TallPine
Member
No comment
Biker said:My God, I'm still shaking my head over the Nafta Highway thing and now this?
"The government of a nation may be usurped by the forcible intrusion of an individual into the throne. But to conquer its will so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition." --Thomas Jefferson to ----, 1825. ME 16:127
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.
Is anyone really suprised by this? At first "no-knocks" were for emergencies and dangerous criminals. Then it was because evidence could be destroyed. Then it was for officer safety. Now, they don't even have to go through the motions of knocking and announcing their presence, the Polizei can just come right in and search, heck they don't even have to go through the hassle of getting a warrant, just make up some excuses about funny smells or screams inside.
I haven't read the decision yet, just the news reports so my take may be wrong. But from everything I have seen so far, the ruling doesn't eliminate the requirement to announce your presense. It just means that the officers didn't err enough by failing to knock, but still announcing their presense and waiting to enter that the seized evidence shouldn't be suppressed.
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.
The only sense in which this can be viewed as "conservative" is if they justified it by asserting that it relates to a police matter, and police matters are State matters, according to our Constitution. They would further assert that the Fourth Amendment only restrains the actions of the Federal Government. That's not what they argued, however. What they argued was, essentially, that to follow the Constitution would be too grave an inconvenience for the police officers and the criminal justice system, so lets just forget about it.How the hell is this conservative?
I hate to throw a wet blanket on the smoldering embers of the indignation of the we're turning into a police state crowd.....but would one of you explain to me what the practical difference is between knocking on the door while you loudly announce POLICE WITH A SEARCH WARRANT and just loudly announcing POLICE WITH A SEARCH WARRANT and waiting a few seconds and then entering the residence? Having served a few warrants I can tell you that the entry team is making enough noise when they announce their presence that it's doubtful the occupants could hear anyone knocking over the din of a dozen of so officers announcing their presence.
In practical terms I don't see how this ruling changes anything about a knock and announce entry. The knock and announce happens at the same time. The amout of time that is waited before entry was the same.
A true no knock warrant service is when you don't announce your presense at all but just enter the residence. True no knock warrants are very hard to get and contrary to the popular beliefs of members of internet gun forums are very rare.
Jeff
A 1995 SCOTUS ruling made no-knock warrants illegal except in certain circumstances.f the news reports are correct, what has this ruling changed? Can you answer my question about what pratical difference it means? I'd really like to know where everyone is coming from. All the moaning and wailing seems like a kneejerk panic reaction.
Because “conservatives” support “law and order,” don’t you know?
Well, there's no arguing with thatThe court doesn't exist to always defend personal liberty.
This seems like a first step on a rather slippery slope.[/QUOYE]
This is just another step on a slope we've been slipping on for decades.
Gee, I thought suppressing evidence for such mis-steps wasscotus: suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty
the penalty intended to prevent such mis-steps in the first place.
What discipline is left to keep Joe Friday (Dragnet) from morphing
into Vic Macky (The Shield)?
Yes, the actual court decisions are often quite a bit moreI haven't read the decision yet, just the news reports
nuanced than the news reports and need to be decoded by
legal experts and not newspaper reporters.
I am still apprehensive but not willing to jump into the
bumker just yet.