Posted on 06/15/2006 11:32:07 AM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.
The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.
Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.
"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," Scalia wrote.
Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.
The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.
O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"
She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, supported Scalia's opinion.
Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used at his trial. He was convicted of drug possession.
Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.
In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.
"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 members.
Breyer said that police can now 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 most of 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."
Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.
And Scalia wrote that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.
In response, Breyer said there is no evidence of anyone collecting much money in such cases.
The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.
The Fourth Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't say the police have to knock once they have the warrant.
So if cops perform a no knock raid (and don't identify themselves verbally on their way in) on the wrong house and the homeowner defends himself thinking his life is in danger and in the process kill one or two of them but survives himself would he be forced to stand trial?
He shouldn't, but would he?
That is a point I didn't consider. On second thought, this may have unintended consequences.
That is a point I didn't consider. On second thought, this may have unintended consequences.
Sorry for the double-post.
Yep. If the police have a warrant, they have a warrant. They shouldn't need to knock.
Yeah, he would go down forever.
Every cop who went into the house would swear that they had announced their presence, identified themselves, and done everything by the book. Leaving one man, the homeowner, to say they hadn't.
What's more important, a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for the occasional crook of issuing a "bust-the-door-down-if-you-feel-like-it card" to police. I'm less concerned about the crooks than the cops acting under color of authority.
This whole debate needs some balance restored. Scalia is always deciding cases based on what he thinks is a reasonable buden for state actors. I say, screw the state actors, screw the crooks, and look at the case from the point of view of an honest citizen, and how he might stand to be affected by a decision.
"It doesn't say the police have to knock once they have the warrant."
It doesn't say law enforcement can't hold a gun to your head either does it?
""And Scalia wrote that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.""
That's really sweet coming from Mr. Scalia. Don't worry, you can go to liberal lawyers and after three years of lawsuits you might get some money. Maybe. Sounds like he's rubbing it in our faces.
The homeowner in question wouldn't live to see a trial.
""and look at the case from the point of view of an honest citizen, and how he might stand to be affected by a decision.""
That's exactly NOT what he's doing, unfortunately.
See my post #4. My first post was my initial reaction.
And therein lies the problem.
Far as I'm concerned, there is no excuse for no-knock raids. Anybody who engages in them should be fair game.
A lot of people, on both sides of the badge, are probably going to die as a result of this.
Even if the cops DO announce themselves before a forcible entry, why should the burden be on the homeowner, if he shoots them? Are crooks genetically incapable of articulating the word "Police"? Or should he wait till they're in control of his home, then negotiate with them, then decide whether to resist?
This whole issue is out of whack.
Or knock and wait 30 seconds. Both of those criteria are found in the penumbra of an emanation, I believe. Right next to the "right to privacy" that allows partaking in sodomy, but not drugs, in a residence.
"A lot of people, on both sides of the badge, are probably going to die as a result of this."
That's a very practical and realistic assessment. Right on.
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.