SCOTUS says police don't need to knock

[Hababi]

So what do you think of that? I say :thumb: to it, it's very sensible. It's still working within the confines of warrants, so no big deal. And wtf is up with the liberal justices dissenting on this but being perfectly fine with the government siezing property to give to private development?

Article:

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 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.

"The Supreme Court has been gradually upgrading police search powers," CBS News correspondent Barry Bagnato says. "This is another step in that direction."

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 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 homeowner 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."

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/supremecourt/main1715081.shtml

[Otherside]

So what's stopping cops from entering without a warrant now? If they don't have to stop and provide a authentic warrant, why should they even bother with them?

[Jharaski]

What if someone was walking to the door to let them in if they saw them coming, and the door falls on them?

[Jharaski]

So what's stopping cops from entering without a warrant now? If they don't have to stop and provide a authentic warrant, why should they even bother with them?

So the evidence can be admissible.
This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 5 seconds.

[coheneran]

So, now the cops don't have to knock when they go to search a house?

I'm no expert on American law, but it looks to me like the Supreme Court is abolishing thousands of years of refined etiquette.

[Against Miik!]

So what if they, say...aren't home or something?

[coheneran]

So what if they, say...aren't home or something?

Then it doesn't matter if they knock or not does it?

[Steerpike]

I feel dubious. On the one hand, it seems superficial.

On the other, it seems to assume that if there's a search warrant on you then you are guilty instead of just suspect. A bit extreme, I admit, but...

It just seems to be that the cops can force entry into your home, even if the search turns out to show you innocent of suspicion, and there's no consequences involved. They don't give you much of a chance to even cooperate with the search.

[coheneran]

Man, etiquette is what separates humanity from the beasts that wander. Well, that and a pair of opposable thumbs.

To keep this post from being complete spam: Can people be prosecuted on evidence the cops weren't looking for? For example, if the cops got a search warrant specifically to search a person's house for child porn, didn't find any, but found a stash of illegal drugs, can they prosecute that person for possession?

PS: http://www.multiplexcomic.com/strips/048.php

[coheneran]

So, if they come in without knocking and you shoot them (not knowing that they're police), what happens to you then

That's true. I mean, if the loud sirens outside your house weren't a givaway (I guess it could be a covert operation) then a copkiller would have a great defence, especially in a state where guns are used to protect one's home. Also, I can see how someone hearing sirens outside their house, then hearing their door being knocked down, would immediately assume that some on-the-run criminal just ran into their house. If I had a gun and was inclined to use it, I'd have grabbed it straight away.

[Samuel]

Sounds fine to me. If they have a warrant, then I don't see why it would matter particularly much. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more polite to knock, but adding another layer of tape and technicality just so you don't catch someone indecent seems a bit much. I don't think that supressing evidence that could lead to a criminal conviction on the grounds that they barged in a bit rudely is warranted.

Of course, if they knock down a door or something, they'll damn well pay for it.

[coheneran]

Sounds fine to me. If they have a warrant, then I don't see why it would matter particularly much. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more polite to knock, but adding another layer of tape and technicality just so you don't catch someone indecent seems a bit much. I don't think that supressing evidence that could lead to a criminal conviction on the grounds that they barged in a bit rudely is warranted.

Of course, if they knock down a door or something, they'll damn well pay for it.

So, you're supporting the "Knock down door now, knock ON door later" idea why?

[Jharaski]

So, if they come in without knocking and you shoot them (not knowing that they're police), what happens to you then

I rather doubt that's true. I haven't read the opinions or anything, but what's the point of saying that police can enter a house with a warrant but without knocking if the evidence is then not admissable? It certainly sounds as if there's just no real incentive in police being compelled to knock.

Just saying they need a warrant to "break in"


If you shoot them, then you're screwed. You can't just shoot someone entering unless you're convinced they'll hurt you. You probably also need to tell them to freeze or something and can only shoot if they threaten you. I doubt you could get off of it. Might be charged with criminal negligence and manslaughter, at best.

[Reaganista]

you're allowed to kill kops if they're brandishing weapons on your property without identifying themselves

I think knokking will remain a part of standard prokedure in almost all prekinkts. it's just now they don't loose the evidenke if they forget.

this is almost entirely inkonsequential

So what's stopping cops from entering without a warrant now? If they don't have to stop and provide a authentic warrant, why should they even bother with them?
stupid

[Matt?]

Man, etiquette is what separates humanity from the beasts that wander. Well, that and a pair of opposable thumbs.

To keep this post from being complete spam: Can people be prosecuted on evidence the cops weren't looking for? For example, if the cops got a search warrant specifically to search a person's house for child animal photographs, didn't find any, but found a stash of illegal drugs, can they prosecute that person for possession?

PS: http://www.multiplexcomic.com/strips/048.php

i'm pretty sure they can't unless in the warrant it stated they were allowed access to it

[Reaganista]

yeah that's right

[jurialmunkey]

On a topical sidenote... Australian Laws passed earlier this year that allow Cops to enter a house with a warrant and NOT knock and then they don't even have to let you know they entered your house for 6 Months... Hows that for not needing a warrant and then getting one later and no ones any the wiser.

[Samuel]

So, you're supporting the "Knock down door now, knock ON door later" idea why?
I'm supporting not throwing out evidence obtained during a warranted search on a technicality. It's not like I'm saying police forces should just knock down doors when they feel like it.

If they are going to go into your house, rifle through your personal documents, have acess to your computer, and basically get a glimpse into your private life, it's not that big a deal if they knock first.

Besides, like Tway said, knocking will probably remain standard procedure. No cop wants to get shot at because they didn't feel like being polite.

[Danger Bird]

I don't usually do this, but um...
http://www.totalmedia.com/images/BigBrother1984_sml.gif

[Atomic Rain]

Then it doesn't matter if they knock or not does it?

:lol:

If I ever got my house raided I'd invite them in and offer them a drink


Of tea

[coheneran]

:lol:

If I ever got my house raided I'd invite them in and offer them a drink.


Of tea.

Fix'd.:p

Flatties like it when you are nice to them, they don't like having bricks thrown at them, though it is satisfying. I am thinking of combining the two; maybe throw some tea at them.

[Ghoul Hunter]

I support this completely.

[coheneran]

What, throwing tea or serving bricks?

[23-inch dude]

I think they should keep the knocking gesture 'cos it's cool, and being polite is cool, but I don't think they have to do it to obtain evidence and stuff, I mean
I hope I'm following and I'm right with this police stuff, since I'm not from the USA but it looks like it was like: -we found child porn in your home, what do you have to say about that?
- you didn't knock!

[Mr. Ron]

I don't usually do this, but um...
http://www.totalmedia.com/images/BigBrother1984_sml.gif
I wasn't aware a large black man was watching me. Thanks for the heads up.

[Atomic Rain]

What, throwing tea or serving bricks?

Both??! Either?!?

YOU decide!

[holy_roller99]

i think bush has jsut crapped on the people by doing this. it makes the assumption that all are guilty and will probably start another night of broken glass like hitler did. wat would stop him from pointing and arresting.

[The_Passenger]

i think bush has jsut crapped on the people by doing this. it makes the assumption that all are guilty and will probably start another night of broken glass like hitler did. wat would stop him from pointing and arresting.

To be fair, if the police are searching your house they think there's a chance you're guilty anyway.

[Samuel]

i think bush has jsut crapped on the people by doing this. it makes the assumption that all are guilty and will probably start another night of broken glass like hitler did. wat would stop him from pointing and arresting.
They still have to obtain a warrant. That means probable cause, and a judge's signature. All it means is that they don't have to be polite about their completely legal and warranted searches, and that now they can risk having themselves legally shot.

[holy_roller99]

hey, fake warrrants are possible

[Atomic Rain]

hey, fake warrrants are possible

so are homocidal maniacs.