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

[xd9fan]

But if someone really did kick my door down with no warning, I'd shoot first and ask questions later. That's a really good way to get cops killed, not to mention homeowners.

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

yeah this is just a bad decision all the way around.

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?

(never understood the constituionality of checkpoints. Last I read was if they do it structured like every fifth car is stopped then its ok. IMHO the structure system has nothing to do with it still being bad law. It only tells me that if the bad law is applied to every fifth car its somehow fair and equal......which now makes it OK??!!)

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I don't really think it matters. Most people here are complaining about the after-effect, when they should be complaining about the cause.

Easy to get, and vague search warrants.

They hand them out way too easy. Once a search warrant has been put out for a particular location, knock or no-knock, you have ZERO privacy protections at that point. What is the difference if they break your door or not? They will get inside no matter what - it is just a matter of time.


Note: I am completely against no-knock warrants. The inventors and champions of the no-knock were the Nazis (oh no, there goes godwin's law!) This will complicate issues. What if their identification is not made clearly and you shoot at them? Now they have a ruling saying waht they were doing is OK. And you will NEVER EVER EVER win in court trying to convince them that you didn't hear them say they were police. What happens when criminals say they are police before they break into your home? In court, you are already at a massive disadvantage as the courts heavily favor the authorities.

This is barbarism, and is why our nation is headed for collapse.

Now that it has been ruled that no-knocks are ok, and for virtually ALL circumstances (yes, that is what it basically amounts to) police will ABSOLUTELY, positively abuse this ruling. No question about it. They will find an excuse or justification to no-knock nearly 100% of search warrants, because it can be argued that danger looms behind that door. The danger of the unknown is a threat on every single search to the officers and the element of surprise is critical for their safety.


See, those arguing in favor of liberty have been arguing from a position of weakness. You've lost the debate when you complain about searching procedures, when the debate should really be about what constitutes probable cause. In our rat-fink society, with an ultra-suspicious government and overbearing police establishment - people are presumed guilty until proven innocent. That's a fact.


Really, it is all silly. We're sitting here complaining about a no-knock ruling when the government got off scott free for Waco and all the other abuses..let's not forget about the patriot act etc. It's like complaining that your foot got stepped on while you were being beaten to within an inch of death.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Wow so many tinfoil hatters are come out of the woodworks that one would think every indoor pot plant in the nation was in danger of being discovered. Has anyone here actually read the ruling itself not just the main stream media’s reporting on the verdict?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf

The Supremes were charged with determining “whether violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule requires the suppression of all evidence found in the search.”

For those worried about Stare Decisis, I say worry not. No previous case actually ruled on whether or not violation of a “knock and announcement” warrant was grounds for suppression of evidence. Again this is specifically what the justices were charged with ruling on. Scalia does however continually cite relative past cases in which the exclusionary rule was exercised to demonstrate that past justices have found suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule hard to justify.


As for this quote the media contributes to Scalia “[w]hether 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,” this quote is being taken grossly out of context.

Read the ruling and see that Scalia is referencing a past case (Segura v. United States) saying that a violation of the 4th Amendment in which that violation is “but for” the cause of obtaining evidence is a necessary not sufficient premise for exclusion. In the above quote Scalia is logically demonstrating that the case they are ruling does not qualify as a “but for cause” type of case. In other words, the quote the media uses as Scalia’s reason for allowing a constitutional violation is actually in fact a logical reason for disqualifying exclusion under one type of constitutional violation.


Again, this ruling DOES NOT turn “knock and announce” warrants into “no-knock” warrants. In fact this ruling doesn’t even remove the knock requirement of “knock and announce” warrants. What this ruling does is say that when an announcement has been made and time has been allowed for a response to the announcement, the failure to actually physical strike ones hand against a door in the commission of a “knock and announce” warrant isn’t sufficient on its own to allow the suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule.

 

[insurgent]

My, how far we've come...

From this:
(from WILSON V. ARKANSAS 1995, a similar case. Second two quotes are the justices quoting framer-era sources.)

At the time of the framing, the common law of search and seizure recognized a law enforcement officer's authority to break open the doors of a dwelling, but generally indicated that he first ought to announce his presence and authority. In this case, we hold that this common-law "knock and announce" principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment

"But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors, for the law without a default in the owner 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; for perhaps he did not know of the process, of
which, if he had notice, it is to be presumed that he would obey it . . . ."

"the officer may break open the door, if he be sure the offender is there, if after acquainting them of the business, and demanding the prisoner, he refuses to open the door."

To This:

"We do bang on the door and make an announcement—'It's the police'—but it kind of runs together. If you're sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down."

Assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department's preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times (after his SWAT team whacked an innocent guy). Take from this Cato article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6344
Very relevant to this latest ruling btw.

So much for

"the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Blackstone (1753-1765)

edit: Damn. Didn't get this in before Godwin's law was invoked making my post irrelevant!
edit2: Double-Damn. The dissenting opinion referenced the same quotes *and* the internet Cato article! I shoulda been a justice!

 

[Jeff White]

Don't Tread On Me said,

I don't really think it matters. Most people here are complaining about the after-effect, when they should be complaining about the cause.

Easy to get, and vague search warrants.

They hand them out way too easy.

How many search warrants have you personally applied for? What experience have you had dealing with a judge to get one signed? What police department or states attorney's office did or do you work for? Feel free to PM me the information if you don't wish to post it on a public forum.

Once a search warrant has been put out for a particular location, knock or no-knock, you have ZERO privacy protections at that point. What is the difference if they break your door or not? They will get inside no matter what - it is just a matter of time.

So you're against the entire concept of a search warrant? The state should never be able to enter your home no matter how compelling the evidence is against you?

Jeff

 

[bowline]

I am not a lawyer.
I'm willing to wager that many police officers who hear the 'Nightly News' summary of the decision aren't lawyers, and will use their distorted understanding of the ruling when making judgement calls.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a large percentage of police chiefs and county sheriffs aren't lawyers either, and will use their distorted understanding of the ruling when training their officers.
I'll even hazard a guess that many attorneys are BAD attorneys, who will apply their distorted understanding of the ruling in court.
I do know that way too many people have been shot, crippled or killed because officers executed a no-knock at the wrong address.
I believe this ruling has introduced ambiguities into an area of law enforcement tactics that happens to kill innocent people as a by-product.
As far as I know, the biggest reason for executing 'knock and announce' warrants correctly was the fact that failure to do so meant your case had a very good chance of being tossed out.
Perhaps 'no-knock' warrants were hard to obtain previously. At this point, the difference between 'no-knock' and 'knock and announce' is in danger of becoming vanishingly thin - a judgement call, if you will, of the officer at the door, rather than the judge that signed the warrant.
I believe that one consequence of this ruling is that greater numbers of innocent people will be murdered by the police ( sorry - it isn't an 'accident' when an officer mistakenly shoots someone, just as it wouldn't be an accident if I mistook a family member for a home intruder and shot them). However, these will be settled in civil suits, rather than criminal courtrooms.
A corollary is that more police officers will be killed by homeowners. Not an accident, but in my view a justified shooting when the homeowner has no reason to believe anything other than he is the victim of a home invasion, and no time to do anything but react. However, these will be 'murders'. Any bets?
All things considered, I'd have to say the ruling is a 'Bad Thing'.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

So you're against the entire concept of a search warrant? The state should never be able to enter your home no matter how compelling the evidence is against you?

Jeff

Jeff, you know I didn't say that, I said:

Note: I am completely against no-knock warrants.

As for search warrants in general, no not against those - how are we suppose to enforce the law without search warrants? Even the founders accepted them as part of normal government/society, thus made protections in the BOR concerning searches.

I made an error in my statement - I am not completely against no-knocks. I am completely against no-knocks being abused.


My worries are based on a slippery-slope perspective. I hope that no-knocks aren't used when there isn't a danger to the officers. That pretty much sums it up. That might offend someone who is in law enforcement, but I'm not saying that as an accusation that LEO's are sharpening their fangs and dreaming every night to find a way to use no-knocks on everyone in some diabolical scheme to dominate the public. Don't think I'm coming from that angle.


Here's my concern. Let's say the police need to raid a crack house. They know there are weapons and violent thugs within. Good. Go for it. What if the police conduct a search on a 90 year old grandma's house, they knock and wait for the old lady to come to the door, then a bullet comes through the door hitting an officer because this grandma decided to snap , or for whatever reason. A single instance of violence or deadly force used against a knock-search, in a situation where law enforcement had no reason to believe there would be violence will create a justification to no-knock every search eventually.


It's a catch-22 in a way. IF they have a search warrant for illegal activity/things that (supposedly, and I'd hope so) have very good probable cause, then why wouldn't you just no-knock it? If you're 99% sure you're raiding a crack house - why would you knock when you KNOW there's a crime happening? That's what I meant by the argument about the certainty of guilt before acting.


It is no different than when an officer approaches a driver they've pulled over. They approach at first from an angle that makes it difficult for the driver to shoot at them. The officer approaches with their one hand near or above their pistol so as to be ready to draw. I have friends who are LEO's. I'm no expert, but I've seen and been shown the procedure they use.


When the police do that, why are they doing it? Because I'm sure that at some point in time, an officer walked up to a car window and got fired on and got hurt or killed by some scumbag. So rather than foolishly take the danger - they automatically assume that there might be a threat - regardless of who they pulled over, and have instituted these technique for readiness and awareness as a procedure.


The use of the taser is another issue. We've read countless articles posted here on THR of police using the taser in ways that many Americans simply believe is not right. Many stories of people being tasered for very simple, non-threatening non-compliance. Whenever something comes out, it is always a useful tool for the violent, threatening people out there. Protects police, protects the person being arrested. But I am certain that at some point, officers had been hurt by what started out as a very non-threatening non-compliance. Like someone who is arguing with them, but in a respectful manner and having it escalate. Thus, in their view (I assume) any form of non-compliance should be understood to mean that the person intends to not comply no matter what - and that the logical sequence dictates that there will be physical activity after the verbal part because after all, how are you suppose to keep on not complying when you see physical force coming? So instead of being caught off guard, you can pre-empt the coming wrestling battle with 50,000 volts.


Basically, I am not blaming police. They have a difficult job to do. I wouldn't want to do it, having to deal with potentially homicidal thugs all the time. Having to see the worst of society, makes anyone fearful of their lives. It is just the nature of law enforcement that leads to turning what was once reserved for violent thugs, into a universal application as a defense mechanism. Because, anyone can potentially be a violent thug. That's why I said "the police are going to absolutely abuse it." I see the potential over use of no-knocks as an abuse, even though LE has a solid justification for wanting to protect their officers. I'll tell you straight up, I absolutely wouldn't want to be the one to kick down a door and enter the unknown on a raid. Talk about rolling the dice.


Now that I've thought about it more - it isn't a matter of police, but rather more so our entire system. We're demanding more of our police, and we're putting them in a difficult to impossible situation - so, obviously they will try and do their best and adapt. Some of these adaptations people don't agree with. There are people who demand that we fight an aggressive war on drugs because our communities are suffering, but then they get pissed off over no-knocks. People or legislators or both cannot have it both ways I guess.

 

[LAK]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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

This is a gross injustice - an oppression - and an absolute folly from a police point of view. In addition to innocent citizens, this BS is going to get alot of cops killed as well.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Beren]

So you're against the entire concept of a search warrant? The state should never be able to enter your home no matter how compelling the evidence is against you?

Jeff, here's where I'm coming from on this one:

The police are welcome to search my home with a valid search warrant. However, they should make every reasonable effort to notify me of their intentions and give me an opportunity to validate the warrant. Shouting "Police!" and then knocking my door down after five seconds is a good way to get me shot and killed. This ruling seems to encourage less regard for the property owner.

If I'm asleep, I'm not going to hear "Police!" I'm going to hear a noise that wakes me up. I am then going to hear my door getting forced open. What am I going to do? I am going to reach for a gun, and I am most likely going to get shot.

If I am awake, I'm going to move towards the door in an effort to see who it is. I'm going to say "Coming, just a minute." Hopefully, they'll give me a minute to see that it is the police and not knock down the door down in my face.

 

[cookekdjr]

I don't see why everybody is upset. Over 90% of the folks at THR identify themselves as conservative and Republican. What did you think a Supreme Court, full of conservative, Republican-appointed justices was going to do? Throw out the fruits of the search? Are you kidding me?

Let's make it clear what has happened here:

1. The old rule was, cops could have a "no-knock" provision if they presented sufficient evidence to a neutral magistrate that the provision was necessary for safety.

2. Two new justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. They replace judges who were conservative and Republican, but due to the surge to the right of the GOP, were considered (respectively) moderate and somewhat conservative. Here at THR many would call them "RINO's".

3. With the new justices appointed to the court, the instant case re: no-knocks was actually re-argued. Then, with the new far-right justices appointed, they said, "hey, knock, don't knock, we don't care. You can still use the evidence even if you break the law and don't follow the warrant. The exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction of the fruit of this illegal search. "

4. What does it mean that the exclusionary rule does not bar introduction of the evidence of the illegal search? It means the court is tipping its hand to say "when the police search you illegally, we will still let them use the evidence against you". In other words, don't even bother getting a warrant. Just break in people's houses, take the evidence, and use it in court. Most legal experts, conservative and liberal and in between, have read between the lines to see the exclusionary rule is in real danger.

5. Feal angry? Why? If you voted for Bush you knew this was coming. He said years ago Scalia was his model Supreme Court Justice. This case has Scalia's thumbprint. You asked for it, you got it, now live with the consequences. Maybe your children will vote for a liberal and they can get their rights back. (Yeah, I know the liberals would grab your guns. Maybe. More likely, you'd be limited to 10 rounds in your handgun to shoot the cops who broke into your house by violating the no-knock provision of a warrant, and the evidence of you shooting the law-breakers would be suppressed under a still-intact exclusionary rule, and you'd walk away free for defending your property from un-announced invaders you had no idea were cops. As it is now, the cops can break the law at will without having the evidence suppressed).
Sleep well.
-David

 

[mbt2001]

I think that department policy will still be that cops KNOCK and ANNOUNCE. I agree that there could be mistakes and people could get hurt otherwise. I think that the difference here is that the Court said that a police officer shouldn't have to knock for the evidence to be good. I don't reckon that they are advising against knocking.

 

[kel]

IANAL, but I have read the opinion. This does not change the fact that an illegal search without a warrant will still cause the evidence to be suppress. This does change the fact that an illegal search WITH a warrant will be suppressed.

If the judges issues a knock warrant and it is served as a no knock warrant the evidence will not be suppressed. Scalia will think you are a bad man, but your still going to go to jail. Anyone who thinks that civil suits will do damn thing is living in a fantasy world, make all the tin foil comments you want, but corruption is the norm.

One more time time... THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT A WARRANT IS STILL NECESSARY, that is coming ;-)

 

[gm]

...another good intentioned thing that can be used against everyone,for any reason- wait till the next bunch of antigun morons gets in office and turns this to their advantage.laugh now if you like,I'm not.


potential for screw-ups? yup...bigtime.
potential for abuse..definatly
corruption anyone?

 

[Ira Aten]

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule if an action is Constitutional, not "advise" the Constitution be followed, but decide at the same time in their ruling that the Constitution can be violated by the Government with no penalty!

This mornings announcement sounded like a joke at first, til I remembered the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Voiding act is now "Constitutional."

By failing to announce impeachment proceedings against the Justices voting in support of this idiot ruling the House and Senate are in effect saying:

"Yes, we realize the Constitution establishes the power for Justices in the Federal system to be appointed for life terms only if they maintain "good conduct". And we realize talking out of both sides of their mouths when issuing a ruling could in no way be interpreted by any sane person as acting in "good conduct".

Although they have obviously failed to maintain "good conduct" on the bench and have admitted such in the very ruling, we as a Legislative body rather than fulfill our duty to the country to impeach those Justices who decided in the affirmative while at the same moment make admission they are wrong, have decided to simply allow them to continue on the bench.

We do so in order that these Justices may continue to issue similar rulings until such time as all rights and priviledges of the People of the United States of America have been completley stripped away".


PS: to MBT

With all respect, I noticed you mentioned "department policy" will probably still be to obey the Constitution and at minimum, knock on the door. But this issue is supposed to be decided as to if simply entering into someones home unannounced is either within the scope of power of the government, or if it is not. Next, we will instead of rulings, have "Excuse Slips" issued from SCOTUS. Oh wait, I'm sorry, we have that now.

 

[YellowLab]

Other than playing 'Cops n Robbers' there is only ONE reason why a LEO should EVER break down a door: loss of life (ie BG with aknife gun ready to/has killed).

But the LEO need the adreline rush, they need a new bar story. Its not MACHO enough to cut the power, cut the water, plug the drain lines etc. It only a MANLY COP THING if you put on a ski mask and barg in like you are saving the Virgin Mary from the devil himself.

Its 2006 people. For a few dollars I can get you gear that will SEE THROUGH THE WALLS, LISTEN ON THE CONVERSATION and VIDEO ALL THE ACTIVITY in a house.

If they try and flush the toile? Who cares the waters off. Plus there is no electrical service to use lights/disposals.

Face it... there is but ONE SINGLE REASON to bust in a door... protect life. Everything else can simply wait.... but thats not the manly thing to do, now is it? We can't have CIVIL SERVANTS waiting around respecting the rights of the people....:banghead:

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I wonder what will happen when the cops bust down the door with a warrant (even at the right address) and find nothing. Even if the resident is a criminal.

Does anybody know of or have access to stats like

Search warrant success rates?

Who fixes the door now when they bust down the wrong one? The resident?

 

[Jeff White]

bowline said;

I'm willing to wager that many police officers who hear the 'Nightly News' summary of the decision aren't lawyers, and will use their distorted understanding of the ruling when making judgement calls.

It doesn't work like that at all. If this decision was one that would cause the police to change the way they operate, which it isn't, guidance would be issued by lawyers, either the department's own legal department or the local states attorney if the department doesn't have a legal department.

Just because there are members of THR who won't read the decision or listen to those who have read it because it would be inconvenient and might bust any preconceived notions of what it really means based on their world view, doesn't mean that everyone is like that.

I don't think that this decision will change the way any police department operates.

Jeff

 

[Zen21Tao]

I wonder what will happen when the cops bust down the door with a warrant (even at the right address) and find nothing. Even if the resident is a criminal.

Does anybody know of or have access to stats like

Search warrant success rates?

Who fixes the door now when they bust down the wrong one? The resident?

Again, the court rule has absolutely nothing to do with such a situation. The case was not on whether or not it is permissable for police officers serving a warrent to violate the terms of a "knock and announce" warrent. The court was charged with determining whether or not evidence obtained when a "knock and announce" warrent is violated can be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.

Also there is a distinction made in which the violation of the warrent is done for the purposes of obtaining evidence that could otherwise be destroyed if the warrent was served correctly. The case heard was not such a case so it doesn't eliminate suppression in these "but for cause" type violations.

Most of the responses in this thread are based on taking media analysis of a court decesion as correct rather than actually reading the 50+ page court ruling themselves. This is exactly the same thing we criticize lefties for going with guns and the media.

 

[Shield529]

Search warrant success rates in this area are at roughly 90% right now. I cannot speak for other areas. To get a drug warrant here is very difficult. So many buys, personal observations, ETC. it takes a long time and must have excellent PC.
If the wrong door get broken down, (which happens no where near as often as you think), the police deptartment buys the new door and makes all repairs.
Most the people ranting and raving have no idea what goes into a warrant, why a no-knock is selected, and what kind of people we are dealing with. They lving behind a computer in a lilly white world, angry at the gov. for things that have not and never will happen to them. They are determined cops are out to be "macho", but they will be the first one throwing a fit when a drug den comes into thier area and their kids cannot play outside and they get broke into twice a week. They have never bothered to do a ride along with an officer to see what we do, maybe attend a citizens academy, or hell go out on a limb and become a reserve officer many people do and gain alot of sway in a few years.
The ranting comes from knowing and listening to one side + ignorance.

 

[cookekdjr]

I don't think that this decision will change the way any police department operates.

It certainly will. But that's not the big deal here. The big deal here is that Scalia and co have signaled the end of the exclusionary rule. If that happens, the primary enforcement mechanism for regulating warrantless and other illegal searches will disappear.
What good is a Constitution without enforcement?
Look, I usually deride Motions to Suppress as "Motions to Hide the Truth". I fight them all the time, and most of them are frivilous or questionable at best.
But I don't want to live in a world without them, because they are the only thing that prevents us from living in a police state.
And that comes from a career prosecutor.
I've got to get ready for trial now, or I'd expand on this some more. But the Supreme's Court decision here, while saving the prosecution of one case, carrys serious and far-reaching consequences to everybody's liberty.
-David

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I don't think that this decision will change the way any police department operates.

Agreed.

This decision does NOT authorise no-knock raids in the sense of
enter without knocking or announcing. This decision does NOT
authorize a warantless search.

This decision does not exclude evidence obtained in a search with a
warrant served in an announce-then enter without knocking.
However, it does mention the possibility of a civil suit as a remedy.

Quite frankly, most departemnts fear a civil suit more than they fear
the exclusion of evidence over a technicality.

Most departments will knock-announce-then enter as in the past
because it is the best and safest way to operate with the
general run of searches.

It does appear that public confidence would have been better
served if the evidence had been excluded because the searchers
did not observe protocol.

I predict this issue will be revisited.

 

[kel]

A good example of a request for a warrant

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0330044pot6.html

What are people talking about when it comes to civil liability? What liability do police have when they screw up and there is no physical damage?

 

[Biker]

Jeff, Shield...

In your opinion(s), does this ruling have potential for future abuse?

Biker

 

[NineseveN]

It's frightening that we have LEO's and other folks on this board that find it okay that the Supremes just ruled that an illegal search (if the warrant says you have to knock, not knocking is not holding to the scope of that warrant, thus it is an illegal search) does not disqualify the evidence found through that search. There is no more "poison fruit' standard or exclusionary rule in this type of search, and that sets a dangerous precedent...how long until it expands to all types of searches?

I said this would happen within the last year (on this very board I believe), and I was ridiculed and called a cop-hater and tin-foil-hatter because of it. Whatever. Go ahead, call me names now. Did anyone mention "Jack-Booted Thugs" yet?

There, I did.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Thanks Mr. Shield for your response to my question. It appears that your area may have judges inclined to require extremely sufficient PC to hand out warrants. That's good.

I yam sure there are other areas where that is not the case. .gov keeps lots of stastistics about crime. I just wondered it search warrant success rates was one of them. Maybe a fed.gov type would know.

Where is Mr. DMF when we need him?

Mr. Zen21Tao, I didn't mean to set you off. I wasn't ranting or calling people lefties but I don't have time or inclination to read 50 pages. I remember from the reports that one or more of the supremes had said that there were other strokes that could be made besides suppression of evidence.

That sort of made me wonder what strokes got made when there was NO evidence to suppress. You know, like the kickee was innocent.

Sorry, I didn't mean to set you off.