Replies

Good work! I’ve been wondering about what is meant by “opening the front door” and my best theory is similar to yours. Consider the the difference between

1. Dropping information into the media, knowing it will be ignored/covered-up as much as possible, and

2. Allowing your enemy to set the stage by asking questions that they think incriminate you, only to THEN bring forth your information that devastates their position.

Like the adage “good laywers never as questions in open court they don’t already know the answer to” - which we saw was not followed during Cohen’s testimony, to the embarrassment of the Democrats.

That was small ball- if they “open the right” door, and Q is right that “We have everything”, that could be when the fun really begins.

One difference is, the media is a lot less able to ignore what they initiate. Just like the Covington kids, they now look really bad because they pushed the false narrative to begin with...watch them do it again, because “these people are stupid!”.

Semayne's Case (January 1st, 1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91, is an English common law case reported by Sir Edward Coke, who was then the Attorney General of England.

In the United States, it is recognized as establishing the "knock-and-announce" rule.

In 1604, the Court of King's Bench gave judgment against Semayne.[3] The court resolved:

It is not a felony for a man to defend his house to the death.

Sheriffs may break and enter to recover seisin over real estate.

Sheriffs may break and enter on the King's business after a request for entry is refused.

Sheriffs may enter when the door is open.

The householder's privilege does not extend to strangers or their goods.

Sheriffs should request entry in civil cases.[1]

As authority, Coke reported citation to a statute enacted by King Edward III of England in 1275, which he said merely affirmed the pre-existing common law.[4]

The holding of the case can best be summed by Coke's words:

“ In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]'s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors....[5] ”

The case is also famous for Coke's quote:

“ the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semayne%27s_case

Knock-and-announce, in United States law criminal procedure, is an ancient common law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment,[1] which requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a search.

The rule is currently codified in the United States Code,[2] which governs Fourth Amendment searches conducted by the federal government. Most states have similarly codified the rule into their own statutes,[3] and remain free to interpret or augment the rule and its consequences in any fashion that remains consistent with Fourth Amendment principles.[4] A state's knock-and-announce rule will govern searches by state actors pursuant to state-issued warrants, assuming that Federal actors are not extensively involved in the search.

The rule

English common law has required law enforcement to knock-and-announce since at least Semayne's case (1604).[5] In Miller v. United States (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that police must give notice before making a forced entry and in Ker v. California (1963) a divided Court found that this limitation had been extended against the states by the United States Constitution.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-and-announce