The Police No Longer Have to Knock Before Busting Into Your House

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by KenH, Jun 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh oh. Looks like I may have erred in supporting the confirmations of Roberts and Alito - hoodwinked by the Bush administration again! This is a terrible ruling. Simply flushing more of the Bill of Rights down the toilet.

    If the police go to the wrong house and bust the door down without knocking and a policemen gets shot by a startled owner, will the owner get in trouble?



    Top court upholds no-knock police search

    By Gina Holland, Associated Press Writer ​

    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, even unsympathetic homeowners like Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and cocaine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.

    The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, said that police blunders should not result in "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for defendants.

    Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

    "The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

    - http://tinyurl.com/fl2vs
     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    I hate sloppy reporting, Ken.

    The ruling is, if police a SERVING a search warrant, they can just come in. The warrant has always allowed entry, even if peopla are not home, I believe. This ruling changes very little, if anything at all.

    Try being honest.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The knock and announce rule has always had an exception for situations where the authorities believe there is probable cause that announcing their presence would result in the destruction of evidence. This new ruling means that the police no longer have to have probable cause that evidence will be destroyed before using a warrant to bust into your home unannounced.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is great news for at least two reasons. First, because criminal acts will not be rewarded by possible improper police activity. This has long been a problem in our system, where evidence is thrown out because of how it was obtained. In our system, we should not absolve criminals because of police misconduct. If evidence is improperly obtained, go after the person who obtained it improperly. Do not let the criminal get off.

    Second, it upholds the law that search warrants are just that ... warrants to search. Knocking and announcing is not required under a search warrant, and the fact that a search warrant has been greanted means the the fourth amendment is not being violated.

    The only question we should be asking is this: Why are four justices voting against this? This was an open and shut case. It is good once again to see that the rule of law matters.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only question we should be asking is this: Why should anyone any longer trust Republican appointments of federal judges to uphold the U.S. constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights?

    This incident further drives me away from the Republican Party. Any hope that Republicans had that I would be voting for any of their candidates on any level of government this November is now totally and completely gone. I was seriously thinking about voting for the GOP candidate for Lt. Governor in Arkansas but I will not do so now. I may leave myself open to being accused of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but so be it.
     
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, you're going to vote for Halter, a friend of the Clintons? Go ahead. And join the Democrat Party while your at it. You basically are one anyway. And while you're at it, go down to Crawford and join 15 minute Sheehan and join the ACLU. You, in my opinion, have become as relevant as they are and would be in great company as you remind America why Democrats, liberals, and isolationists libertarians should never be allowed any power whatsoever in our government.

    I, for one, am exceedingly happy with the appointments to the Supreme Court, and will happily cast my vote for Jim Holt in November. He is pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, supports the war on terror, and supports doing away with NCLB. If you don't want to support a real conservative, you deserve whatever idiot you end up with.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #6 Joseph_Botwinick, Jun 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 15, 2006
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly brother, I don't know if any of it matters as much as Christians getting down and voting on their knees.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) No. I can just skip the political office races and vote on whatever constitutional amendments we have before us.

    2) I am not an isolationist. Remember, I may be the only person on this board that likes the Council on Foreign Relations. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  9. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Terrible ruling. Just more of our civil rights being taken away by Bush and his Neo-con army.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    A very interesting column from a couple of months ago about this case which states in part:

    "It's impossible to estimate just how many wrong-door raids occur. Police and prosecutors are notoriously inept at keeping track of their own mistakes, and victims of botched raids are often too terrified or fearful of retribution to come forward. But over the course of researching a paper for the Cato Institute on the subject, I've found close to 200 such cases over the last 15 years. And those are just the cases that have been reported.

    It's bad enough when the police serve a no-knock warrant at the wrong place. But this is not regular service of a warrant. No-knock raids are typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics more appropriate for the battlefield than the living room. In fact, the rise in no-knock warrants over the last 25 years neatly corresponds with the rise in the number and frequency of use of SWAT teams. Eastern Kentucky University criminologist Peter Kraska, a widely cited expert on the "militarization" of domestic police departments, estimates that the number of SWAT team deployments has jumped from 3,000 a year in the early 1980s to more than 40,000 a year by the early 2000s.

    In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that at least in principle, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home. In doing so, the court acknowledged the centuries-old "Castle Doctrine" from English common law, which states that a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders. The announcement requirement gives an innocent suspect the opportunity to persuade the police that they've targeted the wrong residence before having his home invaded. It also protects police from being targeted by innocent homeowners who have mistaken them for criminal intruders and those same homeowners from the burden of determining if the armed intruders in their home are police or criminals.

    But Wilson didn't eliminate no-knocks. In the same decision, the court recognized three broad exceptions, called "exigent circumstances," to the announcement requirement. The most pertinent of these state that if police believe announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing their presence.

    A legal no-knock raid, then, can happen in one of two ways. Police can make the case for exigent circumstances to a judge, who then issues a no-knock warrant; or police can determine at the scene that the exigent circumstances exist and make the call for a no-knock raid on the spot. In the latter case, courts will determine after the fact if the raid was legal.
    In the real world, the exigent-circumstances exceptions have been so broadly interpreted since Wilson, they've overwhelmed the rule. No-knock raids have been justified on the flimsiest of reasons, including that the suspect was a licensed, registered gun owner (NRA, take note!), or that the mere presence of indoor plumbing could be enough to trigger the "destruction of evidence" exception.

    In fact, in many places the announcement requirement is now treated more like an antiquated ritual than compliance with a suspect's constitutional rights. In 1999, for example, the assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department's preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times: "We do bang on the door and make an announcement—'It's the police'—but it kind of runs together. If you're sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down."

    That comment came in a story about a mistaken raid in which Mario Paz, an innocent man, was shot dead by a raiding SWAT team when he mistook them for criminal intruders and reached for a gun to defend himself."

    - more at www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6344
     
  11. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats just one more reason why people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, huh? So when the police mistakenly barge into your house without knocking you don't make the mistake of trying to defend yourself and get mistakenly gunned down.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's one more reason why the 4th Amendment should be obeyed by government officials.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The Bushes consider Bill Clinton to be their adopted son/brother...so what's the difference? The difference is the democratic party merged with the republican party became the unified globalist party and few noticed.

    Let's all sing together now...[FONT=Courier, Courier New]

    Well, John the Baptist after torturing a thief
    Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief
    Saying, "Tell me great hero, but please make it brief
    Is there a hole for me to get sick in?"

    The Commander-in-Chief answers him while chasing a fly
    Saying, "Death to all those who would whimper and cry"
    And dropping a bar bell he points to the sky
    Saying, "The sun's not yellow it's chicken"

    Bob Dylan.Tombstone Blues. :laugh:
    [/FONT]
     
    #13 poncho, Jun 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 15, 2006
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poncho,

    I know this is probably not going to penetrate your thick conspiracy head, but none of what you just said has anything to do with Jim Holt.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  15. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent ruling!!! :thumbs: :thumbs:
     
  16. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's so sad that someone who serves our country to preserve our freedoms is so quick to give them up to the neo-cons.
     
  17. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I, too, think it is a great ruling. No freedoms are given up.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    "There is none so blind as they that won’t see." - Jonathan Swift
     
  19. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly! Now they just kick the door down and take it.
     
  20. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is required for a police officer to obtain a search warrant?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...