Top court upholds no-knock police search - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

bossradio93 · 06-15-2006, 05:24 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

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/opinio...ipopinion.html

Yahoo! News/AP-June 15, 2006

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

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

Brian · 06-15-2006, 05:41 PM

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 · 06-15-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

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

What if the door is locked?

T_ID · 06-18-2006, 05:45 AM

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 · 06-18-2006, 11:56 AM

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 · 06-18-2006, 01:37 PM

JT · 06-18-2006, 02:57 PM

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 · 06-18-2006, 11:34 PM

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 · 06-18-2006, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 06-18-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT

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 · 06-19-2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fleet

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 · 06-19-2006, 12:12 AM

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in846042.shtml

Dr. John Becker · 06-19-2006, 12:31 AM

[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 · 06-19-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James"Thunder"Early

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in846042.shtml

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

James"Thunder"Early · 06-19-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. John Becker

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!

06-15-2006, 05:24 PM	#1
bossradio93 Senior Member Game Show Fanatic! Join Date: Nov 01, 2004 Location: Bellflower, California Posts: 2,378	Top court upholds no-knock police search http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY- 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/opinio...ipopinion.html Yahoo! News/AP-June 15, 2006 This is America, folks?!?! Sad day. That's what criminals do when they break into people's homes, doesn't it? __________________ HBO Documentary: Left of the Dial: Grade: B+ "Morals aren't supposed to stop because it's politically inconvenient to continue them." Keith Olbermann - *Countdown with Keith Olbermann* April 22, 2009 (MSNBC) UPCOMING DVD RELEASES June 16, 2009: The Three Stooges Collection: Volume 6 Star Trek coming to KDOC-TV Monday May 4 @ 9:00pm Farewell KNX/CBS Columbia Square (April 30, 1938-August 12, 2005). Thanks for 67 great years of information and entertainment. My DVD Collection

06-18-2006, 05:45 AM	#4
T_ID Forum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 17, 2006 Location: Somewhere in the uncharted territory between chair and pc Posts: 519	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. __________________ Enterprise, one to beam up, no sign of intelligence down here.. Being a terrorist is a depressing profession, the high number of suicides in that line of work proves it. "Reality is a definate threat to national security that must be fought by any means necessary."

06-18-2006, 11:56 AM	#5
James"Thunder"Early Moderator Whoever's In New England Join Date: Feb 23, 2004 Location: The Apollo Posts: 6,909	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. __________________ Esther Anderson: Get thee behind me, Satan, but I'm gon' get behind you, 'cause I'm gonna put my foot in your--- Peggy Mitchell: Get outta my pub! You better pray you get the last laugh, it's a kick in the teeth when you don't get it.

06-18-2006, 01:37 PM	#6
Janice Administrator Forum Celebrity Hollywood Swingin' Join Date: Aug 03, 2001 Location: Beantown Posts: 34,526	__________________ God Bless Our Troops

06-18-2006, 02:57 PM	#7
JT Moderator Member Join Date: Apr 29, 2001 Location: USA Posts: 7,047	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. __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk

06-15-2006, 05:41 PM	#2
Brian Forum Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 23, 2001 Posts: 20,353	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.

06-18-2006, 11:34 PM	#8
Fleet Forum Veteran Mansions, limousines & H-ween Join Date: Jan 06, 2002 Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, California Posts: 14,436	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." __________________ The top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of all income taxes; the top 25% pay 86% of all income taxes. A real marriage: "We are gathered here today to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony."

06-19-2006, 12:12 AM	#12
James"Thunder"Early Moderator Whoever's In New England Join Date: Feb 23, 2004 Location: The Apollo Posts: 6,909	Catherine Crier hit the nail on the head about the right-wing and our courts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in846042.shtml

06-19-2006, 12:31 AM	#13
Dr. John Becker Senior Member A Great American Join Date: Sep 12, 2003 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 2,626	[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. __________________ Romney/Ryan 2012

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search