SCOTUS: Police don't have to knock, justices say

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart,
I really can't think of a case where not waiting the required time on a knock and announce would make any difference then if you had waited.

Thanks for explaining the practical side of it. I'm guessing that it is a pretty rare occasion then that the evidence can be disposed of in under 20 seconds? Regardless of whether it makes a practical difference or not, I would be willing to bet a defense lawyer somewhere is racking his brain to figure out how he can argue that it does make a difference.

 

[Zen21Tao]

No i don't believe this will open the door to abuse. This ruling means very little to the way our work is done. Those officer who have done the wrong thing in the past will continue until caught. The vast majority of us will continue to do things the right way.

I am concerned with misinformation getting to small departments with little or no advanced training. If all the people on the inet are minsunderstanding it as bad as this and other boards then it could be misused unintentionaly.

Consider this. Scalia points out that the case being ruled on is not a case of "poisioned fruit" because under the pre-existing "good faith" standard the violation to the terms of the warrent wasn't done to obtain evidence that "not-for" that violation would not have been found. This is a very important point.

The ruling doesn't say that exidence can not be excluede in every violation of a "K&A" warrent only in one's like this case where the violation wasn't to obtain evidence that might otherwise not have been obtained. In other words, the serach was conducted "in good faith."

If officers, in light of this ruling, now take in upon themselves to intentionally violate the terms of a K&A warrant because they think evidence found won't be excluded then the violation is not a "good faith" violation and not subject to this courts ruling. Its a catch 22. This case only applies to searches conducted "in good faith" and any intentional violation isn't a "good faith" search.

 

[baz]

It's frightening that we have LEO's and other folks on this board that find it okay that the Supremes just ruled that an illegal search (if the warrant says you have to knock, not knocking is not holding to the scope of that warrant, thus it is an illegal search) does not disqualify the evidence found through that search. There is no more "poison fruit' standard or exclusionary rule in this type of search, and that sets a dangerous precedent...how long until it expands to all types of searches?

I'd like to see some informed discussion about what remedies exist when LEO's execute a warrant improperly on innocent people. It should be clear, by now, that this decision says nothing about that situation. This decision was about whether the exclusionary rule should apply when a warrant was improperly excuted on someone who was guilty (i.e. the warrant led to incriminating evidence).

There are two distinct interests here: a private interest in being protected against against unreasonable search (aka 4th Amendment), and a public interest in prosecuting those who have broken the law. I don't know about NineseveN, but I know many's the time I've fumed over some report about how somebody "got off on a technicality." OTOH, while he may not believe it, I'm just as concerned as NineseveN is in my constitutional 4th Amendment right being such that I shouldn't have to worry that I'm going to shoot an LEO when I hear a bump in the night.

Is the "exclusionary rule" the only remedy we have to prevent the police from abusing their power with search warrants? I'd appreciate some input in that. Maybe this discussion might calm Biker's concern. What other factors or forces preventing the police from abusing their power with search warrants keep this from another slide down a slippery slope?

Finally, it seems to me that too many of us (judging from this thread) make LEO's out to be the enemy. They are not. They are public servants. That doesn't mean there are not some bad apples in the lot. But if you do not like the way your public servants are comporting themselves, what, lately, have you done about it? We get the government (=public service) we deserve. When we sit around and complain, and don't do anything, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Is the "exclusionary rule" the only remedy we have to prevent the police from abusing their power with search warrants? I'd appreciate some input in that. Maybe this discussion might calm Biker's concern. What other factors or forces preventing the police from abusing their power with search warrants keep this from another slide down a slippery slope?

The Court focuses on civil suits as a remedy and if you are an innocent citizen, I would suspect they would be the primary remedy you have since there is no evidence to be excluded.

One reason these cases were often unattractive in the past is that the damages were low when viewed from an attorney's perspective. Even if the client had a clear cut case of civil rights violations, there was unlikely to be enough damages to make it worth his time.

However, federal law makes it where attorney's fees can be recovered in civil rights violation cases. This makes it more attractive for the local lawyer to go after your police department even though the only damages are what it cost to replace the door. Under this law, an attorney can pursue cases where his fees would easily exceed the damages involved.

The majority here places a lot of emphasis on civil suits as a viable remedy.

 

[Jeff White]

baz said;

I'd like to see some informed discussion about what remedies exist when LEO's execute a warrant improperly on innocent people. It should be clear, by now, that this decision says nothing about that situation. This decision was about whether the exclusionary rule should apply when a warrant was improperly excuted on someone who was guilty (i.e. the warrant led to incriminating evidence).

There is no requirement that a warrant be issued only on the guilty. The purpose of the warrant is to further the investigation by looking for evidence of a crime. The police only apply for the warrant. In the application they must prove that there is a very good possibilty that the evidence is in fact in the place or vehicle to be searched. They have to specify exactly what they expect to find. They have to spell out why they have reason to believe the evidence is there. In most cases this amounts to a statement from someone who has actually seen the evidence at the location within the last few hours. They will often have to explain why they believe the evidence is still there.

The judge then looks the application over and decides if they have sufficiently proven that there is a great likelyhood that the evidence will be found there before he will issue the warrant. One time I had to take a source before the judge so he could question her himself. We had asked that her name be left out of the supporting documents for the warrant (the defendent usually gets these documents through discovery and then they know who ratted them out) because she was 15 years old. The judge said, bring her in, I want to talk to her myself and see how her story sounds to me. So I drove her to the town the judge lived in, he met us at city hall there and spoke to the girl..then he signed the warrant. Yes, just like everything else that people are involved with, there are mistakes made and misconduct. But in most cases it's not a simple process to get a warrant.

But with all that, there is no guarantee that a warrant won't be issued to search the residence of an innocent person. And if the system did everything right, that person has almost no recourse. His rights haven't been violated because the system did it's job, it just somehow targeted the wrong person.


There still are civil and criminal remedies available if there is misconduct. The FBI investigates civil rights violations and the US Attorney prosecutes them. You can also seek damages from the department. Those remedies have always been available.

Jeff

 

[TallPine]

But with all that, there is no guarantee that a warrant won't be issued to search the residence of an innocent person. And if the system did everything right, that person has almost no recourse. His rights haven't been violated because the system did it's job, it just somehow targeted the wrong person.

I have no problem with that (well, it would be kind of an inconvenience and un-nerving for an innocent person) if they knock and show me the warrant, etc. I do have a problem if they bust down the door and kill my dog (because he naturally attacked people breaking into the house), and maybe kill me too ...

Like right now I am in the back room at my desk - I doubt I could even stand up in 3-5 seconds, let alone get to the door. At night, well - it could take me several minutes to wake up, get dressed, pick up a gun, and go down the stairs (my knees are not so good anymore) and answer the door.

My suggestion is to have your red&blues flashing and lighting up the whole hillside behind my house. Or the county dispatcher could just page me

 

[Ryder]

How many of ya'll can answer your door in 20 seconds, especially at night?

Not me but I shout out the bedroom window pretty fast and they hear me. I've had them wait at the door while I got dressed in the past. They sure do have inconvenient timing.

 

[NineseveN]

I don't know about NineseveN, but I know many's the time I've fumed over some report about how somebody "got off on a technicality."

Nope, I don't like that at all, but I don't blame the police or even the system for it. Our rights are designed with the premise that it is better to let a guilty person go free than it is to infringe on the rights of the innocent citizens of this republic. The more we shift away from that, the more we shift away from America. You can't have it both ways (though I am sure we'd all like to); and while their intentions are good, those that seek to increase or uphold any measure that claims "no harm no foul" when it comes to infringing on the rights of the innocent all in the name of the pursuit of justice and judging the guilty are hurting more than they'd be able to honestly admit.

OTOH, while he may not believe it, I'm just as concerned as NineseveN is in my constitutional 4th Amendment right being such that I shouldn't have to worry that I'm going to shoot an LEO when I hear a bump in the night.

And who wants to do that? Certainly no law-abiding citizen, certainly no responsible member of this country, certainly not I, nor most folks on this board (I wish I could say none of us), but things like no-knock warrants and the attitude that "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" creates an even larger divide inside the chasm that already exists between law enforcement and the rest of us. I want the officers to be safe and be provided the tools that help them accomplish the tasks society asks of them, but never at even the remote possibility of the expense of my life or liberty. If they were to come through my door, tragedy either way you look at it. Nobody wants that, nobody that respects life and liberty. I’ve got close personal friends busting through those doors, I don’t want to see them on the news any more than I want to see their actions wrongly cause the death of someone else (or myself).

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and poke fun at people who hold concerns for what might happen. It's no difficult task to take the route of the pragmatic and say 'I don't think this power or that power will be abused", the mere existence of the chance for it to be abused is enough to warrant concern. If even one no-knock warrant resulted in the death of an innocent person (or even in the death of criminal*), that would be one too many. It has happened, and I simply don't take as casual of an attitude towards it as some folks do.


*i.e. if a no-knock is performed on a bona-fide criminal, but the severity of the charge does not justify such extreme measures, if the warrant was executed improperly and resulted in the death of the suspect or if a no-knock warrant was granted where the evidence did not truly justify it.

 

[LAK]

Shield529

If the wrong door get broken down, (which happens no where near as often as you think), the police deptartment buys the new door and makes all repairs.

And what do the department do in cases where an innocent party - be it a mistaken address mishap or another who happens to be at the wrong place at the right time - gets killed beacuse they reacted as any responsible citizen should to what is perceived as a criminal home invasion?

Most the people ranting and raving have no idea what goes into a warrant, why a no-knock is selected, and what kind of people we are dealing with. They lving behind a computer in a lilly white world, angry at the gov. for things that have not and never will happen to them.

The issue is not just about warrants; it is about the position of vulnerability it places other citizens in this country. Not only because once in awhile there is a mixup with the address involved; but more so because of the number of home invasions with brutal thugs passing themselves off as the entry team members of a PD or other agency.

The net result being that people in this country are expected to prostrate themselves in order to let the public servants do their job, and risk likewise prostrating themselves before the perpetrators of what are often fatal or horrific ordeals. All in order that one of the so-called (and perpetual) "wars" may continue.

On the subject of warrants; if the witnessing of "buys" - criminal acts - are one of the key elements in obtaining a search warrant, it must be assumed that the "buy(s)" would be substantiated in themselves to a degree amounting to probable cause. That is sufficient basis, following the usual steps, for an arrest in itself. So why not arrest them at the time the buy is claimed to be observed?

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Michael Courtney]

Is the "exclusionary rule" the only remedy we have to prevent the police from abusing their power with search warrants? I'd appreciate some input in that. Maybe this discussion might calm Biker's concern. What other factors or forces preventing the police from abusing their power with search warrants keep this from another slide down a slippery slope?

When an illegal search is being conducted, the folks involved are clearly acting outside the scope of their duties. In other words, they are nothing more than armed thugs invading your home.

Since they are not acting in line with the law, it might be reasonable to conclude that they are not really government agents, in spite of whatever attempts they have made to identify themselves as such.

So what you've got is a bunch of armed thugs pretending to be cops, invading your home, and taking whatever they want. It would be legal to respond as a reasonable man as allowed by the laws of your state.


Michael Courtney

 

[baz]

There is no requirement that a warrant be issued only on the guilty. The purpose of the warrant is to further the investigation by looking for evidence of a crime.

I understand this. But I was speaking, accomodatively, of situations where, on the one hand, no evidence of a crime is found (i.e. the suspect is presumably innocent), and on the other hand where evidence of a crime is found (i.e. the suspect is presumably guilty).

So the main remedy against an unlawful intrusion into one's home is a civil suit. Somehow, that doesn't seem right. Well, you do also mention criminal charges. Are those limited to Federal civil rights charges? Why, I wonder, are there not state statues here? Or, maybe there are?

 

[Jeff White]

Michael Courtney said;

When an illegal search is being conducted, the folks involved are clearly acting outside the scope of their duties. In other words, they are nothing more than armed thugs invading your home.

Since they are not acting in line with the law, it might be reasonable to conclude that they are not really government agents, in spite of whatever attempts they have made to identify themselves as such.

So what you've got is a bunch of armed thugs pretending to be cops, invading your home, and taking whatever they want. It would be legal to respond as a reasonable man as allowed by the laws of your state.

We don't advocate breaking the law on this forum. You have either none or very limited legal rights to resist the police almost everywhere in the US. Most states have a law similar to this one on the books:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)

Then of course we get into the statutes on OBSTRUCTION.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=59900000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 31 heading)
ARTICLE 31. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC OFFICERS

(720 ILCS 5/31‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑1)
Sec. 31‑1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(a‑5) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of resisting or obstructing a peace officer to be sentenced to a minimum of 48 consecutive hours of imprisonment or ordered to perform community service for not less than 100 hours as may be determined by the court. The person shall not be eligible for probation in order to reduce the sentence of imprisonment or community service.
(a‑7) A person convicted for a violation of this Section whose violation was the proximate cause of an injury to a peace officer is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(b) For purposes of this Section, "correctional institution employee" means any person employed to supervise and control inmates incarcerated in a penitentiary, State farm, reformatory, prison, jail, house of correction, police detention area, half‑way house, or other institution or place for the incarceration or custody of persons under sentence for offenses or awaiting trial or sentence for offenses, under arrest for an offense, a violation of probation, a violation of parole, or a violation of mandatory supervised release, or awaiting a bail setting hearing or preliminary hearing, or who are sexually dangerous persons or who are sexually violent persons.
(Source: P.A. 92‑841, eff. 8‑22‑02.)

(720 ILCS 5/31‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑3)
Sec. 31‑3. Obstructing service of process.
Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs the authorized service or execution of any civil or criminal process or order of any court commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(Source: P. A. 77‑2638.)

(720 ILCS 5/31‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑4)
Sec. 31‑4. Obstructing justice.
A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or
(b) Induces a witness having knowledge material to the subject at issue to leave the State or conceal himself; or
(c) Possessing knowledge material to the subject at issue, he leaves the State or conceals himself.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Obstructing justice is a Class 4 felony, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection (d).
(2) Obstructing justice in furtherance of streetgang related or gang‑related activity, as defined in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act, is a Class 3 felony.
(Source: P.A. 90‑363, eff. 1‑1‑98.)

The only legal way you can resist what you believe to be unlawful actions by the police is with an attorney in a court of law. Any other resistance will bring you right up against this:

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.(a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

So if you use force to resist, you will escalate the situation and at the least you will be arrested, tried and most likely convicted of charges stemming from that resistance. The worst outcome is that you will die for your trouble. But I guess the fact that the warrant was later suppressed in court will be some comfort to you while you sit in prison for resistiing and obstruction. Perhaps your survivors would have The warrant was suppressed, he carried the day in court on your tombstone....

Jeff

 

[Jeff White]

baz,
Unless the warrant was unlawfully issued, there is no unlawful entry into a residence. The warrant makes it lawful. If the warrant was later ruled to be unlawfully issued (because the probable cause didn't meet the standard required by law for a warrant to be issued) it would still be hard to pursue any action against the officers personally, either civilly or criminally because they would have to know that the warrant was unlawfully issued before they would have any liability. Considering a judge signed the warrant, the officers have a pretty good defense that they believed their actions to be lawful.

If the officers simply broke in without bothering to get a warrant and there were no other circumstances (hot pursuit, sounds of fight coming from inside...) that would have made a warrantless entry legal, then the state criminal statutes may apply. But for the most part, in cases like are under discussion here (we're not talking about rogue cops who are ripping off drug dealers) the remedies available to the citizen lie in the federal civil rights laws.

Jeff

 

[AndyC]

the officers have a pretty good defense that they believed their actions to be lawful.

So does the homeowner.

 

[beerslurpy]

I read the ruling, the concurrence and the dissent when it was first released, but I held off replying because I'm busy with law school stuff and the move.

I am ok with this ruling to the extent that it assumes laws illegalizing victimless possession simpliciter are ok and the problem is how balance the needs of evidence gatherers against the needs of the citizenry outlined in Amendment 4.

I think that a lot of the griping about this ruling misses the point- the problem isnt this ruling, the problem is that we (society in general) are demading that police enforce these stupid laws we have. If police could go back to catching criminals of the more traditional variety (property and violent crime) there would be no debate over destruction of evidence. If crimes had victims, the victim and witnesses could stand in the place of much of the physical evidence we protect with this ruling. The problem with these crimes that no-knocks are associated with is that everyone participating in the crime is doing so voluntarily. There cannot be a witness unless you provide someone with an incentive to act against their own interests- bribes, immunity, special favors from police. This, of course, creates corruption.

Am I making any sense here?

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Jeff White

Have YOU read the affidavit and warrant for Waco? There is NOTHING solid in it! A federal judge signed it! Easy to get? You bet! Just use a bunch accusatory language and innuendo, find a "friendly" judge, and let the appeals court worry about the mess, that is, AFTER the state has completely ruined someone's life.

But then it must be easy looking at it from your side. The cops are always right! WooHoo!

The Fourth Amendment? That quaint old thing? It is an anachronism these days. We have something better now. We have modern policing!

 

[Jeff White]

ProficientRifleman asked;

Have YOU read the affidavit and warrant for Waco?

Yes I have.

There is NOTHING solid in it!

Define solid and then tell me what education or professional experience you have that makes your opinion an educated one.

A federal judge signed it!

Yes he did. I think he was right to sign the warrant.

Easy to get? You bet!

So where you work, when you apply for a warrant the judges don't even read it? How many warrants have you applied for in your career? How many of them were granted and how many were turned down? What department do you work for? Send me a PM if you don't want to post it in an open forum.

Just use a bunch accusatory language and innuendo, find a "friendly" judge, and let the appeals court worry about the mess, that is, AFTER the state has completely ruined someone's life.

Could you point me to 5th Circuit's ruling that invalidated the Waco warrant?

The Fourth Amendment? That quaint old thing? It is an anachronism these days. We have something better now. We have modern policing!

And just how long have YOU been a police officer? What do you know about modern policing compared to oh say 30 years ago?

I await your reply.

Jeff

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Jeff

It seems that, in quoting the statutes from the Pople's State of Illinois, you think it is just lovely that the law REQUIRES a citizen to roll over, pi** on himself, act submissive and hope for the best. That concept is so absolutlely contradictory to the original INTENT of our founding fathers (vis the Fourth Amendment) that it makes me sick!

By the way, in Texas law, resisting with force IS justified when a peace oficer uses more force than is necessary in the first place. A clear case would be Waco, Weaver, or, as is coming soon to a "crime scene near you", an instance where police used a no-knock warrant where it wasn't necessarily called for, just because they could.

But hey, whats the big deal? Where you come from, the cops are always right! Woohoo!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

By the way, in Texas law, resisting with force IS justified when a peace oficer uses more force than is necessary in the first place. A clear case would be Waco

Yes, that was good news for the 27 survivors. Not so useful a law for the rest of them. Wonder what would have happened if they had just complied and then gone to court arguing unnecessary force? Based on the ruling in that case, looks like they would have won and nobody would have died and they would have received civil damages.

 

[Jeff White]

It seems that, in quoting the statutes from the Pople's State of Illinois, you think it is just lovely that the law REQUIRES a citizen to roll over, pi** on himself, act submissive and hope for the best. That concept is so absolutlely contradictory to the original INTENT of our founding fathers (vis the Fourth Amendment) that it makes me sick!

What does this have to do with the application for the Waco warrant and if it met the standards of the Fourth amendment?

By the way, in Texas law, resisting with force IS justified when a peace oficer uses more force than is necessary in the first place. A clear case would be Waco, Weaver, or, as is coming soon to a "crime scene near you", an instance where police used a no-knock warrant where it wasn't necessarily called for, just because they could.

There are no laws against resisting arrest in Texas? Who decides if more force then necessary is being used? Could you post a link to that law please?

But hey, whats the big deal? Where you come from, the cops are always right! Woohoo!

The law everywhere that I'm aware of in the United States makes some good faith assumptions when it comes to police powers. I'd be interested to see the Texas laws that don't. It must be anarchy down there with everyone empowerd to be their own judge and making their own decisions on if the police are following the constitution by their personal interpretation of it and resisting as appropriate.

I'm still waiting to hear what in the Waco affidavit wasn't sufficient evidence of criminal activity that the warrant shouldn't have been issued in the first place.

Jeff

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Reply

I am not now, nor have I ever wanted to be a Police officer. I am able, however, to read the English language. I am also a student of history. I served in the United States Army for fourteen years. I did so because I believed in the Constitution and took an oath to support and defend it against all enemies. I took that oath seriously.

Define solid and then tell me what education or professional experience you have that makes your opinion an educated one.

I am not an educated Police Officer, as are you, and as a "mere citizen" it occurs to me that "something solid" would be David Aguilera having said in the affidavit something like, "I personally saw branch Davidians firing machine guns and bragging about converting them..." or, "our undercover snitch was sold a machine gun by a Branch Davidian..." Insted what Mr. Aguilera said was tha the Davidians had orderd two hundred M-16 EZ conversion kits. Well, if you were a judge and didn't care much, or know much, about AR type weapons you might think that was machine gun conversion parts. If you were a member of the "gun culture" you would know that what they ordered from Olympic arms was E-2 conversion kits, which have NOTHING to do with machine guns. But then he could always say, after the fact, that it was a typo and he really meant E-2...he idn't lie!

Shucks, I know I'm just an ignorant peasant compared to a Police Officer like you. I know I don't have special cop knowledge or special cop powers of discernment, like you. I haven't been annointed by special cop oil, but common sense should apply here as well as the INTENT of the fourth amendment.

Yes he did. I think he was right to sign the warrant.

Why is that? because a Federal JBT applied for it? Well hell, the cops are always right!

So where you work, when you apply for a warrant the judges don't even read it? How many warrants have you applied for in your career? How many of them were granted and how many were turned down? What department do you work for? Send me a PM if you don't want to post it in an open forum.

I have applied for none and never will. I have no desire to run around ruining other people's lives under the color of law.

And just how long have YOU been a police officer? What do you know about modern policing compared to oh say 30 years ago?

I have not been and will not be. I can see, as you cannot, where this latest SCOTUS ruling will lead. If you are a student of history, as you should be if you really care about the community you "serve".

Modern policing such as the deployment of the SWAT team for just about any and every warrant service in which someone somewhere might be armed, which is just about every where. Modern Policing such as, "Knock and announce? We don't need no stinkin knock and announce..."

Its an old argumentative tactic to rant "oh yeah? how long did you spend on the job?....so there!" I'm not a woman either, never have been, never will be, but I know in my heart that abortion as a matter of public policy is wrong. I have never been an airline pilot but that wouldn't pevent me rom working for the NTSB, now would it? MOST ATF agents aren't members of the "gun culture" either are they? But you think that they are believable, knowlegable, and would never lie... becasue, well, you know....

By the way, You didn't respond to the idea that the Fourth Amendment is a quaint old anachronism... what do you believe? Besides the cops are always right?

 

[beerslurpy]

Hey Jeff, not to be contrarian but I feel you are avoiding the meat of the matter. If the local police get the wrong address and kick in Joe Kalashnikov's door at 3 am looking for a meth lab that is down the street, misdemeanor obstruction is not going to be on the menu.

In Florida at least, homeowners are only obliged to refrain from killng intruders when they have reason to beleive the intruders are police performing their lawful duties. Obviously if the police are performing a good warrant on the correct address, that starts the homeowner off in a weak position. But if the police were there through their own error, this severely weakens their ability to prosecute. Maybe not as a matter of law, but definitely in the minds of most juries. As with a burglar, the first question will always be "well what were you doing there in the first place?" Of course the power of the jury wont do much good if the average juror beleives that citizens should assume a submissive position to all shows of force.

Jeff, you should read the police responses in the local papers to this ruling. Ruling Unlikely To Alter Police Searches They all stated that they never worried about exclusion so much as they worried about homeowners or suspects shooting at them. They said a few officers who really wanted to make cases might try aggressive entries after this ruling, but they said that most were going to continue erring on the side of caution.

Morman, who investigates narcotics cases for the Tampa Police Department, said the ruling would not affect police operations because officers always announce themselves for safety reasons.

"We want them to know who we are and what our presence and authority is," said Morman, a 24-year department veteran.

Decades ago, officers wanted to use the element of surprise, especially in drug cases, to avoid people flushing evidence, he said.

The prevalence of home invasions and robberies among drug dealers, however, means anyone barging into a place unannounced takes a huge risk, he said.

"Everyone realizes that safety's got to be the most important thing," Morman said.

Morman said it is understood to wait "a reasonable amount of time for a person to answer a door."

Generally within 15 seconds or so, police will hear, "Yeah?" or some acknowledgment, Morman said.

"If you hear footsteps running away, or you hear, 'Dump it; it's the cops' - once they exhibit they're not going to comply, we would make a forceful entry," he said.

Defense lawyers said police would be wise to maintain the status quo and continue to follow the knock-and-announce rule.

"I think it's a dangerous and scary opinion because we can expect more doors being battered down in the middle of the night and more scared people inside those doors shooting it out with police, particularly in a state like Florida with all the gun owners," said Tampa lawyer Rochelle A. Reback.

This is very encouraging to me, because it says the local cops have common sense and also that gun ownership is deterring both crime and tyrannical behavior.

 

[benEzra]

To me, the troubling things about this ruling are twofold:

(1) The justices acknowledge the search was unlawful, but state the fruit of an unlawful search can be presented in court, under the rationale that if they had bothered to follow the terms of the warrant, the result would have been the same. Reductio ad absurdum, one could argue with equal seriousness (and equal logic) that the fruit of a warrantless search can be presented in court, since if the police had bothered to get a warrant, the result would have been the same.

(2) It seems to remove the last vestige of giving the accused the opportunity to comply before having his/her door kicked in. Remember we are speaking of a routine search warrant here, NOT a no-knock warrant. If the police can show up at my door with a ROUTINE warrant, yell, then kick my door in after 3 seconds and storm the house, how the heck am I supposed to comply with their request to open the door? Under the new rules, they no longer have to give me that opportunity, and 800 years of common law and legal tradition bite the dust.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Jeff White

Here is the law from Texas Statutes:

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. White, curious that you should post

I'm still waiting to hear what in the Waco affidavit wasn't sufficient evidence of criminal activity that the warrant shouldn't have been issued in the first place.

On my homegrown gun group up here in MO we were discussing Waco just the other day. One of our members, namely

John Ross of "Unintended Consequences" fame made a post and I hope I am not breaking some rule by quoting him....

http://www.missouricarry.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11048&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

Some things to ponder:

Was Koresh having sex with minors? Perhaps, but we're talking 15-16, not 8, and Texas law has a lower age of consent than most other states. In any event, it's not a federal tax matter.

Was Koresh the leader of a cult? Perhaps, but that is not a federal tax matter.

Were there firearms violations at Mt. Carmel? If there were, the atf didn't bother to list them on the search warrant. All the things ATF hoped to find were legal to own without any prior approval (AR15 parts, etc.) The search warrant is astonishing in that it lists only the things I might have in my house if I were NOT a Class III dealer.

Focusing on alleged sex practices and saying that justifies the ATF's actions is like saying it would be OK, after hearing reports that your Catholic priest had had sex with an altar boy, for the ATF to attack your church with two gooseneck cattle trailers carrying dozens of ninja-clad agents with machine guns.

JR
_________________
www.john-ross.net

I have a real serious feeling that Mr. Ross, as most of you know, researched Waco for his book (a good book, by the way) and yes, the managed media made Koresh out be be doing all kinds of things, eating his young, doing cult like activities, trying to get cats and dogs to live together in harmony and all like that, but the question remains.........

How is that within the jurisdiction of the ATF? and.... What was the crime?