Supreme Court: No exclusionary rule for no-knock searches

[NinoFan]

Breaking... Major 5-4 decision. This case was reargued and apparently Alito cast the deciding vote.

[Just another Joe]

Yeah. A jury's going to take the side of a bunch of scummy meth dealers when they kill a cop.

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?

[sinkspur]

And what about when the police make a mistake and go into the wrong address?

That's a different matter and dependent on the circumstances.

[jazusamo]

Alito and the others are traitors to we the people and our constitutionally guaranteed protections.

Well it looks like there's 4 on the court that aren't traitors according to your statement.

[Huck]

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.

[Protagoras]

A welcome indication of the conservative leaning of Justice Alito.

Just curious, what about this was conservative?

[Schuck]

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.

[SaveUS]

"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.

[VeniVidiVici]

it was a common law right long before the Constitution was written. I would, however, refer you to the Ninth Amendment.

Were warrants also common law?

[GrandEagle]

I don't think there is a Constitutional problem with a no knock situation. Where the problem will happen is if and when the bad guys have a shootout with the police and one of them lives.
If, at 3:00am in the morning, the police knock down the door of my home by accident, they will have just under 10 seconds to find me before there is going to be a major problem. My alarm system will go off, and I can be awakened, up , and armed with a .223 w/night scope before my alarm horn ramps to full volume - it's happened. Someone is not going to live through the encounter because I am not going to wait and see who it is. Had they announced themselves and that they had a warrant, although annoyed at the mistake, I would let them in and we could correct it since I have no desire to engage LE in an armed conflict.
Lets take the situation back at the bad guys house: 3:00 am, the police break down the door and the bad guys are sitting around armed, in the back room of the house. Officer is shot and killed and bad guys are arrested and hauled to jail.
Court day where bad guys is on trial for murder and he gets off simply because he makes a successful self defense argument, after all, the scumbag had his three year old and wife asleep in the house and had no idea that it was the police who were entering. It makes no difference what the truth was, that is without a doubt - reasonable doubt as to the bad guys intentions in killing the officer.

While not (IMHO) a Constitutional issue, I believe no-knock warrant executions are very foolish and extremely dangerous.

In addition this statement is extremely troubling to me "Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches. "
Since the police have immunity from prosecution the ONLY avenue to assure that the police observe the law is to simply make it useless not to. In this particular issue, would agree that just because they didn't knock first (assuming they did have a legally acquired warrant) is no reason to throw out the charges. 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 STRONGLY disagree!

Cordially,
GE

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Erroneous writer: "What's a subjunctive? Is it contagious?"

[jazusamo]

Just curious, what about this was conservative?

IMO, the part about sworn officers serving a lawful warrant.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I thought it was Godwin's Law, from the days of USENET.

[Protagoras]

I see. So others who are not described as conservative are opposed to that?

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.

[TChris]

In addition this statement is extremely troubling to me "Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches. " Since the police have immunity from prosecution the ONLY avenue to assure that the police observe the law is to simply make it useless not to. In this particular issue, would agree that just because they didn't knock first (assuming they did have a legally acquired warrant) is no reason to throw out the charges. 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 STRONGLY disagree!

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.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

conservatives: less govt, less govt interference in our private lives, adherence to the constitution.

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?

[GrandEagle]

Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals" arguments here
Me TOO! That IS scary!

[jazusamo]

I don't think every decision by nine justices comes down to conservative vs liberal.

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.

[takenoprisoner]

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?

[Wuli]

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.

[TheDon]

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

Agreed.