Police don't have to knock, justices say

[thepeopleslawyer]

Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case

Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 11:15 a.m. EDT (15:15 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion.

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html

[xrayzebra]

I love the libs little statement: "In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent." Since when did they start worrying about that?

You know like taking of property and turning in over to other
private groups for profit.

[fyatuk]

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Uhhh, tell me where the "knock-and-announce" is in this:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment clearly says that your home is private unless a warrant is properly issued with probable cause supported by evidence of affidavit.

The whole knock-and-announce thing is an absurd idea, and it's certainly not a Constitution thing.

[Darrin]

Damn pesky rights. We should just install a camera in every home, and be required by law to file a key for our homes with the local police. Who needs rights, anyway? I mean, the government is going to protect us from every imaginable danger anyway, right? They'd never abuse a law!

[Yonivore]

Damn pesky rights. We should just install a camera in every home, and be required by law to file a key for our homes with the local police. Who needs rights, anyway? I mean, the government is going to protect us from every imaginable danger anyway, right? They'd never abuse a law!
Well, if they have a warrant issued, based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, I'm not sure any abuse that's already occurred would be worsened by not knocking.

In other words, if the search/arrest warrant is legitimate -- what's the point in knocking and giving the suspect time to dispose of evidence or escape. And if the warrant was obtained fraudulently, entering without knocking doesn't make things any worse than they already are.

So, growing weed in your closet, are you, Darrin?

Also, I think your exaggerated jumping to state-mandated in-home surveillance and carte blanche permission for police to enter is a little extreme and would, in all likelihood, be deemed unreasonable vis-a-vis the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

However, if you want to voluntarily install such equipment and give the police a key to your home...more power to you.

[Nbadan]

I think knocking helps to announce that it's police at the door. Good or bad, there may be many more deadly incidents if people don't know who is knocking down the doors and breaking windows.

[Yonivore]

I think knocking helps to announce that it's police at the door. Good or bad, there may be many more deadly incidents if people don't know who is knocking down the doors and breaking windows.
I don't disagree with this statement.

However, I don't believe the admissibility/suppression of evidence should be predicated on whether or not the police announced themselves which, after all, was the cruxt of this case.

[Nbadan]

However, I don't believe the admissability/suppression of evidence should be predicated on whether or not the police announced themselves which, after all, was the cruxt of this case.

The cruxt of the case is do the police have a search warrant that established probable cause supported by hard evidence? I've never heard of anyone getting off solely based on whether they heard police announce themselves. It also avoids abuse by over-zealous police who feel that they can raid first and legal-up later.

[FromWayDowntown]

Darrin makes a proper use of blue text.

[Nbadan]

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

Findlaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html)

If the police do not announce they are entering first, how is someone inside supposed to know whether they are entering illegally or not? I think most people would presume that anyone barging into your home unannounced at 3am would be doing it illegally. But would somebody be able to shoot a cop making a no-knock entry and get away with it?

[Yonivore]

The cruxt of the case is do the police have a search warrant that established probable cause supported by hard evidence? I've never heard of anyone getting off solely based on whether they heard police announce themselves. It also avoids abuse by over-zealous police who feel that they can raid first and legal-up later.
I think you misread the article. The whole point of the case was whether or not the evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant was admissable because the police did not announce their presence before entering the building.

The goon's attorney was trying to do just what you'd never heard of, get evidence suppressed because the police didn't announce themselves before they busted down the door.

The fact this made it to the Supreme Court says it was more of a question than you seemed to fathom.

[fyatuk]

The cruxt of the case is do the police have a search warrant that established probable cause supported by hard evidence? I've never heard of anyone getting off solely based on whether they heard police announce themselves. It also avoids abuse by over-zealous police who feel that they can raid first and legal-up later.

The point of contention in this case appears to be related to the speed with which the police entered the home to enact the warrant. Previous court decisions I believe said that police must knock, announce themselves, and give time for the door to be answered before they can forceably enter. The contention was that if that procedure is violated, the evidence obtained with the warrant is suppressed. That had apparently held up in lower courts.

The contention is whether not following the knock-and-announce method completely invalidates a legally obtained search warrant, and SCOTUS decided no.

Basically they removed knock-and-announce from being a requirement (however wrongly it was put as such) for it to be a "reasonable" search.

This decision has no bearing on "raid first and legal-up later". It merely effects the routine of following through on a warrant, giving more leeway to police.

[Yonivore]

Findlaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html)

If the police do not announce they are entering first, how is someone inside supposed to know whether they are entering illegally or not? I think most people would presume that anyone barging into your home unannounced at 3am would be doing it illegally. But would somebody be able to shoot a cop making a no-knock entry and get away with it?
That's possible but, it doesn't answer the underlying question of whether or not it makes the search or seizure unconstitutional and, therefore, a reason to suppress any evidence gained thereby.

I never said it was wise policy but that it may be warranted (no pun intended) in some cases where you believe warning will lead to the destruction of evidence or the escape of a wanted person or where you've been surveilling the building for some time and know where everyone is or have otherwise mitigated, as much as possible, the chance of a violent response.

[Nbadan]

Nothing surprises me from the Robert's court, and it's not like wing-nut talkshow hosts haven't thought about the possibility of shooting cops...


On September 15, 1994, for example, Liddy told his listeners: "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head." The theme was repeated so often that Liddy's callers began to exclaim "head shots!" to express their agreement with the host, the way Rush Limbaugh's callers say "megadittos."

After Liddy's talk of shooting federal agents received media attention, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing (London Independent, 4/24/95), some stations dropped Liddy's program. In a press conference responding to the controversy (Associated Press, 4/25/95), Liddy clarified his advice by noting that shooting a federal agent in the head might not be the ideal plan: "So you shoot twice to the body, center of mass, and if that does not work, then shoot to the groin area."

Fair.org (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2505)

[Yonivore]

Nothing surprises me from the Robert's court, and it's not like wing-nut talkshow hosts haven't thought about the possibility of shooting cops...



Fair.org (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2505)
What's that lunatic go to do with anything? Besides, The ATF announced themselves at the Branch Davidian compound.

[xrayzebra]

Findlaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html)

If the police do not announce they are entering first, how is someone inside supposed to know whether they are entering illegally or not? I think most people would presume that anyone barging into your home unannounced at 3am would be doing it illegally. But would somebody be able to shoot a cop making a no-knock entry and get away with it?

Hate to mess up your argument, but hasn't it happened that crooks have
knocked and announced "police" and broken down the door and done their
thing. So how does announcing you are police prove your are that: police.