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?

[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.

[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 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.