Posted on 06/15/2006 7:53:40 AM PDT by NinoFan
And what about when the police make a mistake and go into the wrong address?
It happens, not nearly as often as some would like to make out, but it happens.
Does his argument hold any water then?
That's a different matter and dependent on the circumstances.
Well it looks like there's 4 on the court that aren't traitors according to your statement.
My mom's always had a gift for languages. She learns languages like it's nothing. She used to tease us as kids by writing the contents of our wrapped presents on the outside--in heiroglyphics! Some of it rubbed off on me, at least the constant drilling on grammar. But I'm a slang guy, so I don't really follow the rules all time. That one always stuck with me. She used to also say "you lay something down and it lies there" to help us understand the difference between lay and lie.
Just curious, what about this was conservative?
The knock and announce requirement is not specifically in the Fourth Amendment because it predates that amendment by decades--it was a common law right long before the Constitution was written. I would, however, refer you to the Ninth Amendment.
Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals" arguments here echo those of gun-grabbers with regard to the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights is not a menu at a Chinese restaurant--if we do not have all of its protections, then we have none.
"righfully being shot and killed by the residents of the abode as they break and enter."
So, don't knock and announce then enter, you take a chance on getting shot by a great American who didn't know who you were. Do knock and announce then enter take a chance on getting shot by a guy who DOES know who is there and why. This is why I support the Zarqawi / F-16 "bark" the terrorist method. The Israeli military deliver their search warrants from a helicopter, but they skip trying to save any evidence.
Were warrants also common law?
Erroneous writer: "What's a subjunctive? Is it contagious?"
IMO, the part about sworn officers serving a lawful warrant.
I thought it was Godwin's Law, from the days of USENET.
Would it have been conservative if it was decided that the waiting time should be 30 seconds instead of five?
Like I said, I'm just curious because I don't think every decision by nine justices comes down to conservative vs liberal.
I think there's a big difference between a good-faith error and LE abuse, etc.. In either case, people who have their door smashed in, hit with a flash-bang, etc. at the wrong address have a legitimate beef, and can successfully sue the responsible government agency. As a former LEO, I can assure you that mistakes like those are not taken lightly by their superiors.
If you were to defend your home against perceived intruders, especially if they were found to be at the wrong place, I seriously doubt that you'd have any legal problems to worry about. Plenty of other problems, but I doubt anybody would be throwing you in jail for it.
I agree with the ruling. Mistakes with no-knock warrants are clearly the exception, which is why they make great news stories. The overwhelming majority of the time, these are used effectively to take down bad guys.
However, as a general, broad viewpoint this gives LE the green light to do anything they please regardless of the law because the end justifies the means.
I believe this is an overreaction. LE never has the green light to do "anything they please". Yes, there are cops who get way out of control. They're a problem, and should be dealt with severely, IMO. But that's no reason to take a critical tool--no-knock warrants--out of the hands of the large number of good, honest, dedicated officers who simply want to nail bad guys before they have the chance to flush all the evidence.
Would you please cite the constitutional clause requiring the police to knock and say "pretty please with sugar on top" prior to attempting entry while serving a search warrant?
I would absolutely agree with that. I would add that I'm no authority on Constitutional law but I personally believe it should be interpreted using common sense and not how some flaming liberals have have read liberal intent into it. I feel that Justices leaning to the conservative side are more constructionist in rulings.
No doubt that is your rule and the the rule for others who would defend nazis til death. Nazis aren't dead. They're busy executing home invasions just like the nazis did in the forties in nazi Germany. Sorry you don't like the comparison but the truth is the truth no matter how you and others would like to disguise it.
More tragic now, this deadly force has been sanctioned by a nazi court. The same nazi court that removes states rights and sanctions the slaughter of unborn children.
"Give me liberty or give me death." I wonder which FR rule that most revered quote breaks?
I would like to see an entire national re-write of the laws and the "court" findings with respect to evidence and how it is obtained.
I would like to separate the applicability of the evidence - it's either factually correct or it isn't - from any error in obtaining the evidence, and any legal repurcusions of any such error.
There should be repurcusions for injury to our rights in the process of obtaining evidence but those repurcusions should not hide the facts, the evidence. Maybe someone should be fired, demoted, reprimanded, receive loss of pay and maybe even face civil suit by wrongfully accused persons. But, meanwhile, don't throw out the baby (facts) with the bathwater (evidence).
I think the dismissal of evidence, no matter how obtained is nothing other than an act of compounding errors; adding an error (letting the guilty go free) to whatever error may have occured in obtaining the "evidence". I do not think the second error represents "justice" in any form.
Agreed.
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.