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:

[Mr. Lucky]

Seems to be a simple proposition doesn't it.

[AmishDude]

I want to know where the word "knock" is in the Constitution.

[seasoned traditionalist]

So they can do as they please and there's no consequences.

You lie. There are other remedies as you well know.

Perhaps you would be so kind to list "all" of the remedies available, WITH, examples whereby efforts to seek same, by injured party, have been sucessful.

[robertpaulsen]

The police had a search warrant (not a no-knock). Instead of knocking, announcing, and waiting "20-30" seconds, the police in this particular case announced, waited 3-5 seconds, then entered.

The trial judge threw out the evidence obtained. The appeals court overturned since the evidence "would inevitably have been discovered" as per two previous cases decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

[rogue yam]

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.

I don't really believe this story. But even if I did it has nothing whatsoever to do with the recent USSC ruling.

[JTN]

I don't think you've got that right. I believe the police admitted their violation of the knock and announce rule.

The police had a search warrant (not a no-knock). Instead of knocking, announcing, and waiting "20-30" seconds, the police in this particular case announced, waited 3-5 seconds, then entered.

Regardless, Justiceforall76's statement is correct. The government admitted the illegality of the search.

"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.

What? Suddenly you don't think the Supreme Court is infallible? I'm going to remember this post the next time the subject of interstate commerce comes up.

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.

No it wasn't. Where did you get that? The ruling had nothing to do with whether or not the search was legal or illegal. The government conceded that the search was illegal. The courts decision concerned remedy only.

[rogue yam]

Perhaps you would be so kind to list "all" of the remedies available, WITH, examples whereby efforts to seek same, by injured party, have been sucessful.

And why, exactly, would I be interested in spending my time doing this?

[Badray]

For your consideration and comments. I am not an attorney, but this is how I understand the 4th Amendment and how I would write if we were starting anew.

"The right of the people to be secure

(Safe. Free from the prying eyes of government)

In their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

(you, your property, your possession, your papers -- and your computer)

Against unreasonable searches and seizures

(Random, and without evidence of a crime or meant to intimidate and harrass)

shall not be violated,

(EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN)

And no warrants shall issue,

(To be reasonable, there must be a warrant)

But upon probable cause,

(They (the gubmint) better damn well have reliable evidence or information)

Supported by oath or affirmation,

(Someone can be held accountable if it fails to meet this standard)

And particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(That's so that an agent can't make it up as they go along just to cover their ass if they just screwed up or were messing with you)

So, if were written today, it might read like this:

"The people have the right to be free from the prying eyes of government. They and their property, possession, papers, books, and computers shall not be subject to search or seizure at random or with the effect or intent to harass or intimidate.

For a search and/or seizure to be legitimate, the agent must get a warrant. The agent seeking the warrant must present evidence or reliable information specifically naming the suspect, his location and what the agent is looking for.

The agent or agents involved will be held accountable and are subject to civil and/or criminal penalties if they fail to meet these standards."

[robertpaulsen]

"I want to know where the word "knock" is in the Constitution."

According to JTN, the U.S. Supreme Court found it in the penumbra of the emanation of "reasonableness". Actually, they found "knock and announce and wait 20-30 seconds" -- how about that?

And who says justices legislate from the bench? That's not legislation, even though it looks like it. Merely an interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable search

Personally, I thought the 4th amendment was referencing a reasonable search -- you know, only what's relevant to the crime and what's outlined in the warrant, certain areas of the house, not the car, not the safe, etc.

The justices seem to believe that the "search" starts as soon as the cops get out of the car.

[A Strict Constructionist]

The current incentive for the police is that they get to keep drug money, cars and whatever else in these raids. The raid is based on economics and not a need for public safety. I have seen cops let severly intoxicated people go, who have later severely injured people, just so that they could be in place for a suspected car containing drugs. The supposed war on drugs is the cause for most of this foolishness. Public safety is not of concern unless they screw up then this is the police mantra much like the gun banners "its for the children, think of the children."

[steve-b]

I don't really believe this story.

A rather gutless insinuation on your part, methinks.

[NeoCaveman]

Just for example, Scalia is the type that would probably OK states banning the sale of condoms to married people because, in his view, such morality can and should be legislated....because he believes that "substantive due process" is an oxymoron.

And it is.

[The Red Zone]

SO you discover yourself how wrong you are

[steve-b]

And why, exactly, would I be interested in spending my time doing this?

Because the only two alternatives available to you are:

1. Do this, or

2. Confess that you are wrong.

(Silence = Door #2)

[MeanWestTexan]

Scalia will embrace whatever legal theory fits his agenda, including substantive due process.

[The Red Zone]

No lawsuit under present law has succeeded.

[JTN]

According to JTN, the U.S. Supreme Court found it in the penumbra of the emanation of "reasonableness".

Wilson v. Arkansas

(O)ur effort to give content to this term may be guided by the meaning ascribed to it by the Framers of the Amendment. An examination of the common law of search and seizure leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering.

[robertpaulsen]

"The government conceded that the search was illegal."

They had a valid warrant, they announced, they waited, but they forgot to knock. So, yeah, the search was "illegal".

But there's no punishment. If they did this exact same thing tomorrow, there'd be no punishment. So, what's the difference between that and no longer making knocking a requirement? Which is basically the point I was trying to make.

Oh, Scalia did say the resident would have recourse IF a) someone was hurt because of this "illegal" entry, b) some property damage was done because of this "illegal" entry, and/or c) the resident's privacy or dignity was violated by this "illegal" entry. Nonoe of which, by the way, happened in this particular case.

So, it's not a blank check. Scalia is applying the intent of the knock and announce provision and limiting the punishment to the actual damage done.

[takenoprisoner]

"I think this ruling turns SWAT teams into DEATH SQUADS."

At least now we know who to expect at 3am once some govt entity lays claim to our property via imminent domain.

[JTN]

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.

The Sal Culosi case. In over 30 years, the prosecutor there has never filed charges against a police officer.