High Court backs police no-knock searches

AP ^ | June 15, 2006 | GINA HOLLAND

[Shermy]

"Liberals" in the court rule governments can take your land and give it to someone else if they'll pay more taxes, "Conservatives" in the court say police can barge into your home. As they strip constitutional rights both point fingers of deflection to "legislatures."

[Pyro7480]

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.

[Bikers4Bush]

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?

[Pyro7480]

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?

That is a point I didn't consider. On second thought, this may have unintended consequences.

[Pyro7480]

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?

That is a point I didn't consider. On second thought, this may have unintended consequences.

[Pyro7480]

Sorry for the double-post.

[tdewey10]

Yep. If the police have a warrant, they have a warrant. They shouldn't need to knock.

[Gefreiter]

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.

[GrandEagle]

The enemies of our Republic control both sides of the argument....

[Still Thinking]

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

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.

[Shermy]

"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.

[Wolfie]

The homeowner in question wouldn't live to see a trial.

[Shermy]

""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.

[Pyro7480]

See my post #4. My first post was my initial reaction.

[Bikers4Bush]

And therein lies the problem.

[tomzz]

There was a case like that in western Maryland in the mid 70s in which a travelling salesman blew several cops and federal agents away with a 44 magnum and a jury took something like 15 minutes to find the guy totally innocent. The man's lawyer correctly noted that Al Capone's employees had been dressed like cops at the time of the St. Valentine's Day massacre and that dressing like cops when you barge into somebody's house or hotel room at 2 in the morning does not save the situation.

Far as I'm concerned, there is no excuse for no-knock raids. Anybody who engages in them should be fair game.

[surely_you_jest]

A lot of people, on both sides of the badge, are probably going to die as a result of this.

[Still Thinking]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

"It doesn't say the police have to knock once they have the warrant."

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.

[Shermy]

"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.