SCOTUS: Police don't have to knock, justices say

[Linux&Gun Guy]

Clearly we need to get some sort of early warning system that will alarm when someone is coming close to your house so you will have some time to figure out who it is and if it is a SWAT team strip naked and lie on the floor(the only way to ensure you will not get shot)

A sad state of affairs

 

[Werewolf]

If the evidence is not suppressed, what will motivate police to follow the proper procedure?

+1 and the heart of the decision. We'll just have to wait and see if things go the way many are predicting.

 

[Vex]

If the evidence is not suppressed, what will motivate police to follow the proper procedure? We see this every day in the way police treat people they don't actually intend to prosecute, especially innocent people like me. The politest behavior I have ever seen coming from an LEO was directed towards a man who had been shooting at several officers just hours earlier (it was all on camera)... When I was detained for open carrying I received the most horrendous treatment I have ever experienced in my life.

I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers. Prosecuting the police isn't the answer. Letting the criminal go isn't the answer. It just doesn't leave anything else that the police will lose if they fail to follow procedure.

I wish I knew where this one was going to go....

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Seems to me like the supremes should have lineated what would be an appropriate penalty, not just that it was a "get out of jail free" card.

I suggest that the cops that failed to follow the rules, made the mistake, whatever....should just get fired.

Maybe that would help them to pay attention.

Too bad the supremes aren't as wise as me.

 

[BigO01]

When they start crying about good cops getting shot by people when the cop broke into the wrong house, I’m going to turn my head in discuss. Why would a cop just barge in, doesn’t that put there life in more danger? How many wrongful death lawsuits are gona fly when the cops barge in and you go for your gun, but you didn’t know it was the cops?

Ha , fact of the matter is when you hear the physco garbage about owning a gun to make up for not being a man it usually fits most of your local cops , they aren't concearned about their safety because they're to busy running around playing SWAT and Mr. Big Bad me and my Badge and nightstick with my 10 friends who will kick your butt legally because we are to chcken chit to fight you one on one !

A couple of months ago I was almost run into by a clown at 2:30 am as I am coming home from work he was running full tilt off of a side street lights only no siren came sliding sideways into the intersection fishtailing as he straighten out few seconds later another flys past me at God knows how fast . When I peak the next hill I see the one that past me almost get slammed into by a third moron comming off of a side street . Know what the Keystone cops were doing ? Two miles down the road there are 7 of them with more coming mind you , laying over there hoods jumping out of their cars with AR's and shotguns all at a Rent A Center , "common boys lets go shoot up the whole dang neighborhood over a couple of used TV's or cheap furniture some dummy is trying to steal" but hey they looked real cool running around with their AR's .

 

[Gordon Fink]

I wish I knew where this one was going to go.…

More dead cops, more dead citizens, and more infringements on our rights.

~G. Fink

 

[Zedicus]

How many Dead Innocent Civillians & Cops will this take before these morons change thier minds?

 

[Gordon Fink]

Far too many cops have already sacrificed their lives in our useless “war on drugs.”

~G. Fink

 

[Werewolf]

I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers. Prosecuting the police isn't the answer.

It isn't? I thought breaking the law made one a criminal. As agents of the state violating the bill of rights is breaking the law - or at least it used to be.

Letting the criminal go isn't the answer.

It absolutely is the answer - regardless of what commons sense says to most. The Bill of Rights puts limits on exactly what the government can do. If the government violates those restrictions (even under color of law or interpretations of law made by old men who've forgotten what the BOR is all about) then the citizens (that's us - and yes even the criminals) should get a pass otherwise the whole concept of a government by the people, for the people and most importantly of the people is just so much hot air.

It just doesn't leave anything else that the police will lose if they fail to follow procedure.

And that is the problem. With nothing to lose the government and it's agents are free to behave exactly as it pleases and we the people stop being citizens and start being subjects as a result.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The actual opinion is here if anyone wishes to read it.

I've only read nine pages of the 51 page decision so far; but there appears to be an important distinction the news reports didn't catch - the court did not say that ALL violations of knock and announce would not result in exclusion of evidence. They said that because the police had a search warrant AND the violation of knock & announce was not a "but for" cause (as in "but for the violation of the knock and announce rule police would never have found the evidence of drugs and guns") in this case, that they would not apply the exclusionary rule that throws out evidence obtained by the search.

Basically they say that because police still would have found the evidence even if they had followed the knock & announce requirements, they aren't going to throw it out in this case because that would be too harsh and let an obvious drug dealer off scot-free.

It is a BIG step backwards from the previous Fourth Amendment standards in legal terms; but not quite as big as the newspaper article would suggest.

If the evidence is not suppressed, what will motivate police to follow the proper procedure?

The majority opinion suggests that civil suits will still serve as a deterrent to police departments. I am kind of skeptical about that myself.

 

[Geno]

Castle Doctrine

There was some legislative debate weeks back in Michigan (I think in May 2006) about making Castle Doctrine (currently a "common Law") into a legislated law. Did it ever pass?

Seems perhaps it's now a mute point, or is it? Because, the state law can trump the Constitution, via holding a higher standard.

Interesting.

Doc2005

 

[Smurfslayer]

The ruling doesn’t prevent the police from getting sued for failing to follow the correct procedure. They remain at risk if something goes down bad because they didn’t knock. It doesn't prevent them from being disciplined

But sovereign immunity does and the same team of taxpayer funded lawyers who prosecute the victim of the invasion will defend the police who execute it and any wrongdoing they might commit.

In the decsion, that the method of entry was unconstitutional is not in dispute. What the words of the decision did was basically expand to totality the exclusionary rule. In other words, an unlawful search, unreasonable search, seizure is no longer protected by 4A. The police may now enter your home at any hour on any day, with or without a warrant and if they find something laying around that leads them to suspect that you might have committed a crime, they can now root around anywhere on your property and if they find ANYTHING, you can be arrested. That's the practical effect of this ruling.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Bigger Picture

From an article: "Prosecutors said officers shouted "Police, search warrant," but readily admit that they did not knock on the door and that they waited only three to five seconds before entering and finding Hudson sitting on his couch. He was eventually convicted of drug possession."

Clearly, the officers did not follow the caveats of the search warrant. They didn't knock. The "Good Guys" got it wrong on this one. The "Bad Guys and Gal" would have done no better.

Lets consider a few things here. The cops had a warrant to gather evidence. They gathered that evidence. They did it in an illegal and improper manner. I would conclude that the improper force used to gather that evidence should not exclude that evidence. However, the officers and commanders involved with the execution of the warrant should be held criminally liable for the improper method used to gather that evidence. That would ensure better adherence to proper and legal warranted searches and seizures procedures.

The biggest atrocity committed here was the "Good Guys" on the Court blessing the jack-booted thuggish techniques used by these officers. The "Bad Guys and Gal" on the Court would have done no better by turning this scum bag back upon society. The wrong "crime" was appealed. The prosecution should be trying the officers who botched the warranted search and seizure. This decision does not give the police more power. It excuses their improper use of it. Accountability is out the window.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In other words, an unlawful search, unreasonable search, seizure is no longer protected by 4A. The police may now enter your home at any hour on any day, with or without a warrant and if they find something laying around that leads them to suspect that you might have committed a crime, they can now root around anywhere on your property and if they find ANYTHING, you can be arrested. That's the practical effect of this ruling.

What leads you to the conclusion that this is the practical effect of the ruling? Have you read the ruling in whole or in part?

From my reading of the ruling so far, the only thing it says is that if the Fourth Amendment violation was not the proximate cause of finding the evidence in question, then the evidence is not subject to the exclusionary rule. How did you reach your interpretation?

 

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not completely through the decision yet myself, but the issue that I see with it is that it all but eliminates any distinction between a knock/announce warrant and a no-knock warrant. The previous "rule of thumb" was that the police, in possession of a standard search warrant, would knock on the door and announce their presence, then wait a "reasonable" amount of time before breaching the door. Reasonable, to me, would be the time it takes for a person to finish their business in the bathroom, walk to the door, verify that it's really the police outside, and open the door - in other words, 3-5 minutes. If the police are only obligated to wait 3-5 seconds before breaking out the breaching shotguns, then the warrant may as well be a no-knock.

I further agree with the rollback of the 4th amendment protections evidenced by this decision. Now the time to be strengthening 4th amendment protections, not punching holes in them.

- Chris

 

[Otherguy Overby]

What me worry?

I really don't know what you all are worried about. You are not gonna be home for the invasion anyway. You will be stopped and waiting at checkpoints for alcohol, seat belt violations, registration & insurance checks, diesel fuel tax avoidance, a "real ID" check or some other violation of the day.

Sheesh, you are all fools! If we have to let ONE criminal go, we are doomed.

The government is here to help us. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[offthepaper]

Quote from Chris Rhines:
" I further agree with the rollback of the 4th amendment protections evidenced by this decision. Now the time to be strengthening 4th amendment protections, not punching holes in them. "
---------------------------
Yup, the slippery slope just got steeper.

 

[mbt2001]

What's the problem???

Let me get this straight... The Police knocked, waited a few seconds and then went into the house, wherein they saw the suspect sitting on the couch. They searched the house, found some evidence, arrested the suspect and then he went to jail for his criminal behaviour...

What is the problem?

They caught a bad guy and the bad guy is going to jail. They had a warrant that was signed by a judge. My question is, what do you folks want? When perps walk free you moan. When bad guys get convicted, more moaning.

Jeezzz.

P.S. this wasn't 4th amendment. This wasn't searching someones home with a warrant and then taking that warrant and saying that it ALSO covers the office, when the warrant does not specifically state that the office is covered. Or when the warrant says that they are looking for an M1 tank that blew a hole in someone, but excercise the warrant looking in your cooky jar and finding crack...

4th amendment is designed to protect you from the cops using X-ray goggles and then arresting you for smoking crack, because they happened to see you with their x-ray specs while driving to the donut shop....

 

[MrTuffPaws]

What is the problem?

Uh, I don't know? Maybe allowing a loophole the size of Kansas for police to disregard proceedure and make every warrant a "no knock"?

Oh, and you are right about the 4th. Those founding fathers hated X-ray googles back in 1776,

 

[mbt2001]

Well tell me Tough Paws, what did unlawful search and seizure mean? It was a prohibition against torture, against holding someone's family hostage, against breaking into someone's house and getting "evidence".

Yeah, we have some different tech than they did, but that right has been expanded more than the founding fathers could have DREAMED, I'm sure.

Now, as to the "breaking down of your door", if you are BREAKING THE BLOODY LAW, then you BLOODY WELL DESERVE your door battered down... That is what is supposed to happen to crooks. If they (cops) did it illegally (breaking door down), then that is what the COURTS are for.

OBVIOUSLY the courts worked in this case. This lousy druggy loser got his day in front of the SUPREME COURT. No one is aurguing that the perp is innocent, just that the police came in to his house TOO quickly and so he should be able to go back home and smoke more crack until the police learn some manners....

What a joke... Standing up for an obviously guilty maroon

Further to that, where in the bloody Bill of Rights does it give a perp the RIGHT to run? It doesn't. The law (unfortunately) is pretty blank on the actual enforcement of it, just that doing something against the law is wrong and punishable... I.E. robbing a bank is punishable by 10 years in prison... It doesn't say that robbing a bank is punishable by a properly executed Knock and announce warranty and a polite takedown AND 10 years in prison....

 

[Jeff]

If they (cops) did it illegally (breaking door down), then that is what the COURTS are for.

If exigent circumstances are to be determined, which could be the case for any unlawful and mistaken no-knock invasion, then the courts will be useless. We do NOT have the courts.

 

[Shield529]

The ranting is amazing.
This ruling had very little to do with no knock warrants. Its like this, the officers did not knock as they were supposed to. The court ruling only states that the Exclusionary rule did not apply because it would have been discovered anyway.

An example. You get pulled over for speeding. Being a tin foil hat kinda guy you get out of the car with your paperwork, lock the doors, and tell the officer he cannot search your car and you will not speak. Officer finds this odd and puts you in his car and searches you and yours. Officer finds your brick of coke in the backseat. Five minutes later he finds out your license is suspended and the vehicle is being impounded.
What you have is an illegal search. You can sue the dept, officer, and everyone else. The officer will most likely be fired or suspended, and could even be federally prosecuted for civil rights violations. You on the other hand could still be convicted. Why because the officer would have performed a complete inventory of the vehicle before impound, the discovery of the drugs was inevitable and could still be admitted.

All this ruling is saying is that even though the officers were wrong the drugs would have been found anyway so the guy is still guilty. The officer still are going to end up with their backend in a sling. Media latched on to a headline that’s all.
Some times the tin foil shines to brightly here :banghead:

 

[MechAg94]

Actually, torture falls under the "cruel and unusual punishment" part.

It doesn't matter if the guy was guilty or not. We are not complaining about this to defend him, we are doing so because this might lead to similar violations against others who might be innocent. There may be other unintended consequences that leave innocent people dead or with lives wrecked.

What if the cops get it wrong and break in on a guy who has done nothing? What if he thinks he is being robbed and pulls out his gun and ends up dead when the SWAT kills him (for officer safety)? What happens when the police raid the wrong house? It has happened a number of times. There was an article here recently about a guy who was finally found not guilty after killing an officer who mistakenly broke into his house on a no-knock. He didn't die but his life is effectively destroyed and he has to start over. There have also been examples posted of criminals posing as SWAT and breaking into houses.

However, my main beef is with no-knock warrants in general. In this case, the SC wouldn't let the guy off on a technicality. I guess I can appreciate that intention.

 

[Fletchette]

Why do the police have to enter immediately any way? If it is illegal drugs and weapons their after the police could take all day to enter. You can't flush an AK-47 down the toilet and a real drug dealer would have too much drugs to flush also. Why do the police feel it is necessary to barge in quickly at all?

 

[Al Norris]

Knock-and-announce is part and parcel of serving a warrant. Without that, the entry into the home becomes an unlawful entry and any evidence seized becomes tainted, from that unlawful entry, and is suppressed.

At least since Weeks (1914) at the federal level and Mapp (1961) at the state level, that has been the law until now. In fact, Justice Breyer lists 41 major 4th amendment cases to document this. And what does the majority list? 4 cases, selectively reviewed and taken out of context. A context that Breyer put back in!

Since the signing of the Magna Carta, knock and announce has been the common law. Semayne's Case (1603), the Court of King's Bench explained, "the law [...] abhors the destruction or breaking of any house (which is for the habitation and safety of man) by which great damage and inconvenience might ensue to the party, when no default is in him." So it appears that part of the reason for knock-and-announce is for the prevention of destruction of private property! Researching this further reveals that the sanctity of the home and hearth were such, that the King's men would knock, announce themselves, their purpose and their authority. They were permitted entry if denied and upon warrant of the King, if no one was at home.

If there is no remedy for police/prosecutorial abuse, then what is to prevent the abuse? The exclusion of evidence is the only deterrent that works. This was pointed out in Mapp. Criminal and civil remedies did not work then, and they don't work now.

And to clear things up, at the trial court, the police said they announced, waited a few seconds and went in. The defense insisted there was no knock and no announcement. What was never contested was that the entry was unlawful. Should have been a slam-dunk. Unlawful entry results in an unlawful search. That's what the law was up till now.

What the State is saying is that IF the entry had been lawful, then the search would have been also. Irrelevent! Would have, could have, If, Might have, all mean nothing. It is what actually happened, that matters... Well, used to matter.