Posted on 06/15/2006 7:53:40 AM PDT by NinoFan
Breaking... Major 5-4 decision. This case was reargued and apparently Alito cast the deciding vote.
Just keep repeating it to yourself:
"It wasn't my blow, man! The pigs planted it on me!"
Actually, siding with the innocent victims of such raids. When cops infringe innocent people's rights, there's usually no punishment. Ironically, the only effective punishments against cops who infringe people's rights are generally only applicable when their victims happen to be criminals.
If the police are executing a no-knock search warrant on someone who possesses a small enough quantity of drugs to be flushed down the toilet, I would consider that to be highly unreasonable.
My reaction also. Seems to me as long as the cops have a warrant, that's all they need. Knocking and announcing seem like courtesies that should be left to the cops' discretion to do or not depending on the circumstance.
See post #120. Sandy's always on the money.
Thanks Sandy. You should start charging a consulting fee using pay pal or something. Appreciate it as always.
So that's your response -- an inane comment. You might as well of just admitted to yourself you lost the argument and stopped responding.
Tell that to Cory Maye.
There was a warrant issued for his dwelling, but only because it was adjacent to that of a drug dealer. The only fact accutally attested under oath to receive the warrant was the unusual amount of traffic received by Cory Maye's neighbor. The affidavit claims that Officer Jones (the affiant) had been told by an unnamed informant that there were drugs there, but that fact was never attested under oath. Officer Jones is dead, and there is no record of the identity of the mystery informat or anything else substantial about the case.
Cory Maye is currently on Death Row.
So police should use no-knock raids against anyone suspected of owning firearms? So much for the Second Amendment.
"Indeed. Bursting into a house unannounced is much riskier for the cop than knocking and letting a person calmly answer the door."
Scalia wrote, though, that "the interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are quite different." He said the rule was intended to protect police whose unannounced entry might trigger a self-defense instinct by a homeowner, to give citizens the chance to comply with requests for police access and to give homeowners time to "collect" themselves before answering the door.
Care to elaborate?
Time to turn in the old grow lights, I guess, and just go and have a tryst in the closest cave.
How often does that actually occur? Seems to me I recall more police are killed by cars than bullets.
Ever here of context? The thread was about a criminal bust.
I am for criminals with guns not getting a warning.
I don't know why you think that has anything to do with a regular citizen (ANYONE suspected of owning firearms)?
I believe we've been hosed.
I'm putting all my incriminating evidence on the porch, I can't afford a new front door.
Nonsense. If a cop breaks into a crook's dwelling and gets some evidence, but a court throws out his case, do you think the cop's superiors aren't going to do something about the cop? Especially if it happens with any frequency?
Ironically, the only effective punishments against cops who infringe people's rights are generally only applicable when their victims happen to be criminals.
That is so true.
Here's why it may be that way. When a criminal's rights are violated the cops were just doing their job and screwed up. The criminal gets the advantage. When LEOs totally screw up and get the wrong address their victim doesn't get the advantage. The LEOs get the advantage.
An analogy to the main stream print media -- especially newsprint. When they print a mistake the correction is normally hidden in the lower inside corner of page two. They don't want their customers/readers to know that they made a mistake and would rather their customers continue believing the erroneous information than making the correction prominent so their customers/readers would then have the accurate information.
To be wrong with the criminal is a minor admission of guilt -- LEOs can handle that. It's also a minor screw up. But to be wrong with a non-criminal is a major admission of guilt -- LEOs can't handle that. It is also a major screw up.
In reference and in context to the quote in the original post. Don't play these semantical games with me - I'm way ahead of you.
What do you think of my strategy, though?
If that's the standard, then there can never be an unconstitutional law.
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.