Replies

"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.

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.

That's exactly the point. The SC acknoledged the "knock and announce" rule in principle, but then said that nothing will be done to enforce it. So much for the rule of law.

He said that the proper recourse is a civil suit, but...

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.

So, unless I'm being asked to believe that none of the conditions you listed have ever been met, appealing to a person's right to file a civil suit is kind of disingenuous.

So, it's not a blank check.

In effect, it is.