Supreme Court Ruling on Police Raids Endangers Citizens

FOXNews.com ^ | June 21, 2006 | Radley Balko

[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:

[KC_Conspirator]

This guy is claiming the raids were "illegal", when in fact, they were not, even according to the Supreme Court.

[Mr. Lucky]

The exclusionary rule is a wholly ineffective way of enforcing the knock and announce rule. The exclusionary rule only protects those who, in fact, were actually in possession of whatever it was the police sought.

Far better, in my humble opinion to recognize a civil cause of action against officer or prosecutors sponsoring the illegal search.

[robertpaulsen]

"Hudson was charged and convicted in state court with possession of cocaine and a firearm after Detroit police officers entered and searched Hudson’s home, pursuant to a warrant. Hudson argued that the evidence against him was seized in violation of the “knock and announce” rule of the Fourth Amendment, which requires the police to knock, announce their presence, and wait 20-30 seconds before executing a search warrant, except in exigent circumstance. The trial judge granted Hudson's motion to suppress the evidence because the officers failed to knock on Hudson’s door and then waited only three to five seconds after announcing their presence before entering his home."

So the scumbag wanted the evidence thrown out.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Radley is the conservative conscious.

Which is better than being the conservative unconscious.

[JTN]

This guy is claiming the raids were "illegal", when in fact, they were not, even according to the Supreme Court.

Yes, the raids were illegal, according to the Supreme Court; indeed, even according to the State of Michigan. To quote Scalia's opinion:

Because Michigan has conceded that the entry here was a knock-and-announce violation, the only issue is whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for such a violation.

[MeanWestTexan]

Well said.

Of course, FR is full of people who would be happy with a police state, as, ITHO, the police don't bother law abiding people.

I became a libertarian-leaning conservative after being accused of child support for an insane woman I had never met --- DNA exonerated me --- at the tune of $4,000 or so in attorney and doctor fees. AND a PISSED OFF Mrs. MWT who believed the idiot social workers. Had to deposit money in the registry of the court in the mean time to avoid jail time for "non-support" (got that back).

Turned out daddy was in jail and the mother filled out my name on welfare forms/birth certificate because she knew I owned a company (name is on the building) and thought it might be a good thing to claim well-off daddy.

[MNJohnnie]

Radley is the conservative conscious.

Radley is a Leftist stoodge pretending to be "Conservative" because it sells well in his market. Just another "The criminals are victims" Leftist butt clown.

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the very "living, breathing Constitution" argument the left often makes

Hmmmmm...I don't remember any words in the Constitution regarding the number of knocks or seconds after those knocks before police can enter.

[battlecry]

Well rogue, because it is true.

I barely survived a DEA raid in LA while the fellows next door with the whatever the DEA was looking for escaped. They did come with guns drawn, they trashed the house, they did beat us all up and after we were secured one of the fellow managed to convince my hysterical cousin to stop crying by putting his service weapon in her mouth and cocking the hammer. You might have been impressed by how quickly they all left the house when they realized it was the wrong address.

I'm afraid this ruling is going to result in the loss of many lives.

[MeanWestTexan]

"The exclusionary rule is a wholly ineffective way of enforcing the knock and announce rule."

Not really. It causes the police to be careful not to do it wrong, as it makes an illegal entry a fruitless waste of time.

[Capt. Jake]

Scalia an outcome oriented jurist? What a bunch of BS. And I am an attorney.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"In other words, with Hudson and Wilson, the Court has said not only is the requirement that police announce themselves before entering a private home law, it’s in the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Yet the Court has also said it’s not too concerned with enforcing that law."

Doesn't surprise me at all. The Government as a whole isn't interested in enforcing any law that Protects American Citizens or their rights.

Our Immigration laws are glaring proof of that.

[MNJohnnie]

Did you even READ what you posted? Your own quote says Knock and Announce is NOT gaurentteedby the 4th Amendment. The Court REJECTED your arguement. 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

[MeanWestTexan]

"What a bunch of BS. And I am an attorney."

I can tell from the depth of that legal analysis.

[JTN]

The exclusionary rule is a wholly ineffective way of enforcing the knock and announce rule. The exclusionary rule only protects those who, in fact, were actually in possession of whatever it was the police sought.

Only in a direct sense. Indirectly, by discouraging illegal searches in the first place, it protects anyone who would otherwise have been subjected to one.

Far better, in my humble opinion to recognize a civil cause of action against officer or prosecutors sponsoring the illegal search.

I don't disagree, but that just doesn't happen as was acknowledged by the State of Michigan and the U.S. Government. By removing the exclusionary rule, the court removed the only practical means of enforcing "knock and announce".

[Carry_Okie]

Scalia now wants to take that oversight away.

Nonsense. If a cop commits a crime by executing an illegal search, let twelve people decide whether the crime warrants punishment. Meanwhile, don't let a murderer off the hook because a cop makes a procedural error.

[robertpaulsen]

Ohhhh!

"Knock and announce" is the court's interpretation of "reasonable". Here I thought you were saying it was part of the 4th amendment, and I couldn't find it.

Well, if that "knock and announce" interpretation from 10 years ago is interpreted today as "announce only", then certainly you have no problem with that, do you? That was basically the ruling.

Hell, ten years from now we could always go back to "knock and announce" or "phone and announce" or "write a letter and announce". All depends on how much time we want to allow the scumbags to get rid of the evidence.

[Dead Corpse]

Then, assuming the home owner rightfully defending his property is arrested alive... he will be tried in a court of law. Found guilty. And sentanced. After all, government has to protect their enforcers.

More than likely though, if while defending your property from illegal invaders you happen to kill one or two... your own chances of survival are nill. "Resisting arrest" and all that. The officers "feared for their lives" which are worth more than a law abiding home owners.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

I supported the conservative justice appointment to SCOTUS because I believed they would interpret the Constitiution. I did NOT expect a degredation of the 4th Amendment. I'm not interested in living in a police state anytime, anywhere.

[JTN]

Did you even READ what you posted? Your own quote says Knock and Announce is NOT gaurentteedby the 4th Amendment. The Court REJECTED your arguement. 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

You could have saved both of us some time by reading the entire excerpt. The part you posted was a quote of the **Arkansas Supreme Court**. The **U.S. Supreme Court** said this (unanimously):

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.