Supreme Court backs no-knock raids...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Manedwolf

member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,693
Location
New Hampshire
Lovely. Cops HAVE busted into the wrong house on occasion. So what happens if they smash into yours, you take them for home invaders and open fire? :uhoh:


Supreme Court Backs Police in Emergencies

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press WriterMon May 22, 10:33 AM ET

The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police can enter homes in emergencies without knocking or announcing their presence.

Justices said four Brigham City, Utah, police officers were justified in entering a home after peeking through a window and seeing a fight between a teenager and adults.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence.

The decision overturned a ruling by Utah's Supreme Court that said a trial judge was correct to throw out charges stemming from the police search. The trial judge had ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.

(And why were they peeking through a window? And don't people sometimes get into an impromptu wrestling match? Better buy thick curtains?)
 
Last edited:
Manedwolf: Your title is erroneous. The decision has nothing to do with entry by police with a warrant. Never mind... ;)

I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, cops can enter a residence in pursuit of a fleeing suspect, if they observe or believe there is an immediate threat to life and limb of the occupants IIRC. However when making such entry, its best that they at least announce their presence and identity as police while doing so.
 
Why don't you read the article before you post an inflammitory title that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

The decision did not address any kind of warrant. It only covered the state's right to enter a dwelling in an emergency, such as when there is a fight obviously going on inside.

Here's how this works. You get into a loud fight with someone in your home. Your neighbor hears the disturbance and calls the police. The police, not wanting to walk into a totally unknown situation, listen at the door and look in the windows before announcing their presense. They observed a fight in progress and entered the house. The USSC voted unanimously that this was constitutional.

Say you were having a heart attack and dialed 911. You lost consciousness before you completed the call. The officers responded, looked in the window and saw you laying on the floor with the phone next to you. Should they get a warrant before they enter the house to render aid? I can see how well that would work. You paramedics just wait right here, as soon as we track down a judge and get a warrant signed, we'll let you in to treat the victim :rolleyes: .

It's never been a fourth amendement issue in an emergency until the Utah Court made it one. And the USSC unanimously put things back the way they've always been.

There is nothing in this case about a no knock warrant.

Jeff
 
Right on, Jeff.

A better title might be, "Supreme Court affirms police authority to enter without a warrant to deal with an obvious and immediate emergency." But that's not so catchy.
 
Odd that this alleged fight constituted enough of an emergency to discard someone’s 4th amendment rights. But somehow wasn’t sufficiently violent to make an Assault/Battery arrest.
 
I thought this was a good decision. However I hope it is not abused like the RICO statues or the current "anti-Terror" laws we currently have.
 
I think reading the actual decision makes the it much more clear.

This case arises out of a melee that occurred in a Brig-ham City, Utah, home in the early morning hours of July 23, 2000. At about 3 a.m., four police officers responded to a call regarding a loud party at a residence. Upon arrivingat the house, they heard shouting from inside, and proceeded down the driveway to investigate. There, theyobserved two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. They entered the backyard, and saw—through a screen door and windows—an altercation taking place in the kitchen of the home. According to the testimony of one ofthe officers, four adults were attempting, with some difficulty, to restrain a juvenile. The juvenile eventually “broke free, swung a fist and struck one of the adults inthe face.” 2005 UT 13, ¶2, 122 P. 3d 506, 508. The officer testified that he observed the victim of the blow spittingblood into a nearby sink. App. 40. The other adults continued to try to restrain the juvenile, pressing him upagainst a refrigerator with such force that the refrigerator began moving across the floor. At this point, an officeropened the screen door and announced the officers’ presence. Amid the tumult, nobody noticed. The officer entered the kitchen and again cried out, and as the occupants slowly became aware that the police were on thescene, the altercation ceased.
The officers subsequently arrested respondents and charged them with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication.

Read it all here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-502.pdf
 
Original poster:

Youre misconstruing the facts of the case amigo. This wasnt a no-knock dynamic entry. That case is Michgan v Hudson, which I beleive was recently reargued (meaning Alito will be the deciding vote).

In this case, the police responded to a complaint about a loud party at 3am. They went around back, saw kids drinking booze. Also heard sounds of a fight. Peeked in back window and saw a fistfight including drawing of blood. Went to the door, announced themselves and were ignored. Entered and announced again in the kitchen, at which point people noticed them. Arrested/summonses/etc.

The police were confronted with public evidence of crimes (drinking minors) and an in-progress battery that was audible from outside the house. It isnt like they just went up to a random house and walked in to search for crimes.

Read Steven's concurrence. As he observes, Utah has much tighter warrantless saerch controls on the police than the 4th amendment requires and this could possibly be grounds for deciding the case in favor of the defendents. IMO he rightly questions why this case was granted certiorari when the case probably turns on state constitutional grounds anyway (and thus likely reached the correct result despite a flawed argument on the part of defendants).
 
You might be very suprised that many fire fighting departements also routinely do no knock raids on homes just because they see some smoke coming out :eek:
 
I think it was our very own Lawdog that posted once and said police officers are required by law to intervene if they personally witness a felony happening? Not too sure, maybe a LEO could shed some light on that?
 
I think it was our very own Lawdog that posted once and said police officers are required by law to intervene if they personally witness a felony happening? Not too sure, maybe a LEO could shed some light on that?

I'm not a LEO but I would be shocked if they(LEOs) could observe a fight in progress and allow it to continue.

There was a case about 10 years ago in the city I live in where a current and former boyfriend were having a dispute about the woman. Well the police were called when a shouting match began. At somepoint a single punch was thrown and hit the intended target in the face. The recipient of the punch staggered, fell and the back of his head hit the granite curb. He died as a result of head trauma. A single punch, and the 2 participants were similar in terms of size and weight. And this isn't an isolated incident. But it does demonstrate that any punch can be fatal. I believe the punch thrower was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Considering that, I don't see how the police could risk it happening in front of them when they could have very easily prevented it by breaking up the fight. I would think they would even be liable if they stood by and allowed a fight to continue and serious injury or death resulted.
 
I am probably as anti-no knock entries (and even so-called "knock and delay" entries where the delay is a whopping 15 or 20 seconds from knock to smashing the door in) as anyone on this forum, but I see nothing wrong with this decision. This wasn't a warrant service, it wasn't a raid. The officers were responding to a call, and they SAW a fight in progress. Entering the house to break up the fight does not, IMHO, equate to "RAID!"

What were the officers supposed to do, stand outside and take bets?
 
Bad, misleading title.

Visible criminal activity = probably cause.

If the cops can see that I'm getting the tar beat out of me, I dang well want them to burst in and intervene.
 
This decision of the SCOTUS is a very bad decision. In brief, here is what I wrote about this case over at TFL:

At the original trial, the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained because the police made a warrantless entry. Motion was granted. Without evidence, the bulk of the charges were dismissed.

The Brigham City prosecuter appealed that decision.

At the appeals, that court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

The prosecuter appealed to the Utah Supreme Court. They upheld the appeals court decision, again, affirming the trial court.

At this point, the only appeal left would be to the Supreme Court of the U.S... And so the city appealed!

This is where it gets weird. The Utah Supreme Court based its decision upon Utah Law, which gives greater protection in its Art. I sec. 14 than does the US BOR 4th amendment... Actually, the Utah Art. I sec. 14 is an almost word for word quote of the BOR 4th amendment, just that Utah has established case law that holds for greater privacy protections.

What the SCOTUS should have done was to deny Cert, thereby letting state law be state law. Instead, the SCOTUS granted cert and heard the case.

Now the next twist. In its decision, the SCOTUS ignored Utah precedent, thereby ignoring Utah Law and held that the US BOR 4th amendment was not violated and therefore overturned the highest State Court based upon supremacy of Federal Law. In doing this, the SCOTUS also ignored the "objectively reasonable belief" standard and redefined what that standard means. As it now stands, only a reasonable belief is necessary to enter a private place without a warrant. That is a much lower standard than an objectively reasonable belief.

Two things have happened with this case.

1. Exigent circumstances, by which the police, rescue or firefighters may now use to enter a dwelling or other private domain (the "emergency aid doctrine" addressed by the Utah courts), has just been set lower than ever before. Whatever "objectively reasonable belief" may have meant before Monday, the bar has just been lowered. Such a belief no longer needs to be objective, merely reasonable. The 4th amendment protects almost nothing at this point, as almost any "belief" may be held as reasonable.

2. More importantly, the Court has just reversed a long standing and heretofore settled point of law that plainly goes to whichever (state or fed) protections are the greater. This precedent says that in virtually any case where the protections of a state constitution may be greater than the protections afforded by the US Constitution, it is the US Constitution that is controlling. It makes the 14th amendment an absolute barrier, turns federalism on its head, and renders the 10th amendment meaningless.

The separate concurrance by Stevens points all of this out and is in reality a scathing rebuke to the rest of the Court.
 
Perspective, Please

This wasn't a no-knock "raid". They saw the violence and went in. A "Raid" is when they have a warrant and go in unannounced to catch a criminal(s) who might run, or shoot back, or flush the evidence.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this nation; founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
 
woodcdi, I gave a perspective. Unlike the original poster, I have not called it a raid.

It was a warrantless entry based upon exigent circumstances, that the Utah courts said didn't exist.
 
that isn't a no knock, that is probable cause to enter a home.

Something that needs serious police discretion when being used, but it isn't a no knock.

No knock implies a swat team forming up outside of a house with a warrant and busting in the door without any warning.
 
Al Norris

Case law is not THE law and can be, and often is, ignored.

The US Constitution(which includes the 4th Amendment) is the supreme law of the land and in no instance does state laws or constitutions carry more weight than the US Constitution or US law. Precedent is no more compelling than "case law". The two are the same. Neither one is THE law.

The 14th and 10th Amendments are still intact, as is the 4th.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
 
So Woody, what you are saying is that a state supreme court that determines it's state constitutional protections are greater than the US Constitutional protections, must be "dumbed down" to the lessor protections of the Federal Constitution?

Of course you are... Because that's what this decision did.

As I wrote earlier, this turns current legal interpretation on its head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top