High Court backs police no-knock searches

AP ^ | June 15, 2006 | GINA HOLLAND

[driftdiver]

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

I'm positive he'd be charged if he survived. He might get lucky on appeal and have it overturned.

[Integrityrocks]

If police have a warrant and they barge into the wrong house and are shot, the homeowner would not stand trial. Police don't get warrants to search "neighborhoods." Warrants are very specifically written; what you see on TV where cops are tearing a house apart is not real life.

[Steve_Seattle]

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

A no-knock policy does indeed have some negatives, but these are matters of policy and procedure, not the Constitution. The Constitution requires a warrant, but is silent on the knocking issue. In my opinion, a no-knock policy would be an administrative matter, with "rules of engagement" perhaps dictated by the nature of the crime, the nature of the evidence sought, and the nature (if known) of the suspects.

[driftdiver]

One solution might be to have some hefty locks and doors. I'm sure the criminals will never think of that.

[Bikers4Bush]

I would agree.

[Integrityrocks]

"Knock, knock. Police! You now have 30 seconds to flush your drugs down the toilet while I stand here being polite."

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Based on the constitutional interpretation this is imo the proper ruling but it's still to the cops' advantage to make their presence known first, even briefly to avoid mistakes that could lead to accidental deaths. It'll probably come down to police discretion now since each situation is different.

[driftdiver]

"If police have a warrant and they barge into the wrong house and are shot, the homeowner would not stand trial"

We recently saw a case where a guy shot the locks off his ex's house and then followed her to the neighbors and did the same. The neighbor shot and killed him and was immediately arrested.

Do you seriously think the homeowner would survive if shots are fired? Against a gung ho SWAT team with automatic weapons .

[driftdiver]

""Knock, knock. Police! You now have 30 seconds to flush your drugs down the toilet while I stand here being polite.""

Yeah these tactics have certainly reduced drug use in America. The war on drugs is a failure and is repeatedly used to abuse our rights.

[microgood]

Scalia hates the 4th Amendment with a passion and would strike the whole thing down if he could, and would even cite foreign law to do it.

[Steve_Seattle]

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

But wouldn't a knock-first policy also have negative conequences, especially for the police? The knock-first policy would give advance notice to armed suspects, allowing them to prepare for the entry of the police. And, of course, giving criminals the opportunity to destroy evidence is the other obvious drawback.

[Still Thinking]

Negative consequences for citizens with jobs should outweight negative consequence for people who draw a government paycheck.

[Niteranger68]

If police have a warrant and they barge into the wrong house and are shot, the homeowner would not stand trial. Police don't get warrants to search "neighborhoods." Warrants are very specifically written; what you see on TV where cops are tearing a house apart is not real life.

Just like Dominos pizza, cops can and do get addresses confused. So there will be cases where completely innocent people are ambushed without warning. Did they consider that?

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

Court decisions going back prior to the ratification of the Constitution made it clear that police, even with a warrant, had to knock before breaking down a door. The Supreme Court therefore held that "knock and announce" is one of the requirements for a "reasonable search."

[Paleo Conservative]

[Still Thinking]

I just realized that in my last post you might have thought I was referring to crooks as citizens with jobs. That's not the case. I'm saying that hurdles for the police in their admittedly valuable work, should never be used as an excuse to weaken BOR protections for suspects, because the occasional honest citizen will inevitably fall into the same situation. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to go through the police academy. We, the citizens, their superiors. shouldn't be expected to give up Constitutional protections just because those protections make the cops' job harder. The BOR was there when they decided to become cops. A free society is what they're SUPPOSED to be trying to defend, not an occupational hazard.

[Der_Hirnfänger]

The funniest part of this article, is the comments of the 4 who voted against it, that it "erases 90 years of supreme court precedent"

As if that's stopped the left-wing side of the court *ever* in the past.

[jazusamo]

LOL...Mobil adopted No Knock gas and accidently killed low gas prices.

[Jason_b]

police break into the wrong house all the time. And they are brutal wherever they break in. swat types are naturally bully types who enjoy this type of work. They can satisfy their appetite for this type of violence as a job, legitimized by the state. This is one reason this was a bad decision.

What worries me more, and is the second reason this is a bad decision, is that armed homeowners, worried that these might really be cops and not wanting to shoot same will fail to take defensive action giving what actually turns out to be home invaders the opportunity to gain a dominant position over the family, which will be savaged of course.

We the people can't win for losing. So much for a man's home is his castle. :-(

[MD_Willington_1976]

Exactly...