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

To: NinoFan

Supreme Court upholds police evidence in searches without knocking
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.
Justice Samuel Alito broke a 4-4 tie in siding with Detroit police, who called out their presence at a man’s door then went inside three to five seconds later.
The case had tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said “whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house.”
The court did not say how long police officers must wait after knocking before they enter a home to execute a search warrant.
Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches.
The outcome might have been different if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.
She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so Alito could participate in deliberations.
Hudson’s lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.
Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given “a get-out-of-jail-free card” to him and others.
“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal justices.
Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say “it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry.”


3 posted on 06/15/2006 7:55:52 AM PDT by Brian Mosely (A government is a body of people -- usually notably ungoverned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Brian Mosely
The outcome might have been different if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wasWERE still on the bench.

Not that writers should know how to write or anything.

8 posted on 06/15/2006 7:58:17 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely

Good thing old Sandra Dee is GONE!

Bush legacy BUMP.


9 posted on 06/15/2006 7:58:43 AM PDT by Kryptonite (Keep Democrats Out of Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely
“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote...

Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Breyer, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? Oh, guess not.

11 posted on 06/15/2006 8:00:30 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Sandy
It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal justices.

I'm not really a big law enforcement kinda guy, but where is the "knock and announce" protection in the Constitution? Something the SCOTUS invented along the way? 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. It might give me time to flush some drugs down the toilet, but how does it provide me any greater rights? They've got a warrant. I don't get it.

13 posted on 06/15/2006 8:01:17 AM PDT by Huck (Hey look, I'm still here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.

Nothing new there.

14 posted on 06/15/2006 8:01:37 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely
police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves

"Knock, knock this is the police with warrent to search for drugs. If you have any you have 5 seconds to get rid of it."

17 posted on 06/15/2006 8:02:36 AM PDT by SamAdams_Lite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely
...collected with a warrant...

If they've got enough probable cause to get a warrant, why give the alleged perps enough warning to get rid of any evidence? Actually, I'm po'ed that it was 5-4. This seems like a legal no-brainer to me.

28 posted on 06/15/2006 8:08:25 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely
"The court did not say how long police officers must wait after knocking before they enter a home to execute a search warrant."

Obviously, they don't have to wait at all.

33 posted on 06/15/2006 8:12:37 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely
AP: Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Evidence is not "fruit."

Police investigations are not "trees."

Police errors are not "poisons."

There are better ways to punish overly aggressive cops than by throwing out evidence and letting criminals go free.

The Exclusionary Rule was invented by liberal, activist judges who always side with defendants and against the community's interest in justice and security.

Time to wave it bye-bye.

49 posted on 06/15/2006 8:30:14 AM PDT by LK44-40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Mosely

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.


79 posted on 06/15/2006 9:21:37 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

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

Agreed.

80 posted on 06/15/2006 9:29:17 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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: Brian Mosely
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.

About once a month my police officer friend is on a task force that, by anonymous tip, goes to residences, knocks on the door, tells the occupants that suspicious illegal activity has been reported, could they come in?...9 times out of 10 they're allowed in with their drug dogs and 9 times out of 10 there are arrests, not always for drugs.

259 posted on 06/15/2006 6:45:35 PM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

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