticket. Two of the speeding tickets were for 80 MPH - the big ones, the other I had not even pulled out of the apartment parking lot! I backed out of the parking spot, pulled up to the stop sign (about 20 feet), and he hit the blues. All of these were simply made up.
The only way I didn't lose my license was to attend extortion (driving) school in exchange for the city dropping the tickets. I had to attend once for each ticket, and after the second time (as I found out) the school can charge what they want to. All total it cost me just under $800.00 because I called internal affairs.
This is all made possable because there is no penality for LE, no down side. That is when I moved to the county - out of the city. Our Sheriff's department IMHO is one of the finest, and I have had no problems out here (I've been here for 13 years).
I'm going to say this, and I do intend it respectfully to you, a fellow freeper, so I hope you don't get too irritated.
You can talk about how pious and righteous LE is just doing their best to protect us from the bad guys, but I don't buy it. There are some really good guys out there I'll admit, but the power and authority, coupled with the human nature, causes good men to develop a really bad attitude. I don't trust them at all.
I've seen the lie in the witness chair, I've been on the grand jury and had them lie through their teeth, I've seen them simply make up things just because they could. I've heard DEA guys laugh about planting stuff to get the bad guys because "everyone knows they sell drugs". Well, IMHO, these are the guys that belong in jail.

Without strictly enforced rules, we would be in serious trouble. I am opposed to giving LE any "tools" that are subjective. Don't take me wrong, there are some really good guys out there. Our Sheriff's department IMHO is a shining example of that.
82 posted on 06/15/2006 9:53:20 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TChris

What happens when the police go to the wrong house by accident - it happens - don't knock, bust in the door and some homeowner starts shooting?


83 posted on 06/15/2006 9:59:19 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
That's a different matter and dependent on the circumstances.

OK, Just wanted to get an idea where you were coming from.

I tend to agree that if the police have a warrant, and the correct address, there is need to announce but you don't give them 5 or 10 minutes before you go in.

84 posted on 06/15/2006 10:03:12 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I tend to agree that if the police have a warrant, and the correct address, there is need to announce but you don't give them 5 or 10 minutes before you go in.

Nope. Announce as you're blowing in the door.

85 posted on 06/15/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Schuck; Take No Prisoners

Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals" arguments here echo those of gun-grabbers with regard to the Second Amendment.

Guilty until proven innocent. So many people on this thread champion it and don't know that they've been manipulated into that position/stand. I want to hear them say they weren't manipulated into taking the  "does it realy matter?"/guilty until proven innocent stand but that they came to the decision on their own. Lack of critical thinking in favor of letting their emotions guide them.

86 posted on 06/15/2006 10:16:19 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Your experiences are absolutely sickening. They happen far too often, and I agree that those kind of cops should be slammed hard for that kind of crap. I actually plan to install a hidden camera in my car at some point so that anything like this that happens to me will be recorded for presentation in court. LEOs should be exemplary in their behavior, but too many of them are simply on a power trip most of the time.

In particular, those who perjure themselves in court (really, anyone who perjures themselves in court) should be jailed for it. I'm really tired of a justice system that tolerates perjury as "part of the game". Even though it's difficult to prosecute, the very viability of the system depends on people telling the truth. If that's not even expected any more, what's the point?

In short, I mostly agree with you wholeheartedly. 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.

87 posted on 06/15/2006 10:26:42 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: TChris

But that's no reason to take a critical tool--no-knock warrants--out of the hands of the large number of good, honest, dedicated officers who simply want to nail bad guys before they have the chance to flush all the evidence.

Only user amount of drugs and small time dealers (usually those that deal to support their habit) can be flushed. Dealer quantities of drugs are to large to dispose of quickly. 

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 posted on 06/15/2006 10:27:07 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Zon

It is against the law, therefore a crime. Why put crimes in quotes?


89 posted on 06/15/2006 10:29:37 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
What happens when the police go to the wrong house by accident - it happens - don't knock, bust in the door and some homeowner starts shooting?

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.

Because of the serious implications of these actions, there should be double, triple and quadruple checks by multiple individuals before the door is breached. Maybe someone from the AG's office should come along in the vehicle as non-LEO eyes too.

Like the stories of surgeons amputating the wrong limb and such, mistakes in this area should just never happen.

90 posted on 06/15/2006 10:32:44 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

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

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.

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.

91 posted on 06/15/2006 10:37:47 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

It is against the law, therefore a crime. Why put crimes in quotes?

Drug prohibition laws are unconstitutional. Thus not valid law and cannot be a valid crime. Drug prohibition laws are political agenda laws. That said, even constitutional laws can be political agenda laws -- such as alcohol prohibition made valid via amendment to the constituion..


92 posted on 06/15/2006 10:39:21 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan; Zon
Because some of us have a different definition of a "crime". One where there is an actual VICTIM. If you are only hurting yourself, why are we bothering to prosecute you? We should get out of your way and let you destroy your own life. Until you hurt someone else, BFD...

I don't like no-knock raids. Especially with law enforcements occassional "wrong address" type mistakes that end up getting otherwise good cops, and innocent civilians, killed. If they are worried about evidence getting flushed, then they should apprehend their target OUTSIDE the place they want to search. Doesn't seem to hard to me...

93 posted on 06/15/2006 10:40:13 AM 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 89 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

It won't always be "scummy meth dealers".
It might be someone with something that was perfectly legal and reasonable, then suddenly redefined as illegal (as the BATFE has been doing lately).
It might be the neighbors of the "scummy meth dealers", invaded without warrant because the wrong house was targeted.
It might be someone who would cooperate when polite social procedure is followed, and who would fight when unknown invaders come crashing thru his door at 4AM.

Yes, the cops - with warrant - have a legal and constitutional approval to enter & search without being polite & patient. The occupants also have the right to act appropriately when strangers burst in unannounced without apparent cause. The two issues are not incompatible.


94 posted on 06/15/2006 10:44:39 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Bingo!


95 posted on 06/15/2006 10:45:21 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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.
Thanks for not taking my commenting on my experiences personally. I don't share them much. I think you are correct. We agree on everything except the weight of the benefit and the weight of the downside.
And that I can happily accept. Thanks for the pleasant tone of our discussion.

Have a great day
GE
96 posted on 06/15/2006 10:48:45 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Conservative leaning?? or Common sense?? They had the search warrant....And how does one prove that they didn't knock??


97 posted on 06/15/2006 10:53:10 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say “it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry.” "

A excuse me, but it sounds as though "Kennedy" not Alito or Roberts had the deciding vote. Once again the MSM got it wrong.


98 posted on 06/15/2006 10:53:20 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal justices.

Isn't this up to the Judge who grants the warrant?

99 posted on 06/15/2006 10:55:38 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

" “It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote..."

Thank God our troops didn't use this fuzzy headed logic before dropping two bombs on Zarqawi... on the other hand...I recogonize that it would have been polite and perhaps proper ettiquette for them to knock on his door once they found him in the rubble.


100 posted on 06/15/2006 10:56:17 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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