Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sagar

People v. Macioce, (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 262, 271 (”The purposes and policies supporting the ‘knock-notice’ rules are fourfold: (1) the protection of the privacy of the individual in his home; (2) the protection of innocent persons present on the premises; (3) the prevention of situations which are conducive to violent confrontations between the occupant and individuals who enter his home without proper notice; and (4) the protection of police who might be injured by a startled and fearful householder.”)

Again, that’s California but I’d be amazed if equivalent case law did not exist in Georgia.


117 posted on 10/05/2014 4:19:13 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Kerry, as Obama's plenipotentiary, is a paradox - the physical presence of a geopolitical absence")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: NonValueAdded

And the four points in that court decision are the practical application of the Fourth Amendment, viz. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”


118 posted on 10/05/2014 4:22:16 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Kerry, as Obama's plenipotentiary, is a paradox - the physical presence of a geopolitical absence")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson