Police don't have to knock, CNN article

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

But if folks are intent on screaming that this is Yet Another Sign Of The Impending Fascist Apocalypse, far be it from me to spoil their fun by continuing to try to draw attention to the facts.

I agree that the thread title was misleading.

However, I do have an issue with watering down the fourth amendment. Just remember that technically, the person into whose house the police are storming is innocent. In cases in the past this has been proven to be true, sometimes with fatal results.

During raids, police are concerned with their own safety, sometimes more than for that of the individuals they are arresting. Unfortunately, innocent people are more at risk than criminals. A true criminal being raided can choose to fight, flee, or surrender. He or she probably has enough experience and the knowledge of his or her guilt to at least expect the possiblity of a raid and therefore has the time to prepare. Also, through actual experience or by those of associates, has the knowledge to prepare a response.

An innocent person has no such preparation. If we are occupied at some task in our houses, watching TV, reading a paper, etc, how many of us would be able to process a sudden knock at the door and a muffled word in 3 to 5 seconds? At night, how many would recognize the intruders as police? Of the Cellar users with guns, how many might have already drawn a weapon by the time the police cleared the door?

Turning police into home invaders might catch more criminals, but it also puts the public at risk.

[MaggieL]

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.

[Griff]

Can we expect you to begin supporting the Bill of Rights again when the Democrats take over or is this a permanent position?

[tw]

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'?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

Can we expect you to begin supporting the Bill of Rights again when the Democrats take over or is this a permanent position?

That's two unwarranted assumptions at once. Try to limit it to just one per sentence.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

If by knocking, occupants would have time to destroy evidence...

One more time: the cops *did* knock. Do try to ignore the false headline and subhead...I know it's hard.

Originally Posted by tw

Which then asks what was this evidence, so massive, as to make them 'dangerous criminals'?

Given the loaded, concealed, easily available and illegally-posessed firearm, I'd say they were plenty dangerous to cops executing a warrant. Just think: had these defendants had adopted rkzenrage's policy re: home invasions? Most home invasions I know of with the invaders pretending to be cops have been drug thefts.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

One more time: the cops *did* knock. Do try to ignore the false headline and subhead...I know it's hard.
Given the loaded, concealed, easily available and illegally-posessed firearm, I'd say they were plenty dangerous to cops executing a warrant. Just think: had these defendants had adopted rkzenrage's policy re: home invasions? Most home invasions I know of with the invaders pretending to be cops have been drug thefts.

And if they raid the wrong address? Is one cry of 'police' and 3-5 seconds really reasonable?


From your link.

The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant

So if the suspect cannot make it to the door in 3-5 seconds to let the cops in, he has refused admittance?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Given the loaded, concealed, easily available and illegally-posessed firearm, I'd say they were plenty dangerous to cops executing a warrant.

Ever see cops execute a warrant on a dangerous suspect? The time between the shouting of "POLICE!" and the battering ram causing the door to explode inwards is about a millisecond, perhaps with a stingball tossed for good measure.

I fail to see how the requirement of police annoucing themselves poses a threat when tactics like that are used regularly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No, the Supremes are *interpreting* the law..that being their job. That's how this issue became "law" in the first place; it is in fact based on precedent itself based on a common law principle.

And the fourth amendment to the Constitution which was written specifically to prevent this shit.

There's no written law that actually says police must knock and announce.

See above. It's been in force for over two hundred years and reinforced by the Supremes numerous times between 1917 and 1997, plus state laws in 34 states & DC, so don't tell me it was not the law of the land.

And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO HUDSON VS MICHIGAN? If they did "knock and announce" why did it get all the way to the Supremes? Somebody along the way, thought not, including the arresting officers:

(Officer)Good testified at an evidentiary hearing that the officers didn’t knock on the front door and waited three to five seconds after announcing themselves as the police before they entered. The prosecutor in the case acknowledged that three to five seconds wasn’t a reasonable warning for Hudson to answer the door, and conceded the officers violated the knock and announce requirement.

I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.

I'm quite impressed by the ability of folks to project their beliefs onto this with utter disregard for the facts of the case, the law and the decision.

I'm impressed by your attempt to discuss Hudson vs Michigan, change the facts and totally disregard the orders of magnitude more important change in everyones rights.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.

xoB, perhaps this can be prevented if you give your local law enforcement agency a set of keys to your house along with a limited power of attorney authorizing them to use said keys should they ever obtain a search warrant!

@ those who were discussing the ramifications of the human "fight or flight" response to potentially startling situations like the aforementioned: I hold this truth to be self evident that regardless of the legalities of a situation in which I perceive an immediate threat to my life, IT'S BETTER TO BE TRIED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX. I will adjust my real time reaction accordingly. I have no intrinsic fear of law enforcement officers. They would really have to fail in their overall performance before they could provoke me; but, it could happen. If it did, they would simply have a bad day (a good day being any day they make it home at the end of their shift).

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO HUDSON VS MICHIGAN?

Because that's the case that was decided and the facts it was decided on.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If they did "knock and announce" why did it get all the way to the Supremes? Somebody along the way, thought not, including the arresting officers:

Because the guys with the dope and the gun thought they should get off because the cops opened an unlocked door only three to five seconds after they knocked on it and announced themselves.

I infer that you agree with them. I agree with the Supremes. Did you read the decision? Or just the hysterical AP wire copy?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.I'm impressed by your attempt to discuss Hudson vs Michigan, change the facts and totally disregard the orders of magnitude more important change in everyones rights.

You can discuss anything you want. But what you just said isn't what happened in this decision. The excusionary rule wasn't absolute even before this case. The justices made a judgement applying all the rules to the facts of the case; that's their job. You claim your rights have been "changed by orders of magnitude". I don't think your rights have changed at all.

What might possibly actually change by orders of magnitude is your understanding of the law...but only if you also read and understand the descision itself instead of only the bleating of a liberal press intent on raising a panic over the fact that the composition of the Supremes is more conservatve than it used to be.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Despite your "liberal press" clichés what the Supremes have said, is there is no penalty for ignoring the
"knock and announce" law (yes law), that has been an essential part of the very fabric of our rights and freedom.
Not a slippery slope but a precipice, to nail one stinking drug dealer.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

They would really have to fail in their overall performance before they could provoke me; but, it could happen. If it did, they would simply have a bad day (a good day being any day they make it home at the end of their shift).

Well, in their process, giving the homeowner as little notice as possible is a peformance goal. This works out well unless they have the wrong house.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Despite your "liberal press" clichés what the Supremes have said, is there is no penalty for ignoring the
"knock and announce" law

Obviously I can't make you read the decision, you've already made up your mind as to what it says. And you're wrong.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.