Police don't have to knock, CNN article

06-15-2006, 06:34 PM

Police don't have to knock, justices say
Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case

Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 12:22 p.m. EDT (16:22 GMT)

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to knock a "preliminary misstep."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion.

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I'll tell you this... if someone did this to my house they would get shot, period. My 2nd trumps your 4th.
An unconstitutional law is not a law. Simple.

Griff · 06-15-2006, 06:47 PM

Who is up for a ride?

MaggieL · 06-15-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later....
I'll tell you this... if someone did this to my house they would get shot, period. My 2nd trumps your 4th.
An unconstitutional law is not a law. Simple.

Speaking as an armed citizen myself, I think you should consider your position before you shoot a cop who has "annouced his presence and authority" and then forcibly entered your home three to five seconds later. I think the court would take a very dim view of your justification for deadly force.

At the same time I'm mindful that a number of home invasions have occurred where the bad guys have *claimed* to be LEOs on entry.

The consitutional privacy issue here used to queer the search in the absence of exigent circumstances. Now apparently it doesn't even do that. But you'd better be prepared to show you were in reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily harm before you shoot someone.

Some interesting background here.

06-16-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Speaking as an armed citizen myself, I think you should consider your position before you shoot a cop who has "annouced his presence and authority" and then forcibly entered your home three to five seconds later. I think the court would take a very dim view of your justification for deadly force.

At the same time I'm mindful that a number of home invasions have occurred where the bad guys have *claimed* to be LEOs on entry.

The consitutional privacy issue here used to queer the search in the absence of exigent circumstances. Now apparently it doesn't even do that. But you'd better be prepared to show you were in reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily harm before you shoot someone.

Some interesting background here.

Google FL Castle Doctrine. Anyone can call out "I'm a cop", its what I would do if I were home invading.

Having to post these again...
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

MaggieL · 06-16-2006, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Google FL Castle Doctrine.

Hey , I'm one of the co-founders of the Delaware Valley chapter of the Pink Pistols. I know what the Castle Doctrine is, and we've had it here in PA a heckuva lot longer than Florida has. (I hold a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit as well as a Pennsylvania Licence to Carry Firearms, by the way). I'm a firm believer in RKBA and your right to defend your home from invasion.

I'm just reminding you that if you shoot a cop who has announced himself while executing a warrant, you'd better be able to convince a judge that you reasonably believed him to not be a cop, even if he didn't give you a lot of time to think about it before crashing the door.

Annoucing on the record in a public forum that you've already decided to shoot first certainly won't help your case.

06-16-2006, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Hey , I'm one of the co-founders of the Delaware Valley chapter of the Pink Pistols. I know what the Castle Doctrine is, and we've had it here in PA a heckuva lot longer than Florida has. (I hold a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit as well as a Pennsylvania Licence to Carry Firearms, by the way). I'm a firm beleiver in RKBA and your right to defend your home from invasion.

I'm just reminding you that if you shoot a cop who has announced himself while executing a warrant, you'd better be able to convince a judge that you reasonably believed him to not be a cop, even if he didn't give you a lot of time to think about it before crashing the door.

Annoucing on the record in a public forum that you've already decided to shoot first certainly won't help your case.

If I don't see the warrant, the cop and their badge... they are not a cop.
I am not announcing anything, I am saying that I will shoot home invaders posing as cops barging into my home. I don't know who they are until they show me who they are.
Of course this will be moot soon, our family is moving back onto decent property where they will have to stop at a gate and approach the house only with our consent. (Parents and my family are combining homes soon and making it chair friendly). This is how I grew-up, I miss having more space and cannot wait. I also miss the security of a compound.
Most police have become confused about who they work for and who's rights they are protecting. They don't see that protect and serve on their cars any longer. The rights of the citizens must come first, always.
I had a cop pull me over once and would not tell me why. He became very belligerent about getting my ID and reg. I asked him why he pulled me over, over and over again, he just kept getting angrier. I finally told him that I was going to leave if he did not tell me why he pulled me over. "Either charge me with something or I will leave".
Turns out I had a light out over my license plate, but that was not the real problem... I am white and he wanted to know why I stopped in the "neighborhood" I was in. I told him none of his damn business (I was looking for something in the car) and asked if I was going to get a ticket. He said no and get the light fixed. It was just loose.
He was just being an ass. Nothing more, he could have been polite, but did not feel I had any rights... this is common. I questioned him, politely at first. Regardless of that, he was upset by it, it should be the other way around. He should have just pulled me over and informed me of the light being out and that should have been the end of it.
If you don't see a crime, it did not happen... why I was in a certain neighborhood is none of his damn business. Profiling is a sickness we need to end.
Sad that the cops that do their jobs the way they are supposed to are today's best heroes, and those training them are teaching them to destroy what this nation was built upon.

Griff · 06-16-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Sad that the cops that do their jobs the way they are supposed to are today's best heroes, and those training them are teaching them to destroy what this nation was built upon.

If cops enter your house with no knock and you are not engaged in any unlawful activities you're going to have to assume they are not legit. That sounds like a bad deal for everybody. Someone is very likely to get hurt. It seems like aside from the terror stuff, the home invasions probably target drugs. There's yet another reason to end the drug war.

DanaC · 06-15-2006, 07:05 PM

That's really scary. Don't know if you guys have been follwing the news from over here just recently; police barged into a family home they suspected of housing terrorists and shot a young man in the chest...yep, shot him in the chest. Never mind knocking and waiting, they just broke through their door in the morning whilst the family were still asleep and when one of the men came running down the stairs in his pyjamas ...shot him in the chest...did i mention they shot him in the chest?

What did they do after they shot him in the chest? Well, one of them grabbed him by the feet and dragged him down the stairs, his head banging on each step on the way down and then dropped him ( yes dropped him) onto the floor.

Then they lied about it to the press and claimed he was a terrorist who resisted....He turned out to be (unsurprisingly given their recent form) innocent. Well...innocent of the crime, but unfortunately guilty of being of Pakistani descent.

MaggieL · 06-15-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

That's really scary...

Maybe.

I'm going to the UK for a few days in July, and I'll be completely disarmed the entire time. Pardon me, but I find that a bit scarier than the fact that LEOs might get to keep the evidence they find upon entering my house with a warrant in hand even though they didn't wait long enough after knocking.

MaggieL · 06-15-2006, 07:16 PM

I should add that under the law in my state, the law of justification does state

Quote:

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:

1. to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts...

But again, this turn on the entry being unlawful. An LEO entering with a warrant isn't unlawful.

DanaC · 06-15-2006, 07:18 PM

What if he shoots you in the chest?

MaggieL · 06-15-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

What if he shoots you in the chest?

What if who shoots whom in the chest?

DanaC · 06-15-2006, 07:21 PM

What's really depressing about this, for me, is that whilst the rest of us assume America will be heavy handed in other peoples' countries, we also assume she will safeguard her own peoples' liberties more strongly.

(unless of course you're darkskinned in which case we assume your police will be as racist as ours and shoot you in the chest)

DanaC · 06-15-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

What if who shoots whom in the chest?

What if the LEO shoots the householder in the chest?

MaggieL · 06-15-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

What if the LEO shoots the householder in the chest?

Sounds like murder to me. I'd want to hear the cops side of it, of course.

(after checking) Looks like their side of it is "we're sorry". It's evidently not murder mostly because the person shot didn't die.

You couldn't pay me enough to be a cop in the UK...everybody is completely disarmed but the criminals and some of the cops.

06-15-2006, 06:34 PM	#1
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Police don't have to knock, CNN article Police don't have to knock, justices say Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 12:22 p.m. EDT (16:22 GMT) Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to knock a "preliminary misstep." WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices. The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. "Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote. But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves. The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998. O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion. Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him. Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others. In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members. Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. I'll tell you this... if someone did this to my house they would get shot, period. My 2nd trumps your 4th. An unconstitutional law is not a law. Simple. Last edited by rkzenrage; 06-15-2006 at 06:37 PM.

06-15-2006, 06:47 PM	#2
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Who is up for a ride? __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

06-15-2006, 07:05 PM	#8
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	That's really scary. Don't know if you guys have been follwing the news from over here just recently; police barged into a family home they suspected of housing terrorists and shot a young man in the chest...yep, shot him in the chest. Never mind knocking and waiting, they just broke through their door in the morning whilst the family were still asleep and when one of the men came running down the stairs in his pyjamas ...shot him in the chest...did i mention they shot him in the chest? What did they do after they shot him in the chest? Well, one of them grabbed him by the feet and dragged him down the stairs, his head banging on each step on the way down and then dropped him ( yes dropped him) onto the floor. Then they lied about it to the press and claimed he was a terrorist who resisted....He turned out to be (unsurprisingly given their recent form) innocent. Well...innocent of the crime, but unfortunately guilty of being of Pakistani descent.

06-15-2006, 07:18 PM	#11
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	What if he shoots you in the chest?

06-15-2006, 07:21 PM	#13
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	What's really depressing about this, for me, is that whilst the rest of us assume America will be heavy handed in other peoples' countries, we also assume she will safeguard her own peoples' liberties more strongly. (unless of course you're darkskinned in which case we assume your police will be as racist as ours and shoot you in the chest)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)