[JTN]

Ping

[Pondman88]

Radley is the conservative conscious.

[steve-b]

The most puzzling part of Scalia's opinion comes in a passage where he states that over the last half century, police have become more professional, and more likely to observe and respect our civil liberties. Therefore, according to Scalia, punishing police officers who break the law shouldn't be of much concern.

Today, they're less likely to break the law, and more likely to address and correct those who do internally. I don't happen to agree (neither, apparently, does at least one of the sources he cites for this passage, who has since said Scalia misinterpreted his work).

But let's assume Scalia is right. What he's saying, then, is that things have changed. Police have become better trained and better educated. They are less violent and more cognizant of civil liberties. Therefore, we ought to interpret the Constitution differently – in this case removing the remedy of excluding evidence for search violations – to reflect those changes.

This is the very "living, breathing Constitution" argument the left often makes, and that usually drives conservatives batty. It's an argument that is inconsistent with the originalism or "strict constructionism" conservatives claim to embrace.

[Buckeye McFrog]

revealing the SC's greatest weakness....Anthony Kennedy is as big a flip-flopper as Sen. Kerry!

[spunkets]

" 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."

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

[JTN]

Ping

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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...

They had a WARRANT.

There is a world of difference between a no-knock raid WITH a warrant and one without a warrant,

A warrantless no-knock raid would indeed be illegal, but this was NOT an illegal raid.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[AmishDude]

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

[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."

[colorado tanker]

Radley misses the point. No-knock raids may or may not be good policy, but that's a policy decision that's up to the legislative and executive branches. As long as the warrant requirement is adhered to, they are constitutional, which is where the judicial inquiry should end.

[scratcher]

Radley is an idiot

[BCR #226]

There has been a rise of home invasions for the past few years and the bad guys are getting smart, they yell "Police" or "Sheriff's Department" or even "BATF" as they enter to help them get control over their victims. Due to this, I have spoken to my local CLEO and advised him that he needs to make sure that no "no-knock" raids are used on my house for any reason what so ever since I don't care what someone yells as they come in the door, I'm defending my family and making sure my C3 toys don't end up in the wrong hands.

I don't see any reason why I should ever need to worry about such an event but I want to make my position clear to law enforcement. The sheriff agreed with my take on the situation and thanked me for advising him of my reasons and sharing my concerns.

Any LE that promotes no knock raids is just asking to get his officers killed.

Mike

[newzjunkey]

I'm not usually on the other side of Scalia but this was a bad decision.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Because don't we all use marijuana every couple of weeks or so. /sarcasm

[napscoordinator]

Sometimes I get so confused with FREEPERS. Now we are bashing Scalia. I thought he was one of our favorites. Now he is a crazy Activist. Awhile ago we loved Mel Gibson and then he said something we disagreed with and he was villionized. It is really interesting being a FREEPER. It is just hard to keep up sometimes.