High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

[groover]

High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling Police Can Use Evidence in Searches Without Knocking

By GINA HOLLAND

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.


The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.


Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.


"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.


But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.


The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.


O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"


She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion.


Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.


Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.


In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.


"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 members.


Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.


Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of 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."


The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.




Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[groover]

Now you won't even get a knock.

Knock on the Door

By Phil Ochs


In many a time, in many a land,With many a gun in many a hand,They came by the night, they came by the day,Came with their guns to take us away

With a knock on the door, knock on the door.Here they come to take one more,One more.

Back in the days of the Roman Empire,They died by the cross and they died by the fire.In the stone coliseum, the crowd gave a roar,And it all began with that knock on the door

Just a knock on the door, knock on the door.Here they come to take one more,One more.

The years have all passed, we've reached modern times,The Nazis have come with their Nazi war crimes.Yes the power was there, the power was found,Six million people have heard that same sound

That old knock on the door, knock on the door.Here they come to take one more,One more.

Now there's many new words and many new names,The banners have changed but the knock is the same.On the Soviet shores with right on their side,I wonder who knows how many have died

With their knock on the door, knock on the door.Here they come to take one more,One more.Look over the oceans, look over the lands,Look over the leaders with the blood on their hands.

And open your eyes and see what they do,When they knock over their friend they're knocking for youWith their knock on the door, knock on the door.

Here they come to take one more,With their knock on the door, knock on the door.Here they come to take one more,One more.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by groover

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

To me, this sounds like a good way to get a cap busted in your ass. Especially in, of all places, my hometown. People shoot first and ask later. When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who would watch TV from the sofa in his living room with a shotgun in his hands, pointed towards the front door.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

To me, this sounds like a good way to get a cap busted in your ass. Especially in, of all places, my hometown. People shoot first and ask later. When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who would watch TV from the sofa in his living room with a shotgun in his hands, pointed towards the front door.

Good point, Larry. I think many cops will probably still knock first, for that reason, especially in Detroit.

[Scott Dolan]

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

Oh for christ motherfucking sake!!!

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by groover

High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Who says the neofascists/neofeudalists HAVEN'T taken over?

[Chris D]

And so it begins....

[jesus marion joseph]

It's times like these that I thank my lucky stars that I'm protected by the constitution of the "liberal" Commonwealth of Massachusetts.http://www.socialaw.com/article.htm?cid=15750

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by groover

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority,

What a surprise...

Originally Posted by groover

said Detroit police...

Oh, Detroit. Nevermind.

(sorry, Larry!)

[Noj]

I tried to locate the lyrics from Gil-Scott Heron's "No Knock" for a "Hit It, Boys" type post and came up empty.

[Gary Sisco]

The Supremes ruled on this question already during Nixonian daze. What the fuck? That decision is where the "no-knock" label comes from.

[GoodSpeak]

Figures.


With a conservative majority court....no surprises here.

[kenny weir]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The Supremes ruled on this question already during Nixonian daze.

Where Did Our Love Go? Stop In The Name Of Love? Come See About Me?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by kenny weir

Where Did Our Love Go? Stop In The Name Of Love? Come See About Me?

It ended with profit for the rich and tax breaks for the rich.


republicans control the USA.

[Gary Sisco]

Baby Love.

I'd not want to be the first cop through a door in such circumstances, I'll tell you what, on the other hand. Or even the second.

Home invasions and burglaries (while people are present in their homes) have become entirely routine where I live, thanks esp to the place being awash in heroin and to a lesser extent methamphetamines. If my door got kicked in without warning, I'd defend myself without warning, automatically. I'd not be waiting to find out who exactly is invading my home without warning or permission or even announcement. My self-defense gene fires involuntarily. Has to, since there's no time for thinking in such circumstances. Which is why the military drills, drills, drills.

Most cops understand this and would go out of their way to avoid such a scenario. It's one thing to pay someone to kill. Another to pay one to die.

[groover]

Obviously, if the cops bust down your door without announcing they're cops with a warrant, you're 100% legally entitled to blow them away. In fact, I know of a guy who's a martial arts expert who once beat the heck out of an undercover cop who did this, and never faced charges. I wonder how Scalia will rule if a case like this ever comes to his attention.

[frankiepop]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Oh for christ motherfucking sake!!!

what the decision seems to suggest is that the some of the majority are starting an attack on the 'exclusionary rule,' which would remove the primary motivation for police to abide by the 4th amendment reasonable search and seizure rule.

that is an end to moderation and about a 40 year reversal on what is privacy. this is a move to the far right conservate viewpoint. this is not moderation. those who suggested that roberts or alito were moderates (alito particular since there was no proof on his record of moderation) are sadly mistaken if this is any indication.

Damn if ain't ambivalent as hell on this one. I can see getting in before the goods are flushed/hidden; but the potential abuse blows the mind[Screw that "cops are more professional..." bs. There needs to be some recourse against abuse.

Guess that door bell I just installed is for naught.

[Doc Martin]

Sitting and staring out of a hotel window

Got a tip they're gonna kick the door in again

I'd like to get some sleep before I travel

But if you got a warrant I guess you're gonna come in

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Doc Martin

Sitting and staring out of a hotel window

Got a tip they're gonna kick the door in again

I'd like to get some sleep before I travel

But if you got a warrant I guess you're gonna come in

WWJD?

What Would Jerry Do?

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by frankiepop

some of the majority are starting an attack on the 'exclusionary rule,' which would remove the primary motivation for police to abide by the 4th amendment reasonable search and seizure rule.

This is what's key and scary about this decision. Forget details about the 'knock rule', here the SC allowed illegally obtained evidence (as admitted by the state) to be considered. It only remains an exclusionary 'rule' no insofar as one thinks all rules have exceptions. Now it's a "we'll include it when we say so" rule.

[walto]

what the decision seems to suggest is that the some of the majority are starting an attack on the 'exclusionary rule,' which would remove the primary motivation for police to abide by the 4th amendment reasonable search and seizure rule.

FWIW, I think there should be an even stronger "motivations." I suppose the Constitutional protection from illegal searches and seizures should protect me from use of the ill-gotten evidence in a criminal trial--even if it conclusively proves that I was the perp. That's unfortunate for the murder victim's loved ones, but a Constitutional Right is a Constitutional Right.

But I don't see why obtaining evidence in a proscribed matter isn't also a Federal crime--perhaps subjecting police personnel to imprisonment and departments to big fines. That would take care of this matter, I think.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by walto

FWIW, I think there should be an even stronger "motivations." I suppose the Constitutional protection from illegal searches and seizures should protect me from use of the ill-gotten evidence in a criminal trial--even if it conclusively proves that I was the perp. That's unfortunate for the murder victim's loved ones, but a Constitutional Right is a Constitutional Right.

But I don't see why obtaining evidence in a proscribed matter isn't also a Federal crime--perhaps subjecting police personnel to imprisonment and departments to big fines. That would take care of this matter, I think.

I have a slightly different take on the matter. Let the law enforcement agency responsible for ill-gotten evidence face prosecution for it. But also accept the evidence instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

[walto]

Well, you could do that, but it wouldn't really be a constitutional "protection" against anything. If I have a right against something, the government is supposed to have an obligation to protect me--not just punish those who violate me--though, as I've said, I think they should do that too.

[GoodSpeak]

All of this, folks, is known as the "slippery slope".

First one civil liberty goes away then so does another then another...



Further evidence that you don't vote republican.

[Gary Sisco]

The Bill of Rights exists or it doesn't. There isn't any middle ground on these questions. The Constitution's protections don't extend only to the individual; they are also inherently social. It protects a form of life. Or it doesn't.

In the end, it is the people who will decide. But it is the case that people who won't fight and struggle for their rights against the state simply won't have them in time.

Kick my door in and some deciding will get done.

link

...The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival....

This case is more about entering confiscated evidence from a no knock search, rather than entrance without proper announcement/warning. I heard somewhere(and I could be mistaken) that cops have had the right to enter without knocking all along under certain circumstances. If that's true, then this case just makes it cool to use the confiscated evidence against the suspect. I think it's a good ruling, even though I'd feel more comfortable with safeguards against abuse in place[maybe there are, I don't know]. Anyhow...

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 15, 7:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.

It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners, even unsympathetic homeowners like Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and cocaine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.

The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, said that police blunders should not result in "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for defendants.

Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

"The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

Supporters said the ruling will help police do their jobs.

"People who are caught red-handed with evidence of guilt have one less weapon to get off," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

The case provides the clearest sign yet of the court without Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Hudson had lost his case in a Michigan appeals court. Justices agreed to hear his appeal last June, four days before O'Connor's surprise announcement that she was retiring.

O'Connor was still on the bench in January when his case was first argued, and she seemed ready to vote with Hudson. "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" she asked.

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held this spring so that Alito could participate, apparently to break a 4-4 tie.

Four justices, including Alito and Roberts, would have given prosecutors a more sweeping victory but did not have the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative.

Ronald Allen, a Northwestern University Law professor, said the ruling "suggests those four would be happy to consider overturning" a 1961 Supreme Court opinion that said evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in trials. "It would be a significant change," he said.

Kennedy joined in most of the ruling but wrote to explain that he did not support ending the knock requirement. "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," he said.

Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.

Detroit police acknowledge violating the knock-and-announce rule when they called out their presence at Hudson's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds. Hudson was convicted of drug possession.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

Four justices complained in the dissent that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Breyer said that while police departments can be sued, there is no evidence of anyone collecting much money in such cases.

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

This case is more about entering confiscated evidence from a no knock search, rather than entrance without proper announcement/warning.

Did you actually read that before you posted it?

[Gary Sisco]

He's an unmediated man.

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Did you actually read that before you posted it?

Yes I did. Did you happen to read my post in its entirety before asking a dumbass question?