I read the fucking decision, already.
Are you telling me that in this ruling, by seriously weakening the "exclusionary rule" they didn't remove the primary impediment to obeying the "knock and announce rule? You aren't naive enough to buy that, are you?
The Supremes (SCALIA) said "As far as we know, civil liability is an effective deterrent here, as we have assumed it is in other contexts."
Well, we all know what "assume" means.
They also say it's easy to get a lawyer to sue the cops for violations of your civil rights.
Yeah, if they beat you up enough for them to be sued for millions.
Oh, and they say the police now have training materials available to teach them what they're supposed to do and the police are more professional now.
That makes me believe the Supremes don't have much contact with the police, specifically below the federal and state level.
More professional? If that's what you call being more like the Marine Corps, i.e. better training in arms and tactical operations, not in attitude though.
I've seen the aftermath of local police home searches, three time in the last five years. The unnecessary destruction was incredible.
The videos I've seen of Marines searching Iraqi homes, show the Iraqis are better off.
I know being a cop is a tough, thankless, dangerous job. I wouldn't take it for any amount of money. But to "assume" these local Blue Knights, are above reproach is ludicrous.
To effectively kill the biggest deterrent to police misbehavior on the "knock and announce" law, seriously weakens my rights and freedom.
I'm smart enough to know that just because I'm not a drug dealer doesn't mean I don't have to worry about the cops kicking my door in.
