Top court upholds no-knock police search

[bossradio93]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches;_ylt=AqCdLFVgqurtqo.iDB5oDdSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches;_ylt=AqCdLFVgqurtqo.iDB5oDdSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)

Top court upholds no-knock police search

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

46 minutes ago

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.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court decisions: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html

Yahoo! News/AP-June 15, 2006


This is America, folks?!?! Sad day. ohno:


That's what criminals do when they break into people's homes, doesn't it?

[Brian]

I agree with the ruling. As long as they have a warrant that specifies what they are searching for and where to search, the police are within their rights to come into their homes as long as they do so in a professional manner; in other words not barging in, kicking the door down, etc.

I also agree with Scalia that police officers make mistakes. Nobody should go free on a techinicality because an officer makes a lapse in judgment while executing a warrant.

[Mister Show]

in other words not barging in, kicking the door down, etc.

What if the door is locked?

[T_ID]

I may be no supreme court judge, but I wonder if they, in all their alledged knowledge, can explain me one simple question: what happened to innocent untill proven otherwise?

Off course things get even more outrageous. Police units operating against drugs being able to seize property on an unproven suspicious and the suspect having to prove that his belongings weren't used in drug trafficking (note: even that alledged trafficking has not been proven at that time) or will otherwise lose them, is a pretty outrageous example of how the legal system is being torn down by people who do not care about any basic principles of the law in their quest for eye-for-an-eye justice.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Well, the right-wing kooks on the court are bent on making this a fascist police state. I had to pull out the F word for this one.

[Janice]

:p :lol:

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/SCOTUS-NewDayMd.JPG

[JT]

Whatever happened to knocking the door? If the person refuses to answer, THEN they should make their way inside.

I'd be one pissed-off person if I'm sitting on the couch one day and police officers break into my house because they have a search warrant. I wonder if they'd be held liable for property damages or medical conditions that are aggravated because of this.

[Fleet]

I've never understood why a knock is required.
It's like the police are saying, "Here we are. We are going to knock before we enter so you time to destroy any evidence."

[Fleet]

Well, the right-wing kooks on the court are bent on making this a fascist police state. I had to pull out the F word for this one.
It as no effect on innocent people like us.

You should worry more about the left-wing kooks who passed the unconstitutional extension and expansion of Emminent Domain. Only the leftist judges on the Supreme Court voted for that. That is FAR more fascist than a no-knock search.

[Fleet]

I'd be one pissed-off person if I'm sitting on the couch one day and police officers break into my house because they have a search warrant. I wonder if they'd be held liable for property damages or medical conditions that are aggravated because of this.
Don't worry. You'll be okay as long as you don't commit any felonies.

[James"Thunder"Early]

It as no effect on innocent people like us.

You should worry more about the left-wing kooks who passed the unconstitutional extension and expansion of Emminent Domain. Only the leftist judges on the Supreme Court voted for that. That is FAR more fascist than a no-knock search.It has other reprecussions than that, what if they police get the wrong house? There are mistakes made sometimes. These fascist activist judges appointed by Bush are already way out of hand.

It's not even logical to be outraged about a form of eminent domain, but in support of other measures that are equally unconstitutional.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Catherine Crier hit the nail on the head about the right-wing and our courts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/14/earlyshow/leisure/books/main846042.shtml

[Dr. John Becker]

[QUOTE=James"Thunder"Early]It has other reprecussions than that, what if they police get the wrong house? There are mistakes made sometimes. These fascist activist judges appointed by Bush are already way out of hand. /QUOTE]


I'm glad Bush has nominated some right wing judges. Right wing=right for America.

[Dr. John Becker]

Catherine Crier hit the nail on the head about the right-wing and our courts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/14/earlyshow/leisure/books/main846042.shtml




Someone at CBS on the side of the liberals? Imagine that.:lol:

[James"Thunder"Early]

I'm glad Bush has nominated some right wing judges. Right wing=right for America.Can't believe that I just heard that. No, right-wing = let's wreck America!

[James"Thunder"Early]

Someone at CBS on the side of the liberals? Imagine that.:lol:She doesn't work for CBS and she's not a Liberal, she was first elected as a judge as a Republican in Texas.

[Fleet]

It has other reprecussions than that, what if they police get the wrong house? There are mistakes made sometimes. These fascist activist judges appointed by Bush are already way out of hand.

It's not even logical to be outraged about a form of eminent domain, but in support of other measures that are equally unconstitutional.
Thunder,
Amendment IV of the Constitution says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and sezures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where does it say that the police are required to knock on the door before entering?

[T_ID]

I've never understood why a knock is required.
It's like the police are saying, "Here we are. We are going to knock before we enter so you time to destroy any evidence."
That's a non-argument, because if there's risk of destruction of evidence, the choice for rapid deployment is always made. The law already allows for rapid entry in such cases.

What the court decided now is only going to result in damage and violence. What do you think your average gun nut is going to do if he hears someone break down the door and storm into his house. Shoot them first, then ask questions.

And then off course we can see the extreme-right crying how society gets more violent and how poor police officers are killed, while it was the short-shgtedness of those same extreme-rightists that caused it.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Thunder,
Amendment IV of the Constitution says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and sezures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where does it say that the police are required to knock on the door before entering?It's amazing how you people try and pick the constitution apart to say what you want. The attitude is, if it's not spelled out in exact words, that means it's not unconstitutional, that's wrong. I don't see the point in entering without knocking, unless in serious cases.

[James"Thunder"Early]

That's a non-argument, because if there's risk of destruction of evidence, the choice for rapid deployment is always made. The law already allows for rapid entry in such cases.

What the court decided now is only going to result in damage and violence. What do you think your average gun nut is going to do if he hears someone break down the door and storm into his house. Shoot them first, then ask questions.

And then off course we can see the extreme-right crying how society gets more violent and how poor police officers are killed, while it was the short-shgtedness of those same extreme-rightists that caused it.Good point. Florida has a shoot first law, which means someone is justified for shooting first when someone is breaking into their house.

[Dr. John Becker]

Good point. Florida has a shoot first law, which means someone is justified for shooting first when someone is breaking into their house.


Good for Florida! I wish every other state had the same law.

[Fleet]

It's amazing how you people try and pick the constitution apart to say what you want. The attitude is, if it's not spelled out in exact words, that means it's not unconstitutional, that's wrong. I don't see the point in entering without knocking, unless in serious cases.
I didn't "pick it apart." I posted it in full. Don't you realize that judges have to make decisions by the constitution's exact wording?

[Fleet]

That's a non-argument, because if there's risk of destruction of evidence, the choice for rapid deployment is always made. The law already allows for rapid entry in such cases.

What the court decided now is only going to result in damage and violence. What do you think your average gun nut is going to do if he hears someone break down the door and storm into his house. Shoot them first, then ask questions.

And then off course we can see the extreme-right crying how society gets more violent and how poor police officers are killed, while it was the short-shgtedness of those same extreme-rightists that caused it.
Talk about a non-argument!
The average "gun nut" is not a felon, therefore there would be no reason to kick in his door.

And again, even a 10 second delay can allow evidence to be destroyed- flushed down a toilet, for instance.

[James"Thunder"Early]

I didn't "pick it apart." I posted it in full. Don't you realize that judges have to make decisions by the constitution's exact wording?The problem is, the right-wing crackpots on the court don't. They make rulings based on right-wing ideology and policy.

"secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" trumps this ruling

[Fleet]

The problem is, the right-wing crackpots on the court don't. They make rulings based on right-wing ideology and policy.

"secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" trumps this ruling
I see you're using the usual liberal tactics...
1. Deny
2. Distort
3. Distract
4. Destroy

And, of course, the old calling conservatives "right-wing crackpots."

You, as usual, did not point out where in the constitution it says that law enforcement officers must knock on the door of a house before conducting a legal search.

A warrant trumps "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." In other words, no one's house my be searched UNLESS there is a legal warrant allowing so. And, in the constitution, it does not specify if knocking first is required or not.

[T_ID]

Talk about a non-argument!
The average "gun nut" is not a felon, therefore there would be no reason to kick in his door. Is that needed? If you are suspected of trafficking drugs you are already in the position where you can be arrested and your belongings confiscated without evidence.

So that means that in conjunction with this law, you can basically bust into anyone's house, since there is no legal need to prove your suspicions in any way.

It's really wishful thinking to believe that any suspicion any police officer ever has against anyone is going to be justified.

[Fleet]

Is that needed? If you are suspected of trafficking drugs you are already in the position where you can be arrested and your belongings confiscated without evidence.

So that means that in conjunction with this law, you can basically bust into anyone's house, since there is no legal need to prove your suspicions in any way.

A warrant is still needed before the law can "bust into anyone's house."

[T_ID]

A warrant is still needed before the law can "bust into anyone's house."
As I said, not in the case of suspected drug trafficking in some states. It's not considered a criminal offence for some bureacratic reason, and therefore the burden of evidence is reversed.

It won't come as a surprise that many of these seize-at-will police units get into firefights more often than other units as anyone spotting them knows they have to escape at all costs, or be reduced to being a beggar.

[MsOrange]

I think they shoudl knock. I'm not saying sit around on the steps and wait for them to answer. put knock, holler "police" and if within 5 seconds the door isn't opened or something, then walk in.

[Dr. John Becker]

[QUOTE=T_ID

It won't come as a surprise that many of these seize-at-will police units get into firefights more often than other units as anyone spotting them knows they have to escape at all costs, or be reduced to being a beggar.[/QUOTE]


What do you base that opinion on, Thomas?

[Ireneparalegal]

I don't know if anyone cares or if this makes a difference to the story posted here, but I will post what former Ventura County prosecutor Pete Kossoris (my county) stated in our editorial section of our newspaper in response to this court ruling:

"Re: your June 17 editorial 'Court weakens its knock rule':
"Your editorial bemoaning the U.S. Supreme Court's failure to suppress evidence against a Michigan defendant, Booker Hudson, whose apartment police entered pursuant to a search warrant and found drugs and a loaded revolver, OMITTED a few important things:

1. The officers did announce their presence and then waited 3-5 seconds for a response.
2. Perhaps even more important, the loaded revolver referred to was between the cushion and arm rest of the chair in which Mr. Hudson was seated.

Most importantly, suppressing such evidence does not punish the police; it punishes the public when dangerous criminals are released to rob, rape and kill.

Mr. Kossoris goes on and on and ends it with this:

If you wish to have Mr. Hudson, who was unquestionably guilty, go free to have his revolver again lodged between the cushion and armrest of his chair -ready to use the next time police come calling with a search warrant and again announce their presence."

[T_ID]

What do you base that opinion on, Thomas?The journalists reporting on the daily life of such a unit took the liberty of comparing their figures. The report itself also featured several alledged criminals becoming violent after hearing they were being apprehended by a seize-at-will unit. They announced themselves as being police officers and said he was under arrest, the man remained calm. Then they said who they were, and he started a punch-up, apparently desperate to keep his car that he needed to get to his work every day.