Posted on 06/22/2006 11:48:11 AM PDT by JTN
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in its 5-4 decision in the case of Hudson v. Michigan that when police conduct an illegal, no-knock raid, any evidence they seize in the raid can still be used against the suspect at trial, even though the raid was conducted illegally.
I’ve spent the last year researching these types of volatile, highly-confrontational, paramilitary raids for a forthcoming report for the Cato Institute. The decision in Hudson is almost certain to lead to more illegal no-knock raids, more mistaken raids on innocent people, and more unnecessary deaths, both of civilians and of police officers.
Experts on both sides of the ruling have debated the issue for a week now. I’d like to make another point. The Supreme Court split on this case, right down the middle. The four most liberal justices voted in favor of the defendant, while the five most conservative justices voted in favor of the police.
The Court’s "swing voter," Justice Kennedy, filed a middling concurrence that sided with the conservatives, but warned them not to take their line of argument any further, or they’d lose his vote. But the majority opinion in this case, written by Anthony Scalia, was not actually all that conservative. Here’s why:
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How about a warrant no-knock raid in the wrong house? South Chelsea Lane instead of North Chelsea Lane. What happens after the startled owner reaches for his 12 gauge and finishes off a couple of the armed violent intruders?
Go read the Agitator.com
Punk.
He will probably end up on death row for defending his home, much like Cory Maye.
But apparently, what those remedies are is a secret which must never be divulged.
You are in effect claiming that there is no practical way to disincentivize illegal police searches of innocent people. You and everyone else on this thread know that this just isn't so.
Not a lawyer here, but what I've seen is that Scalia is pretty much an outcome oriented jurist.
While I generally agree with him; intellectually, that's just as bad as what the liberals do.
Nonsense. They are discussed in the decision and elsewhere. Read and learn and then post less nonsense.
There are only 2 that have the effect of restaining the illegal action. The lawsuit and having any evedence obtained as the result of the illegal action tossed.
" You lie. "
f ewe.
I think the idea is to "disincentivize illegal police searches" period.
After all, they are about enforcing THE LAW and their authority comes from THE LAW.
Ergo, to break the law to enforce it is, well, stupid.
And they have been roundly debunked. For example, had you read the article, you would have seen this:
In his opinion, Scalia argued that there are better ways to punish police who break the rule, such as suing them. But both the state of Michigan and the U.S. government both acknowledged in their briefs in the case that they couldn’t come up with a single case where such a lawsuit had been successful.You should read the article. It's a good one.
Either that or they will finish him off and then cover up the mistake. In VA they investigated a SWAT operator who stormed the home of a dentist while targeting a betting ring and killed the unarmed dentist in front of his family. The DA said too bad, the SWAT fellow had worked long hours, it was just an accident. I kid you not.
I think this ruling turns SWAT teams into DEATH SQUADS.
Correct. And the 4th amendment says nothing about knocking.
The downside of having conservatives in the Supreme Court, is that we get a little bit of nazism thrown in too.
The government has the right to kill you. Here's how it works. The government has given itself the right to break into your house at 4 AM with guns drawn, shouting like a crazy pack of wolves. You, as all humans, have the obligation to defend yourself. So you have the obligation to shoot the intruders breaking into your house to do you harm. The governent will of course shoot you and anything that moves in your house. They will not be prosecuted for this. Even if they broke into the wrong house.
I'm a libertarian who votes Republican because the alternative is too far to the left, but the right isn't too appealing either.
I don't think you've got that right. I believe the police admitted their violation of the knock and announce rule.
The only dispute before the court was whether the exclusionary rule was the proper remedy.
That is one idea. The other main idea is to apprehend criminals in order to protect the public. Both are important. Read the ruling. It discusses this.
This is nonsense. Why do "libertarians" so often spew garbage?
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction on appeal. The court noted that "the officers entered the home while they were identifying themselves," but it rejected petitioner's argument that "the Fourth Amendment requires officers to knock and announce prior to entering the residence." Finding "no authority for [petitioner's] theory that the knock and announce principle is required by the Fourth Amendment," the court concluded that neither Arkansas law nor the Fourth Amendment required suppression of the evidence.We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the lower courts as to whether the common law knock and announce principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. We hold that it does, and accordingly reverse and remand.
It should be a common sense issue, since I would have killed anyone breaking into my house in the middle of the night unannounced.
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.