Posted on 05/21/2006 11:05:57 AM PDT by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held a rare mid-May oral argument Thursday on the power of police to search private homes without knocking first – a major privacy-rights case likely to be decided by the vote of the court’s newest member, Justice Samuel Alito.
At issue in Hudson v. Michigan is the “knock and announce” rule rooted both in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and Anglo-American common law. The rule says that, in normal cases, police with a search warrant must first knock and state their purpose, then wait a reasonable period, before forcing their way in.
Most federal and state courts that have considered the question have said that courts must exclude evidence seized by police who failed to follow the rule. But in recent years, the Michigan Supreme Court has joined the minority that say no such “exclusionary rule” is required.
When the court first heard oral argument Jan. 9, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was still on the bench. But O’Connor stepped down in favor of Alito before the court could issue its opinion.
The court then announced it would hear arguments again; it gave no reason, but because it would have been able to issue a decision if there were still five votes for one side or the other without O’Connor, the most probable explanation is that the court was divided 4-4 and needs Alito, a former prosecutor who built a strong pro-police record as a federal appeals judge, to break the tie.
A decision is expected by July.
Hmm... couldn't they have just given him the transcripts from the previous argument and all other materials?
It would be considered in poor form, although, every appellate lawyer I have ever spoken to tells me that the briefs are all that matters, and that the oral arguments are more for show than substance. (No one remembers anything someone says!)
I believe so. I think I remember articles saying that it's up to Alito as to whether to read the transcripts or have a reargue.
I guess this means that there's a question he would have asked that wasn't in the transcripts.
With many (if not most) appellate courts, the questions from the judges (or justices) reveal that they haven't read the briefs. What's most interesting is how little time is allotted for oral argument for cases that will define the rights of the populace.
We'll need Alito and Roberts more than ever when immigration makes it demographically impossible to elect a Republican president or congressional majority, which will be the case within a decade.
Just about the only positive legacy Bush will leave.
I read an article some weeks back saying that under John Roberts, the oral arguments are not the dog and pony show they have been in the past. The lawyers doing the arguing are actually having to earn their pay.
How is that any different from now, with half the Black population + 100% of the Hispanic population unable to speak English?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.