Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: No exclusionary rule for no-knock searches

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito; billofrights; constitutionlist; evidence; fourthamendment; govwatch; justicealito; libertarians; noknock; policesearch; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; warondrugs; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last
To: Zon

Just keep repeating it to yourself:

"It wasn't my blow, man! The pigs planted it on me!"


201 posted on 06/15/2006 3:57:13 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Of course you would. But, then, that's you, siding with a meth dealer.

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.

202 posted on 06/15/2006 3:57:46 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Step 1: show up at suspected drug house. Knock on door. Wait for people inside to flush drugs.

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.

203 posted on 06/15/2006 3:58:14 PM PDT by KurtZ (Chuck Norris + Ninja Clothing + Time Machine = Black Plague)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I'm not really a big law enforcement kinda guy, but where is the "knock and announce" protection in the Constitution?

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.

204 posted on 06/15/2006 3:59:27 PM PDT by Wolfstar (So tired of the straight line, and everywhere you turn, There's vultures and thieves at your back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

See post #120. Sandy's always on the money.


205 posted on 06/15/2006 4:00:59 PM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Thanks Sandy. You should start charging a consulting fee using pay pal or something. Appreciate it as always.


206 posted on 06/15/2006 4:01:38 PM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

So that's your response -- an inane comment. You might as well of just admitted to yourself you lost the argument and stopped responding.


207 posted on 06/15/2006 4:01:41 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
If the cop has the wrong address or name and you as the resident have a clean record no 12 people will agree upon conviction.

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.

208 posted on 06/15/2006 4:02:42 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
In some cases where there are suspected weapons inside, so I like no knock raids. Why advertise you are outside the door so they can grab their machine guns and armor piercing bullets to fire at you? Why give an edge to bad guys?

So police should use no-knock raids against anyone suspected of owning firearms? So much for the Second Amendment.

209 posted on 06/15/2006 4:08:09 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

"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.


210 posted on 06/15/2006 4:11:19 PM PDT by DugwayDuke (Stupidity can be a self-correcting problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Implementing whatever stupid idea entered the heads of five guys in black robes wound up getting me a bullet in my left lung (which is one of my two favorite lungs).

Care to elaborate?

211 posted on 06/15/2006 4:12:26 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely

Time to turn in the old grow lights, I guess, and just go and have a tryst in the closest cave.


212 posted on 06/15/2006 4:12:45 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Actually, it gives criminals time to arm themselves and shoot the cops when the cops finally attempt entry.

How often does that actually occur? Seems to me I recall more police are killed by cars than bullets.

213 posted on 06/15/2006 4:13:12 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: supercat
So police should use no-knock raids against anyone suspected of owning firearms? So much for the Second Amendment.

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)?

214 posted on 06/15/2006 4:14:03 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I believe we've been hosed.

I'm putting all my incriminating evidence on the porch, I can't afford a new front door.


215 posted on 06/15/2006 4:14:28 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Problem is, it doesn't actually work. Nobody gets punished except the public at large.

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?

216 posted on 06/15/2006 4:14:44 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: supercat

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.

217 posted on 06/15/2006 4:14:44 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

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.


218 posted on 06/15/2006 4:16:08 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: KurtZ
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.

What do you think of my strategy, though?

219 posted on 06/15/2006 4:16:23 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: TChris
No-knock warrants and anti-drug laws are constitutional. They were passed by a majority of elected representatives and signed by the POTUS.

If that's the standard, then there can never be an unconstitutional law.

220 posted on 06/15/2006 4:17:46 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson