Supreme Court: No exclusionary rule for no-knock searches

[supercat]

Right, but how often are search warrants issued for people suspected of just being law-abiding citizens?

I would guess legally the answer would be never because no judge can legally grant a warrant for no reason.

Right. If cops are serving a search warrant against you, it will be because they--rightly or wrongly--suspect you of lawbreaking. If the fact that someone suspected of lawbreaking owns or may own a gun is sufficient basis for a no-knock raid, then what protection do the law-abiding people who get wrongly figured have against them?

[supercat]

I would propose specific laws that required police, DAs and others to hold those who commit errors in the collection of evidence as negligent, with ranges of penalties depending on how aggregious the error was and how high-up the knowledge and approval of the error went, from suspensions, with and without pay, dismissals, loss of pensions, permanent disability to ever again work in law enforcement and disbarment for those in the legal profession.

And I would propose a law saying that there shall not be more than 6" of rain on Sundays, and my law would have about as much effect as yours.

[GrandEagle]

I agree. Seems to be something about city police.
I've never had problems with State or County.

Cordially,
GE

[green iguana]

I have no idea what you mean by that...

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm just joining this discussion, but I honestly see both sides. The question I have is, given the only reason I've heard FOR no-knocks, that the criminal may flush drugs down the toilet, how hard would it be for cops to think about that before they knock by putting a trap on the plumbing?

[inneroutlaw]

But, then, that's you, siding with a meth dealer.

No, that's him siding with the 4th Amendment.

[elkfersupper]

I just got off the phone with both of my kids.

I apologized for this on behalf of my generation.

This kind of thing is likely to start a war in this country, and they are the ones who are going to have to fight it or endure it.

[sinkspur]

No, that's him siding with the 4th Amendment.

Where is "knock-and-announce" in the 4th Amendment? I don't see anything like that in there.

[Torie]

"'The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States,'' said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. ''There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated.''"

Oh the horror, the horror, of it all.

[A CA Guy]

Well I think if the officers would have cause to come get you and if you do have a gun in the house, the officers do have to consider you could use it.
I honestly have no problem with no-knock under that circumstances.

Regular gun owners are not going to for no reason get cops in the house unless they are friends as guest or there is an accident as mentioned in the article in this thread.

Obviously to me at least, gun ownership itself is not an issue. They have no reason to worry more than anyone else unless they are criminals with the law chasing them, right?

Just isn't an issue of any note IMO.

[Kakaze]

"Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches.

Dangerious, very dangerious."

I agree, very dangerous.

[GrandEagle]

It's seventeen lines below the "Right to Abortion."
And the third paragraph above "Separation or Church and State" :)

[jeremiah]

Ding, ding ding......we have a winner. This makes it more likely that cops will have to engage in shootings. Someone will begin firing as they enter, the cops will return fire and kill anyone in the house. This signals a turn to the dark side, not more conservatism.

I guess it is more important to catch someone with a bit of drugs, than preserve the status of peoples homes as their sanctuary. The govt has more respect for Iran's embassy, than my property. Iran is seen as a sovereign nation WITHIN our borders, I have sovereignty over nothing.

[jmc813]

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

You wouldn't shoot someone who came barging into your home?

[TigersEye]

I guess they've had to decide what is "unreasonable." I don't really get what the difference is if you knock or not, if you have a warrant.

As long as the warrant is served on the right house and the alleged criminal is actually guilty. On the other hand if they break in unannounced on an innocent citizen who exercises their 2nd Amendment rights will the SCOTUS hold that they are not at fault for killing or injuring any officers the citizen happens to shoot?

I can guarantee that any unannounced forced entry of my dwelling will be met with all the lethal force I can muster and, should I survive, I will not feel a gnat's whisker of remorse for anyone I dispatch or cripple.

[Know your rights]

Can you cite statute or precedent for your claim that one can successfully sue police for non-exclusionary errors in executing a warrant?

Sure. 42 USC 1983.

Looks plausible. Has this been tested in court? Did Scalia endorse your theory ... or in any way suggest how these violations should be punished ... in his ruling?

[tpaine]

sinkspur wrote:

Where is "knock-and-announce" in the 4th Amendment? I don't see anything like that in there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sandy wrote:

--- the knock and announce rule is considered to be part of the 4th Amendment's reasonableness requirement (Wilson v Arkansas, 1995).

In the present case, there was no question that the 4th Amendment was violated; the state conceded as much.

The question was whether evidence suppression is a required remedy for violations of the knock and announce rule.
-120-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


NinoFan:

---- it said that no it is not a required remedy.

The Court gave a clear answer on the question of the exclusionary rule's applicability to otherwise legal searches conducted in violation of the no-knock rule.

Even Justice Kennedy, not an originalist by any means, states in his concurrence that in the case of even massive and routine violations of the no-knock rule there is still not the required causal relationship to justify requiring the exclusionary rule.
-129-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In effect then, our nations supreme court has justified violating 400 years of common law, and the reasonable 'knock & announce' requirement of the 4th Amendment; ----

--- in order to put a few more people in jail.

Can we agree that this is not acceptable from a constitutionally conservative viewpoint, - one that holds that there is a presumption of liberty inherent the document?