Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
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.
|
The difference is what you perceive from the results of THIS case. The court, meanwhile, must define conditions for ALL cases just like this. All cases where a conclusion is not yet known. Where occupants are neither guilty nor innocent. Only some are suspect and not everyone inside is known.
Scalia's decision says that in this case, facts after the event justify how the raid was conducted. The court says these were dangerous criminals - a threat to all civilians. Fine if they were. That means they had so much drugs that they could not possibly destroy evidence.
If by knocking, occupants would have time to destroy evidence, then so little material existed as to not make these people 'dangerous criminals'. If so little material existed that these people could destroy the evidence in 5 seconds, then they were pathetic addicts who really needed treatment - not felony convictions. If these people were truly that guilty of a felony, then 5 seconds could never destroy the evidence.
Which then asks what was this evidence, so massive, as to make them 'dangerous criminals'?