Quote:
|
Originally Posted by richlevy
I agree that the thread title was misleading.
|
But it's more than "the thread title".
It's the headline on CNN, and probably anyplace else that picked it up from the AP wire. And it's *not true*. Neither is the subhead. They are propiganda, crafted with the intent of adding one more log of falsehood to an already-burning fire.
The presumption of innocence before the law is a good and noble thing as it applies to adjudication and punishment. But police simply can't behave--especially when they are executing a warrant--as if they beleive *everybody* must be innocent; they must allow for the *possibilty* that some people inside a dwelling may *not* be innocent. Obviously if everybody was presumed to be innocent at all times, no warrants, searches or seizures would ever be necessary.
The rules for search and seizure in general and knock and announce in particular are crafted with this in mind. This is also discussed in the court's opinion.
The court in this case weighed conflicting principles and decided the evidence in this case should not be excluded, and that the holding of inevitable discovery was convincing.
The Fourth Amendment that you claim is "weakened" by this case states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". After reading the court's opinion, including the facts of the case I'm simply unable to conclude this search and seizure was unreasonable.