High Court backs police no-knock searches

AP ^ | June 15, 2006 | GINA HOLLAND

[GrandEagle]

The homeowner in question wouldn't live to see a trial.
So true, but someone is going with me....

[tomzz]

Simple solution: End the idiotic "war on drugs".

[Grut]

"Liberals"..."Conservatives"

Nope. Statists.

[vikingd00d]

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

That's because he'd be dead. Cops don't like it when you shoot at them.

[seasoned traditionalist]

”We don’t need no stinkin search warrant, cuz we’s genuine, jackbooted, guv’mint agents. So, give us Elian, before someone gits hurt.”
All kidding aside, (and having once been a Fed Agent myself) I’m a Law and Order guy.

However, there is often a fine line of distinction (such as the proliferation of the use of SWAT teams for everything, up to and including going after dead beat dads) between the rights of citizens to be free from [un]reasonable search and seizures, which is often breached in the extreme, in the justification that the “end justifies the means.”

Even then, I would not be so concerned if the laws for seeking remedy (with provisions for Qualified and Absolute Immunity being what they are) not a nearly insurmountable obstacle for those attempting to attain redress.

[Still Thinking]

Never happen. It puts too much power in the wrong hands, and power, once put in the wrong hands, tends to stay there.

[Rifleman]

"Cops don't like it when you shoot at them."

No doubt. On the other hand, there are limits to how servile I am willing to behave. The human equivalent of rolling on my back and pissing myself to beg grace, like a cur dog, is well beyond them.

Anyone kicking my door down and entering without my leave will be fired on. And no, I would not expect to survive the experience. See the paragraph above.

If any authority has a a reason to search my home, present the warrant and I will cooperate. Otherwise, see above.

[Publius6961]

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.

OK I'll be the dummy...

What good is a search warrant if "permission" must be obtained before conducting a search?
Did I miss something?

[ModerateGOOPer]

How many times does it have to be said. The Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list of the rights of the people.

Knock and announce has been a fundamental assumption of the British and American justice system for at least 300 years.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not in the Constitution either. Does that mean courts should start finding people guilty with no evidence?

[ModerateGOOPer]

Knock and announce is not to to gain permission.

It is to clearly identify these individuals as law enforcement officers serving a warrant, as opposed to home invaders intent on raping and murdering the inhabitants.

[Still Thinking]

No one has said the occupant could refuse permission for the search, but a resonable amount of time to ascertain that the intruders are actually cops by some means other than believing them is only reasonsble.

[CellPhoneSurfer]

OUTSIDE

"Honey, I think I hear someone knocking at the door"

INSIDE

 

[supercat]

But wouldn't a knock-first policy also have negative conequences, especially for the police?

If police are allowed to forcibly enter people's premises without first having to undertake reasonable efforts to demonstrate that they are, in fact, there legally, that would imply that citizens are required to accept armed invaders in their dwellings without question. Is that reasonable!?

[Steve_Seattle]

"If police are allowed to forcibly enter people's premises without first having to undertake reasonable efforts to demonstrate that they are, in fact, there legally, that would imply that citizens are required to accept armed invaders in their dwellings without question."

Saying that police with a search warrant need not announce themselves prior to entry does NOT imply that people are required to accept armed invaders - announced or unannounced - into their homes. As soon as the police enter a house or business, their identity as police is known. Also, a criminal could identify himself as a policeman in order to gain entry into a house, so the announce-first policy is also subject to abuse. But I am not defending the no-knock policy AS A POLICY; I am just saying that it is not obvious to me that the Constitution requires it.

[The Westerner]

Why would the most conservative judge hate the 4th Amendment?

[Mack the knife]

No-knock warrants and/or lack of announcement lead to bad situations on both sides.

---

From: http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=259, Novenmber 15th, 2000

When Ismael Mena was killed last year by a paramilitary police unit serving a drug warrant on the wrong house here in Denver, it was more than a tragedy; his death was part of a national pattern. Since Mr. Menas death the body count has increased.

Less than a month before Mr. Mena was killed, an unarmed 64 year old grandfather of 14 , Mario Paz, was shot dead in his own home after a Compton, California, SWAT team blew the locks off his door in a late night drug raid where no drugs were found.

In September of this year, eleven year old Alberto Sepulveda was killed by a blast from a SWAT shotgun while spread-eagle on the floor of his parents Modesto, California, home during a drug raid where no drugs were found.

In October, 64 year old John Adams died at the hands of police while presumably defending his home from invaders when Lebanon, Tennessee, police kicked in his door at night to serve a drug warrant, the wrong door on the wrong house.

Criminologist Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University has shown that nationwide the deployment of SWAT teams has increased 538% since 1980, with 75% of their mission dedicated to serving warrants (almost all for drugs), a far cry from their original intent of hostage rescue.

---

From ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein, about the Mena episode described above:

While any request to search a home must be evaluated with care, Silverstein said, judges should be especially wary of requests for no-knock warrants. "No-knock warrants pose a danger to the lives of police officers as well as innocent civilians," Silverstein said. "Many Colorado residents legally own firearms, and Colorado's controversial 'Make My Day' law increases the risk to police. If police do not successfully communicate their identity in the split-second when they kick down the door, they are likely to encounter gunfire from citizens who believe they are justifiably defending their homes from lawless intruders."

---

I hate to find myself on the side of the ACLU, but the guy raises a very valid point. The Castle doctrine explicitly says that the homeowner is presumed to be legally within his rights to shoot anyone that invades his house.

And given that criminals sometimes dress up as police, FBI, or BATFE agents, homeowners will feel completely justified shooting anyone who invades if police don't announce and show their warrant, because they know the castle doctrine law will protect them. District Attorneys are forbidden to prosecute them.

This looks like an "unintended consequence" of the castle doctrine law.

[microgood]

Why would the most conservative judge hate the 4th Amendment?

Not sure, it seems inconsistent. But there are two types of conservatives, those who support the constitution literally, and those who have an agenda like the liberals, and want to implement whether it is constitutional or not. Scalia may be the latter.

[Teacher317]

OK I'll be the dummy...
What good is a search warrant if "permission" must be obtained before conducting a search?
Did I miss something?

OK I'll be the dummy...

What good is the sanctity of my home, or the rule of law for that matter, if permission need not be obtained, nor presence announced, before destroying the front door by an armed gang of government goons at 3am?
Did I miss something?

[xzins]

the other guy beat you with his post by a few minutes

[NinoFan]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649860/posts