LEO no longer need a warrant to raid a home if they hear someone move inside! SCOTUS

[Zoogster]

Police no longer need a warrant to Constitutionally bust down a door and raid a home.
Just the allegation that they think drugs may be destroyed and they hear someone inside makes entry without a warrant legal.

Something for all those people that plan to shoot it out with those busting down doors to take note of:


http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,6820148.story

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

Note the flushing toilets is even just a "perhaps", merely the sounds of people moving is enough to fear destruction of possible evidence and validate entry without a warrant by itself.
So now just the sounds of people moving if drugs are alleged to be suspected at the location is enough to Constitutionally bust down a door without any need for a warrant.

In fact in the case in question they actually had the wrong address, but did in fact find drugs. So busting in the wrong house with no warrant, whether drugs are found or not is entirely legal, as long as they allege they heard movement or anything that may be evidence being destroyed.


Now consider infamous situations like the Waco siege where they knew for a fact there was no drugs, but they lied anyways to use the exemption for the war on drugs to allow national guard helicopters to be used.
Such allegations when they give additional benefits are sure to be exploited.
Now all any local, state, or federal law enforcement need to do is allege, even falsely that they suspect drugs and hear someone moving inside to break into any home they wish. No warrant necessary.

The lone dissent even said:

"...arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement..."

This law could be sweeping beyond drugs as well, the precedent has to do with entry with no warrant due to suspicion of destruction of evidence.
It could even apply to gun laws, say suspicion that someone is taking a gun out of an unlawful configuration, and so entry without a warrant is necessary to secure the evidence in its illegal state before alteration.





You also have to take notice of how they announced themselves:

They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.

That is almost exactly what typical bad guy home invaders do when they frequently pretend to be the police. Obviously no mention of a search warrant, because they had no search warrant. Just yelling police multiple times and busting in.
It used to be illegal unless it was an emergency situation to bust in a home with no warrant, now it is Constitutional.


It could also be important for gun owners to know that any sound of movement or other sounds that can be interpreted as destruction of evidence when the police knock can become grounds for entry without a warrant.
Know they may be lawfully busting in with no warrant and placing everyone at gunpoint if they think it is necessary to stop some type of possible evidence from being destroyed. Whether evidence exists or is being destroyed is immaterial, it is the impression they have and official statement for why they did what they did that now makes it Constitutional to enter without a warrant.

 

[M-Cameron]

i can only wonder how many innocent people and officers this is going to get killed.

 

[towboat_er]

this is going to get some people killed.

 

[sarge83]

If they can invalidate the 4th Amendment through judicial fiat which amendments are next on the list. My money is on the 5th and 2nd. When you get rid of the 2nd the rest are easy.


If warrants are no longer needed why do we need the FISA courts and judges to be available to issue warrants?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg provided the only dissenting vote, saying that the decision grants law enforcement officials an excuse to ignore the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens against unwarranted search and seizure of their property.

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and forcibly enter?” Ginsburg asked.

This from one of the most liberal justices on the bench! I wish she felt the same way about the 2nd amendment!

 

[jimmyraythomason]

double post

 

[Zoogster]

sarge83 said:

If warrants are no longer needed why do we need the FISA courts and judges to be available to issue warrants?

Warrants may become a luxury at this point, for when they know in advance what they are going after and feel the need to run it by a judge. A formality I am sure will still be used in most pre-planned raids. Except in situations based on such poor evidence that a judge wouldn't sign a warrant. Now even then they could just show up and proceed without a warrant anyways, after knocking and hearing movement.

Previously if they just went to a random home, especially the wrong home, busted in, and then found anything illegal it would be inadmissible as evidence and thrown out in court due to no warrant.
Never mind any resulting lawsuit.
So there was little incentive to proceed without a warrant, no gain, prosecution would fail as evidence would be inadmissible, and the LEO or the department could face criminal punishment.
That is no longer the case, if they think evidence might be destroyed.


For example say the police are called to a party because of loud music. Now when they arrive they would be free to just bust in if they think drugs or other possible illegal activity at the party may be concealed if they don't get inside quickly.
While previously they would have had to knock on the door, and wait, and then be invited in or witness illegal activity going on from the doorway to enter. The home remained off limits otherwise, but no longer.

It could also extend to the majority of situations where they claim a need to get a computer hard drive before evidence is destroyed, or get paperwork before it is destroyed etc, but don't have enough to show a judge for a warrant.
"Is that a paper shredder? Go, go, go!"
"Do I hear someone deleting files on a computer? Go, go, go!"
Got to prevent that possible evidence that may exist (because if they could partially demonstrate some type of evidence of a crime existed they could have obtained a search warrant) from being destroyed.
Wrong home? Raid the neighbor by accident, maybe even the one that called the police to begin with?
No problem, the Supreme Court case was the wrong home, and anything found that violates the law is still admissible in court based on that case even if a random home is raided. As long as they allege after the fact they thought evidence might be being destroyed of course.
Raid a random home with no warrant, find anything illegal, and you can prosecute the individuals and send them to prison.
Combine this with asset forfeiture and LEO now have a very powerful motivator for such raids. They can raid random homes for which they have no evidence to obtain a search warrant adn anything found is admissible as evidence, so if they find illegal drugs they can work towards seizing assets, the home or property, and bring in much needed revenue.

 

[Rmeju]

Really this is nothing new. There are a long line of SCOTUS cases expanding the boundaries of the "exigent circumstances" doctrine such that this really shouldn't come as a surprise.

Every once in awhile the police go "too far", an the SC will declare an outer limit to police power, but most of the important cases really have to choose between two mutually exclusive outcomes:

1. Always let evidence be destroyed
2. Always let the police lots of wiggle room to lie about what they saw/heard/smelled/etc.

Mostly they choose the second option. See how the War on Drugs is keeping us all safe?

 

[rbernie]

We're getting too far afield from guns-specific topics here lately, and it's time to re-focus.