See if they voted for Bush, Clancy
Top Court Upholds No-Knock Police Search — We’ve already seen property rights under attack by these so-called conservatives. Now we have re-implemented George III no-knock rules. Next step: watch these guys eliminate warrants altogether. You watch. Of course all this is made easier by an unsympathetic creepy straw man fighting this case. That’s how it works.
The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court’s new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.
The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.
It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners,
It is time we should be allowed to see how the supreme court works, at least part of it. Americans should be allowed to see cases being argued on television.
For the record the justices that voted in the majority for this case, voted in the minority in the property eminent domain case you refer to. You can’t just pidgeonhole this as a “conservative” thing.
Too bad you appear only able to use petty logical extensions which only lead to absurd social predictions on this issue. You don’t seem to be able to handle an honest discussion of the complexities that arise when you need to wisely balance the inherent rights borne by different sections of the constitution. That is the role of the Supreme Court and they do a remarkable job in spite of the small minded petty politics that surrounds them.
In all honesty, I didn’t even think they had to knock first as it was. I always thought if they had a search warrant approved by a judge which determines probably cause etc etc, they could just barge in and search. I mean, when you think about it it could be actually safer for everyone involved if they did this in a coordinated way so that there is minimal risk to the police AND the people in the house. No warning to grab a gun, or other weapon to “show those coppers you mean business”. Remember, this isn’t bashing in the door without a search warrant. It seems everything is still the same, they just don’t have to knock and let’s face it….it’s just a courtesy to do that. They don’t have to be courteous.
Of course, it’s all predicated on the belief that police act in a professional and level-headed manner…which is where this all goes to fiasco-land if they don’t.
Only this place could put a liberal spin on the most beneign of rulings. The police still have to have a search warrant, signed by a judge, the only difference is, now the scumbags don’t have time to grab weapons, or flush evidence. It simply says the police don’t have to yell search warrant before they know in your door. Stop trying to make everything so sinister.
Seems to me that police should knock and allow enough time for the occupants to enter. I know of MANY, MANY cases where due to some administrative error the wrong house address was affixed to the warrant, and/or it was an OLD address. I’m sure you’d just LOVE to have the door of your home bashed in, everyone terrorized to hear “oops, our mistake, sorry.”
The whole reason that the “knock and announce” is in place, also, is that police found it safer. Even ordinary citizens (trigger happy ones) can freak out when someone just bashes down the door….especially at night. And, for court, “escaping out the rear window and apprehended in the yard” is pretty damming to convince the jury of guilt.
I think the justices made a bad choice, here. I think they looked at this ONE case, instead of looking at the entire subject.
You know what, they still need a warant. You know what the purpose is , to keep a drug dealer from flushin his coke down the toilet. They do this so the child molester can’t jump out the back door, or shoot himself, or whatever.
And you know what John, if you do not like this country and the rules of it, you can move. This country is going to hell thanks to people like the ACLU; the way things are going we are all going to be speaking Spanish and no one will be responsible for their crimes.
I’m for this new system of no knocking, wiretaps are fine, and I think English should be the only language spoken in the country. Oh yea, and they are ILLEGAL ALIENS not undocumented workers
Isn’t there anyone here from the conservative side of the spectrum who knows a damned thing about law? I don’t mean the Redneck Right; but, folks who pretend to know something about police matters.
There have always been two classes of search warrants. A “normal” search warrant and a “break and search” warrant. If the police suspected there was probably cause of evidence being disposed of — or danger to the public and law officers — all they had to do was apply for a break-and-search warrant.
The problem confronting them, like the problems flabbergasting the thugs in power in Washington, is that it required substantial evidence to convince a judge to issue such a warrant.
What this ruling allows is diminishing the responsibility of judges, prosecutors and especially the police in exactly the kind of instances meetsy describes. As much as Konservatives [as opposed to Conservatives] rail about every kind of responsibility, what they really want is to have this nation run as close to the model of a fascist state as possible — without having to admit it.
They want the power to break into anyone’s home to see what they might find — and build a case later — just as they already are doing with telecommunications.
“See if they voted for Bush, Clancy” — did Tom Clancy run for office???
More seriously, Radley Balko has a good description of the real problems this decision poses (posted on a conservative website no less)
[editor — please use tinyurl]
Bryan: I don’t know about John, but you know what? I think I’ll take your advice and move. Just about 12 months from now, actually. I just can’t bring myself to go through another deceitful, divisive, odious presidential election in this country. And it saddens me greatly to say it.
Here’s the link that concerns the real problems with this S.Ct. opinion (this time as a tiny url)–http://tinyurl.com/h7jnv
Bryan, the real problem is that the exclusionary rule is a bad rule–it only helps people who are guilty and it doesn’t protect the innocent from police overstretching. What happens if the police raid my house without a search warrant and they find nothing? What is my remedy? Nothing. The only things that get excluded at court is incriminating evidence. That doesn’t make a ton of sense.
Proponents of the exclusionary rule argue that it provides the police with incentive to keep the law–the fruit of the bad acts can’t be used against someone. But the exclusionary rule doesn’t help the innocent people. We need a new rule that protects the innocent. We need a rule that punishes the police for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of innocent people–then the police would have to respect our right more. The problem with this opinion is that it doesn’t help innocent people.
The Supremes did not allow surprise searches. They said evidence siezed in such a search could be used in Court – that barring evidence was too extreme a reaction if a policeman forgot to knock. Seems that if someone had killed my son and was on trial, I’d be upset if the court would not enter into evidence the gun that did it because the cop forgot to knock, or, busted in because the bad guy was on his way out the back door.
I’m for laws that protect us and remind our public servants that we are the ones being served and that government workers need to follow the laws that protect us. If they don’t, we should be able to sue them (as the court allowed in this case. But, I do think a bad guy ought to get a fair trail and that evidence siezed with his/her capture should be fair game.
“The Supremes did not allow surprise searches. They said evidence siezed in such a search could be used in Court”
Exactly how are they different?
“They want the power to break into anyone’s home to see what they might find — and build a case later — just as they already are doing with telecommunications.”
Moss, stop trying to make this into something its not. Your quote above is the not the intent on this ruling. You must distrust the police and government, but this is not what this ruling is about.
“We need a rule that punishes the police for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of innocent people–then the police would have to respect our right more.”
I live in a state where the local supreme court essentially got rid of the exclusionary rule. The circuit court judge I work for decided there must be some punishment for when the police violate the Constitution, so he decided that the Defendant, through his attorney, could tell the jury that the police violated his Constitutional rights during the search of his apartment. Well, the Court of Appeals didn’t think that was a good remedy either and quickly overturned the decision.
So, the police can continue to violate the Constitution with impunity. Exactly what’s the point of having a constitution that can be violated with impunity?
Anyone who is against the exclusionary rule care to give some practical alternatives? Firing the police wouldn’t work with the unions protecting them. And even if they did get fired, they’d only go somewhere else and work. Sanctioning them monetarily wouldn’t work because we’d just end up paying for it through higher taxes. The police don’t work for free.
But the real problem with those types of “sanctions” is that the government is still allowed to violate the Constitution. It’s not a perfect rule, but I still think the exclusionary rule is the best idea yet. If the state is not allowed to do something, it should never benefit from doing that something. Ever!
12. “the real problem is that the exclusionary rule is a bad rule–it only helps people who are guilty and it doesn’t protect the innocent from police overstretching. ”
the whole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. If they know that they wont be allowed to use any evidence that they seize, presumably they will abide by the Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. detering police misconduct presumably protects both the innocent and guilty. and if you are innocent (or guilty for that matter) you can sue the cops for violating your constitutional rights and possibly win some small sum of money. BUT since that is paid out of the governmental coffers, rather than from the cops themselves, it is not an adequate deterrent.
what happens in fact is that cops also tend to become more prolific liars. if you read trial transcripts, a surprising number of people just throw down baggies containing drugs in full view of approaching police … at least according to the testimony of the arresting officers.
The “knock and announce” rule goes back to common law. I’m rather amazed that so many people here don’t seem to understand that. The reason this gutting of the exclusionary rule matters is that the rule was one of the only things we had in place to help keep police power in check.
Someone above said they had no remedy if the police broke in unannounced and found nothing. That’s clearly incorrect. The remedy in that case is civil.
The comments telling people “if you don’t like it, you can leave” are the comments of the ignorant. Sorry people, but America was founded on dissent. It was the “if you don’t like it, you can leave” types who were the Tories on the side of the King prior to the revolution.
I’m not at all sure how mourning the gutting of the Bill of Rights under this court and this administration is at all “liberal”. When I see people resort to that sort of nonsense, it tells me they have no argument at all. For them it all boils down to “I don’t like it, so it must be liberal.”
Our founders sought to put restrictions on the government. Now days it seems as if the “conservative” argument which until just a few short years ago was “don’t trust the government” has shifted 180 degress to “the government can do no wrong.” And people saying things like “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear” are doing nothing if not echoing Stalin and the failed communist police states.
Individual liberty and privacy are under deadly attack, bit by bit.
“The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.” – Edmund Burke
The Thought They Were Free
“The remedy in that case is civil.”
But what are the damages? If the damages are monetary, then you are saying that the government has the right to violate the Constitution anytime it is willing to hand over our tax dollars. Does that really make sense?
I wonder what will happen when the Police break into a home with a warrant without knocking and get blown away by a terrified home owner (right or wrong home). In some places it is legal and justified to shoot and kill an intruder inside your residence.
Around 84 – 86 in San Antonio Texas, a policeman broke into a home to burglarize it and the owner was home and killed him inside the residence. A hot dog was found in the back pocket of the policeman which served as proof that he was a burglar. The home owner was not charged for the killing.
Yeah San Antonio had a lot of cooked cops around that time, like the three who were stealing and dealing drugs. The arrest order went out over the normal Police band and two of the three abandoned their cars and fled before they could be arrested.
20. someone kicks in your door without announcing they are the police and, you are right, some cops are going to get a face full of buckshot.
fact of the matter is that cops will generally still “announce their office” as they are kicking in the door because they know that. just now there is no legal penalty for them not doing so
“I wonder what will happen when the Police break into a home with a warrant without knocking and get blown away by a terrified home owner…”
Or when armed criminals storm a house dressed as cops so as not to be blown away by the homeowner!
I wonder what will happen when the Police break into a home with a warrant without knocking and get blown away by a terrified home owner
In Mississippi when that happens, the person who shot the police goes to death row.
Knock, knock, Bang, bang
I am afraid to comment, my comment will get logged and recorded at the NSA.
Neal Saferstien
John, you should really try reading court decisions instead of posting the headlines. You seem to get every single case wrong. Like the previous poster said, they did not say no-knock searches were OK. They specifically said they were not OK. In their decision, they said the evidence siezed could still be used in court. That does open the possibility of ‘eliminating warrants’ in a similar fashion.
“they did not say no-knock searches were OK. They specifically said they were not OK. In their decision, they said the evidence siezed could still be used in court.”
So, in other words, the court said that the government can commit acts that violate the Constitution. Once again, how is that wording different.
Let’s analogize. It’s illegal for the government to violate the Constitution and for me to rob banks. The court held that even if the government violates the Constitution, it still gets to benefit from that violation.
But if I rob a bank and am caught, do I get to keep the money? Nope, I have to give it back. I’m not entirely sure why the government should get away with violating the law while common criminals can’t. Well, governments aren’t exactly filled with “common” criminals, are they?
think where this goes….
Given that the NSA can legally tap phones and fill in the paperwork within 48 hours – using the same logic: cops barge in, find bad things, submit search warrant for same bad things within 48 hours.
Who among us does not have something, even an unpaid parking ticket, an MP3 we got from a friend, or bare-ass kiddie porn of our own kids running around in diapers.
The problem is: “Bad Things are in the eye of the beholder” – especially in retrospect.