Police dont need to knock, justices say...
- 06-15-2006, 11:33 AM
Police dont need to knock, justices say...
CNN.com - Police don't have to knock, justices say - Jun 15, 2006
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."
- 06-15-2006, 01:15 PM
It's stupid to knock before entering a home where you have gained legal judge ordered search abilities. If people are worried about crooked cops then the law before hand wouldn't of stopped anything.
This is for officer safety to not have to announce themselves and location prior to entering a place that is dangerous. You're not going to be seeing this for every warrant out there.
- 06-15-2006, 01:49 PM
I disagree, i think its a good thing if they knock there are plenty of warents issiued and sometimes they get the wrong residency(or just a spelling error causes them to go to the wrong home) without any warning swarming a place on a small search warrent when the resident would have clearly let them in without the distruction of property and trama.
( i remeber seeing a cops where they broke into the wrong house threw the husband and wife down infront of there kids, (they knocked once it was 3 am in the mornin) didnt bother to wait and smashed the door down and tramatised a inacent family they realized this after laying the smack down of a lifetime on the husband who was just yelling what are you doing stop stop?! my kids!
If they had just allowed him to get to the door none of that would have happen.
06-15-2006, 04:47 PM
I disagree. This is going to lead to a lot of dead cops and dead civilians. Under the common law, a homowner has the right to use deadly force to repel an intruder into the home (usually without any duty to retreat).Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
There is going to be a time period between when the door comes crashing down, and before the resident knows it is the police, where otherwise law abiding residents very well might use deadly force to repel the intruder, and would be legally entitled to do so.
If there are exigent cicrumstances, the cops can already enter in this manner. If the cops are just out to pick up some schmuck who skipped out on bail, then there is no need.
My prediction is that a lot of people are going to die unnecessarily if police departments adopt this for general use.
Last edited by yeahright; 06-15-2006 at 10:24 PM.
06-15-2006, 06:24 PM
and the constitution gets another chunk taken out of it by good old dubyah...
we are getting closer and closer to a police state. if another republican gets elected i dont know what is going to happen. i consider myself a moderate but i feel that bush has been slowly stripping away the checks and balances against government power over his amazing 8 years.
06-15-2006, 10:23 PM
He has, but it's the police state or the nanny state if you vote for the other side. One takes most of your freedom, the other wants most of your paycheck. I don't know which is worse to be honest. As for this 'new' development, I don't like it but it doesn't seem like anything new. Christ, I think they swarmed Tommy Chong's house with like 30 cops with automatic rifles after one announcement of their presence. 'Cause he was bad ass you know, never know what's gonna happen if you raid his house. I don't think anything bad is going to come of this that hasn't already because I don't think there's going to be a substantive change in LEO's approach to situations. Seems like it just kind of codifies existing practice.Originally Posted by jomi822
06-16-2006, 01:16 AM
There's still an announcement time and enter time just not a knock and announce and wait time. You have to remember that most warrants aren't served SWAT style guys. Mistakes still happen and for the high felony warrants this will help cops. You know there was a reason why this was brought up? Cops were getting killed and drugs were getting flushed...Knowing the gov't it was probably more of the latter that got it changed.
06-16-2006, 06:08 AM
I am all about the constitution, but when you are in a positon of having a warrant served upon you in your residence, there is something that you are doing that has caught the attention of the authorities..unlike the military, local police have to execute some command decisions at the field level. I believe the officers testified that they looked through a window or heard sounds of a possible felony being committed and acted to prevent more felonies from being committed. This is solid police work...note to all future and aspiring felons don't use the fourth amendment to escape the law you have already ignored! goodluck citizens, sometimes the system works!
Now, if you want to reform the drugwar laws...well that it is another issue
06-16-2006, 09:34 AM
I heard about that case, I don't know if this is the same one. In that one the cops I believe saw someone getting their ass kicked and entered to intervene. Warrant or not that's proper, and good work. But, as others have stated it's probably not too long before the cops decide to serve a felony warrant on the wrong person. Whether or not an 'announcement' will get through to someone at 3AM before the cops break down the door and maybe walk right into a doubel barrell and get blown away is questionable, or the cops may do the blowing away because someone is groggy and doesn't quite get what's going on that early. All will be of course acceptable casualties. And if Jay is right, in part to stop people from flushing drugs. More chipping away at the constitution because of the drug acception to the fourth ammendment.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
Certainly. But that's the problem. The government comes up with laws that are nigh unenforcable unless police state tactics are used, like sting operations and borderline or well over the border entrapment. SWAT teams swarming houses and gunning people down. And more people in prison per capita than any other nation on Earth. It's all related, drugs, terrorism or whatever. It's always just an excuse for the government to take more power. Always for some reason to protect us from some vague threat, the government needs more power over all citiznes even though the vast majority of them are no threat to anyone.Now, if you want to reform the drugwar laws...well that it is another issue
06-16-2006, 10:20 AM
I do not agree with this at all, I saw just last month a warrant served on a guy who had his ex-wife give the police a tip this guy a ex-con was in illegal possesion of firearms. Now the police dept. served and executed the search warrant in the middle of the day when school buses were dropping kids off in the neighborhood. There were cops in adjacent properties with guns drawn prepared for whatever.. This was served on the WRONG ADDRESS.. Ok now we got cops storming a residence of a innocent person and cops with drawn weapons walking the street . Now a professional dept. would have investigated more and sealed the area ..A school bus pulled right up in front of the house and let kids out that lived across the street all the while the guy with the supposed guns watching what was going on [ oh yeh, they looked and found no guns]... I am all in favor of strong enforcement , but I have seen the dirty side of cops and do not trust them with more that is needed with civil rights and laws.
06-16-2006, 11:09 AM
The constitution demands that all citizens question all authority at any level that may interfere with your life, liberty or persuit of happiness. Anyone who does not question authority is handing their life to a stranger. There is a difference between questioning authority and obstructing justice(a felony) so exercise your constitutional rights with some discretion.Originally Posted by raider1
"...If your ememy is greater in number, avoid them. Thus a small enemy which acts inflexibly will become a captive of a larger enemy."
Sun Tzu- The Art of War
06-16-2006, 11:16 AM
Even with the dirty side put aside, not many people question what kind of society we live in where police have to increasingly become militarized and behave as if the general populace were enemy combatants. It's not that hard to put two and two together and realize that if the police weren't burdened with the duty of enforcing laws that were increasingly restrictive and basically unenforcable without more and more intrusive and violent tactics that perhaps the situation wouldn't be so.Originally Posted by raider1
06-16-2006, 12:18 PM
Unfortunately, I think your prediction is accurate.Originally Posted by yeahright
On one hand, with the mistaken intrustions, there will be actions taken against the police who are thought to be criminals committing a "home invasion" robbery. And in return, lethal actions taken against civilians.
On the other hand, say a guy has a couple ounces of coke. Normally, he'd flush it. Yeah, sucks that the cops wasted time and resources and the evidence was lost, but at least everyone gets to see another day. And extending this further - If the guy's got a larger, non-disposable amount of guns, drugs, etc., he's going to try to escape. Often the cops will apprehend these people in the back or side yards. Now, criminals may be more apt to go into panic mode.
Just think about it - a friend of yours plays a trick on you, you know, just scares the s*** out of you. Your intial reaction can range from kocking (had to misspell due to cuss filter) your fist back to swinging or kicking. I've seen guys do it. But once a few seconds go by, you'll begin to calm down and may even squeeze out a small, forced laugh.
So expand that personal experience into the mind of a guy looking at 25 to life. In a split second he thinks "I can't go back to jail" and grabs a weapon. He is in complete panic mode with a masive amount of adrenalin flowing. If given 20 seconds a lot of these people hide in closets, under beds, or more often, try to find the best way to get to the street.
06-16-2006, 12:20 PM
Yes, this happens more often than you'd think. Just in my town alone it happened this year. Turns a HUGE crime was committed: one little gangster stabbed another (I know what your thinking, a very unusual occurance). The P.D. then went on a "gang crackdown". In the process of clearing out people who may have been loosely involved, a retired guy's house got the s*** beat out of it. Front and back entry. Turns out oops, we had the wrong house. Fortunately this old guy, nor his wife, died of a heart attack.Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot
06-16-2006, 12:47 PM
You guys kill me with with this one time stories. Of course mistakes happen. It's not a 100% fullproof robot ran entity. Unfortunately I think i'm wasting breath as most people here already have a dislike, hatred etc of cops to begin with. You try being at the other side of things and maybe you'd start to see outside of the blinders you have on.
I will leave you with this lil joke.
Hello, you have reached the Police Dept's Voice Mail. Pay
close attention as we have to update the choices often as
new and usual circumstances arrive. Please select one of
the following options:
To whine about us not doing anything to solve a problem
that you created yourself, press 1.
To inquire as to whether someone has to die before we'll do
something about a problem, press 2.
To report an officer for bad manners, when in reality the
officer is trying to keep your neighborhood safe, press 3.
If you would like us to raise your children, press 4.
If you would like us to take control of your life due to
your chemical dependency or alcohol, press 5.
If you would like us to instantly restore order to a
situation that took years to deteriorate, press 6.
To provide a list of officers you personally know so we
will not take enforcement action against you, press 7.
To sue us, or tell us you pay our salary and you'll have
our badge, or to proclaim our career is over, press 8.
To whine about a ticket and/or complain about the many
other uses for police rather than keeping your dumb ass in
line, press 9.
Please note your call may be monitored to assure proper
customer support and remember.....we're here to save your
ass, NOT kiss it!
06-16-2006, 02:04 PM
Perhaps it's a little presumptuous of you to think that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't had experience on the "other side of things." But that's the mentality a lot of cops have, us against them, even if the them turns out to be a couple of retirees. Tell someone whose father, son, daughter or wife was gunned down in raid on the wrong house that, "Hey man, mistakes happen. You want my job for a day?" All worth it to send a guy to prison for twenty years for a bag of white powder that will be replaced on the street quicker than **** through a goose.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Some of this deserved comment, some not. But of consequence is that many of the laws today have cops 'saving' people from themselves when they haven't asked to be saved, and more to the point when they don't need to be saved. As for keeping our dumb asses in line, I'm sure it's vitally important to make sure no one jaywalks, no one parks at a broken meter, no one merges to the right before the turning lane begins, and that everyone comes to a full and complete stop at every stop sign, which incidentally the town has installed every two inches on most roads. Some police work is definitely dangerous, some is tragic like telling some mother her son isn't coming home because he's merged with the concrete of the local freeway. Some is also not dangerous enforcement of BS rules that are not needed to keep anyone 'in line,' nor is their enforcement a worthwhile use of police resources but basically a money making scheme.Please note your call may be monitored to assure proper customer support and remember.....we're here to save your as, NOT kiss it!
But keeping our dumb asses in line? The statement itself implies an arrogance that is frightening. It is not the role of the police in a free society to keep anyone in line. That's the role of the cops in a dictatorship. In a free society cops are supposed to protect people from others, not themselves, when possible, and when not to track down the people who have hurt others or damaged their property and bring them to justice. It is not to intervene as the surrogate enforcer for a nanny state gone wild. It is most definitely not the proper role of the police force to 'keep the citizens in line.' And maybe, just maybe if there weren't so many damn unnecessary laws on the books aimed at curbing or modifying victimless behavior perhaps the police would still be in their traditional and proper role in our society, get more respect and deference and have to deal with less **** in the end. But that will never happen when there are true criminals running around but it somehow takes four cops in four seperate cars to give one guy a ticket for a minor moving violation, which is not uncommon here in NY, according to one of my friends who was an officer until recently.
I also like the comment, all these one time stories. If they're plural (stories) guess they ain't one-off situations. Guess it wouldn't matter if they were if it's your loved one who is dead or your house that got trashed in a 'mistake.' As if these mistakes are unavoidable because it's absolutely necessary to have jack booted rambo wannabe thugs dressed in all black barrelling through people's doors with automatic weapons and flash grenades in the dead of night. It's absolutely necessary, especially in a country that's supposed to be based on individual freedom.
06-16-2006, 04:51 PM
Examples of mistakes are not to bash or even criticize police in gereral. The main worry with yesterday's slap in the face of another part of the constitution surrounds the following:
1) The current administration and their cronies, err appointed justices, have shown a disregard for the Bill of Rights and years of legal precident. The current administration is incredibly dodgy and secretive, with lies piled on top of lies. They've split hairs on multiple levels to justify the war in Iraq.
2) Read the "Patriot" Act.
3) If you want to look at something outside of the mess surrounding 9/11, Iraq, and the "Patriot" Act consider this:
John Ashcroft is a modern Puritan. John Ashcroft has a disdain for marijuana. He obviously doesn't think bongs should be sold or used, so he uses activites that happen to fall under his jurisdiction - interstate commerce - to put Tommy Chong and many others in federal prison (for selling glass!).
So when we get to the point in time of his arrest, a simple knock on the door followed by the statement "Mr. Chong you are under arrest", is in the realm of absurd and Orwellian. But, when you look at what actually happened, this old hippie having his door crashed in before dawn, raided by God knows how many agents armed with M-16's, we've now crossed the line into the area of outrage. The area of "listen up lefties, dissenting voices, and pretty much everybody else who refuses to fail in line - watch out."
--But on a lighter note, when the threat to national security and our children, Tommy Chong, was released from his hiatus in prison, he did an appearance on Leno. He told a story of how the amped up a-holes were screaming commands and pointing their carbines equipped with flashlights around his bedroom, Navy Seal style. Tommy saw the ridiculousness of a situation where an old stoner has a bunch of rifle lights pointed at him. So, he calmly points to the wall (imagine the voice of his Leo character on that 70's show) and says "hey man, the light switch is right there". Subtle, yet effective.
Also, on an even lighter note, Ashcroft is now gone.
BigSMokey is a fictional character and in no way endorses any illegal activies. BigSMokey is the product of a conglomerate of weightlifters who do strictly what big brother tells them to do. Any resemblance to any groups, or individuals, dead or alive is purely a coincidence
06-16-2006, 05:01 PM
Even more ridiculous, if he got paid for that appearance it was technically illegal and he could have the money seized. It's illegal for him to profit from his 'crime,' which apparently includes incorporating it into his comedy routine. I'm surprised no DEA drone or other goverment zombie has tried to justify a retroactive seizure of his profits from the Cheech and Chong movies.Originally Posted by bigSMokey
But hey, we need to be kept in line, you know?
06-16-2006, 05:17 PM
Hello and welcome to the police officer recruiting office hotline...
Please listen closely as the menu requires the listner to actually listen. If you can't listen closely... please mash the phone with your fist and call the fire department. If you are related to or know personally any local politicians... press the star key now
- If you were picked on in high school and want to make all those popular guys pay.... press 1.
- If your father, grandfather or uncle was a cop and you want to be just like him... press 2
- If you think there will be and endless line of cop groupies that want to f**k you... press 3
-If you think that being a cop places you above the law and or have a desire to play god with peoples lives... press 4
-If you just want to bust a few coconuts... press 5
- If you are comfortable with high risk, low pay and thankless work...please stand by and a recruiter will be with you shortly
hahahahaha it's a joke
06-16-2006, 05:51 PM
yeah... the same old same old...
1. It is all Bush's fault. Never forget that.
2. All hallucinogens are good and must be legalized. It is only because of Bush, that hallucinogens are bad.
3. Police are crooks and evil, and must be prevented from preying on the innocent civilians, especially not the druggies, street corner pharmacists, rapists, etc. Actually, police are good if a cowardly, moral degenerate traitor is president. So, again, it is all Bush's fault.
4. Democrates want to protect our rights, if we happen to be crooks and criminals. Democrates love to protect the rights of the rapists, murderers, robbers, thieves, crooks and terrorists. If you are the victim, then sucks to be you. You have no right to privacy. No right to justice. Furthermore, you have no right to defend yourself or your loved ones. We must protect the rights of those who rape you, rob you or kill you. So vote Democrates!!
5. Innocent civilians must not be allowed to defend themselves from criminals such as muggers, rapists, killers, and absolutely not drug dealers. Criminals have Constitutional rights!!
6. America is the threat to world peace (yep, that one was recycled from the KGB sponsored Peace Movement in the 70's and the 80's). There are no terrorists, only freedom fighters. Every thing is America's fault, until a moral denegerate traitor stole into the WhiteHouse. Then, everything is kosher.
7. Jihad is too frightening. We can never win. Just like communism was too superior and powerful and we could never prevail.
Jihadists are not terrorists. They are only fighting against all the wrong that America has inflicted upon them. Oh yeah and it is also Bush's fault too.
8. America sucks because it fails to catch Osama. When it does catch Osama, then it doesn't matter. Jihad is just too frightening and too powerful. Oh yeah, it is all because of Bush.
9. The Supreme Court sucks because it takes away the rights of rapists, child molesters, killers, drug dealers, terrorists.
10. It is a bad thing that the American military is so superior in battles that we killed 25 (not 15) for each one we lost. It is so horrible that so many terrorists died and not enough American troops died. Terrorists have loved ones too, you know?
06-16-2006, 07:00 PM
Damn it! I lost my reply...Anyways, i'll repost a shorter, to the pojnt reply.
Cops don't make the laws they enforce them. Some do it, some don't. Some pick and choose and some are crooked. The same thing with every aspect of life. I've had bad run-ins with cops just like many of you have but I also work with and know many who do the job the best and most honest way they can. We don't agree with all laws just like non-cops don't but we have to enforce them. If we're given discretion, many of us use it.
I also know mistakes involving death is tragic and I wouldn't want to be the cop or the family involved. I train our guys in both firearms and SRT to know how important human life is and that every precaution has to be made to make sure mistakes don't happen. I'm proud of my line of work and I work my ass off to make sure i'm fair, impartial and honest. I work even harder to make sure my guys are tained as best as possible to be able to save lives. Our mission is geared towards saving hostages and removing threats.
You may not like what I do or my fellow officers but I can still hold my head up high knowing I do my best and I do it to serve the community just like when I was in the Army serving my country. I've spent my entire adult life defending and helping those who needed help. What have you done?
06-16-2006, 07:34 PM
And I wanted to add that I don't want this tp turn into an insult thread but I do feel the need to justify and/or defend a job i've put a lot of effort into. You may or may not agree and that's fine but I hope that whatever you end up doing or are doing that it's something you can be proud of and would stand by and defend its purpose.
06-16-2006, 07:52 PM
Reasonable.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
With which I don't think anyone would have a problem with. The problem is all too often a 90 year old woman in a wheel chair who smoked a joint is deemed a "threat." Don't believe me, check out some of the pictures/footage of states that have tried to legalize medical marijuana. Grannies with arthritis and in wheel chairs getting hauled off to be booked was not uncommon. Some things are so ridiculous discretion is not what's needed, the ability to recognize absurdity and idiocy is more important.I also know mistakes involving death is tragic and I wouldn't want to be the cop or the family involved. I train our guys in both firearms and SRT to know how important human life is and that every precaution has to be made to make sure mistakes don't happen. I'm proud of my line of work and I work my ass off to make sure i'm fair, impartial and honest. I work even harder to make sure my guys are tained as best as possible to be able to save lives. Our mission is geared towards saving hostages and removing threats.
Spent a significant part of my life helping people like you, who came home from active duty, find jobs and work their way back into society by working with transition offices and convincing employers to take a chance on a guy or girl whose experience might not be perfect but would likely make a great employee anyway. The very question "What have you done?" is presumptuous.You may not like what I do or my fellow officers but I can still hold my head up high knowing I do my best and I do it to serve the community just like when I was in the Army serving my country. I've spent my entire adult life defending and helping those who needed help. What have you done?
I have no problem with a cop who protects people from the bad and reckless acts or intentions of others. I have every problem with a cop who 'protects' people from themselves and presumes a threat where none exists, and who enforces an arbitrary law that indiscriminantly targets a massive portion of the population with no cause or justification. And why should I not? Who deserves the blame, at what point does the buck stop? The politicians? Well they're just giving 'the people' what they want. 'The people?' Well they're being mislead by politicians. The enforcers? Well they're just following orders. And while everybody passes the buck to and fro people's lives get ground to dust. So I've decided the easiest way to deal with things is to say everyone is responsible for their own acts, and no one gets to pass the buck because everyone has the choice to do what is right or wrong, and following orders or the will of the people or claiming ignorance or anything else just doesn't cut it. If you're going to make the decision, you should know what you're doing, factually, morally and ethically and either stand by it or don't do it. Everyone has a choice, everyone has the option to choose one among many paths of action, no one gets the pass the buck on their own choice.
Here we're dealing with a court of nine whores who have decided, unsurprisingly, that the incredibly pressing and urgent need to rid society of unwanted recreational chemicals justifies the loss of citizens' rights and lives this ruling will ievitably lead to is worth while. They should have been smothered with their robes upon entering the court building.
06-16-2006, 07:58 PM
Indeed. I think cops have lost their purpose, let it get it hijacked by a bunch of know nothing idiot politicians who have them running around enforcing ridiculous laws. What I don't get is how passively they go along with it. I've heard cops complain in private, but I've never seen one go to some jack off law maker and say, "Excuse me, but we have W number of murders a year, X number of rapes and molestations, Y number of burglaries and Z number of robberies and various other violent crimes and you want me to spend my time and resources doing what?" What would go a long way to restoring my respect for the cops in my area and elsewhere is if perhaps they'd start speaking out against some of these laws which they have to know are bull****. Show me one person with the slightest shred of sense who thought they honestly needed to go in with a fully armed SWAT team to arrest Tommy Chong. I mean for Christ's sake is there no limit to the orders cops will follow without finally turning around and saying "**** this ****!"?Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
06-16-2006, 08:08 PM
I can't speak for that incident because I honestly didn't even know it happened. As far as speaking up? yeah, I know we do it quite often at my dept. We also do it at the voting booth. Most of which doesn't change anything. You have to remember that in order for the politicians to make the police act that [B]citizens[B] contact their politicians. I bet you'll find cops are the pawns of this...I'll finsih this in a bit. Got to back up an officer
06-16-2006, 08:18 PM
To a degree, yes. But you're only a pawn if you allow yourself to be.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Stay safe. Somehow though I feel like I'm missing a pun or double meaning. I was never any good at those.I'll finsih this in a bit. Got to back up an officer
To whoever sent me the teacher thingy, respect to the profession but I had to remove that part of the post. It was unnecessary rambling that was just waiting to set of a whole bunch of bad vibes.
06-16-2006, 08:30 PM
Not a pun or anything.
I've done a lot of different work prior to joining the army and then becoming a police officer later on. I've found that everyone is a pawn until they either work for themselves or are the ones making policy.
I'm working on getting promoted but unfortunately i'm a outspoken individual when it comes to my guys and proper training and equipment. This means i'll probably not make it past sergeant...Still thinking about changing careers but until my kids are out of school I can't do anything that selfish until they are taken care of
06-17-2006, 01:48 AM
New York Times
June 16, 2006
The Don't-Bother-to-Knock Rule
The Supreme Court yesterday substantially diminished Americans' right to privacy in their own homes. The rule that police officers must "knock and announce" themselves before entering a private home is a venerable one, and a well-established part of Fourth Amendment law. But President Bush's two recent Supreme Court appointments have now provided the votes for a 5-4 decision eviscerating this rule.
This decision should offend anyone, liberal or conservative, who worries about the privacy rights of ordinary Americans.
The case arose out of the search of Booker T. Hudson's home in Detroit in 1998. The police announced themselves but did not knock, and after waiting a few seconds, entered his home and seized drugs and a gun. There is no dispute that the search violated the knock-and-announce rule.
The question in the case was what to do about it. Mr. Hudson wanted the evidence excluded at his trial. That is precisely what should have happened. Since 1914, the Supreme Court has held that, except in rare circumstances, evidence seized in violation of the Constitution cannot be used. The exclusionary rule has sometimes been criticized for allowing criminals to go free just because of police error. But as the court itself recognized in that 1914 case, if this type of evidence were admissible, the Fourth Amendment "might as well be stricken."
The court ruled yesterday that the evidence could be used against Mr. Hudson. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that even if police officers did not have to fear losing a case if they disobeyed the knock-and-announce rule, the subjects of improper searches could still bring civil lawsuits to challenge them. But as the dissenters rightly pointed out, there is little chance that such suits would keep the police in line. Justice Scalia was also far too dismissive of the important privacy rights at stake, which he essentially reduced to "the right not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes." Justice Stephen Breyer noted in dissent that even a century ago the court recognized that when the police barge into a house unannounced, it is an assault on "the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."
If Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had stayed on the court, this case might well have come out the other way. For those who worry that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will take the court in a radically conservative direction, it is sobering how easily the majority tossed aside a principle that traces back to 13th-century Britain, and a legal doctrine that dates to 1914, to let the government invade people's homes.
06-17-2006, 08:09 AM
This would be a tough place for a cop to start making his own desions based upon his personal code of ethics. Tommy Chong is a high profile bust, ultimately the cops have to answer to their superiors, just like anyother job.Originally Posted by CDB
Cops make choices in terms of what violations are important enough to persue all day long. Personally, I have had may interactions with the police, They for the most part have "let me go with a warning" many more times than expected (non-felonies, ofcourse)
Now doing something because it is your job dosent make it right, but it is hardly fair to admonish someone who respects the chain of command hierchy that is necassary to maintain social order. There is a small percentage of the population that are respocibile enough to police themselves. Most people need help deciding what to eat or what to watch on tv.
It would be great if more people could be responcible, but until then, we need the police,...and its not their fault we need them.
06-17-2006, 09:00 AM
Hey guys! I haven't been bashed in while, so here's my .02 worth. The amount of times we actually break down a door and enter is very small. There are officers that have been on the force for years that have never been involved in that. As far as identifying yourself, that is SOP for 90% of the warrants served. There are special circumstances that you would not want to identify yourself. If that is going to happen, it is going to be the decision of the WC. A patrolman will not make that decision. Think about this scenario; you are serving a warrant on a occupancy that contains multiple suspects that are known to be armed and dangerous. You identify yourself and come through the door after a brief wait. All occupants are now pointing their weapons at the entrance from concealed points in the room. The officer through the door is at a terrible disadvantage. The last thing I want to do is go into a home that I don't know who is in it, and they are not expecting me. It's like that feeling you get when you are 20 miles offshore in the ocean...your feet get that cold, unknown feeling.......you never know where the shark is.
A 911 call is entirely different. It all boils down to the situation. No one wants their rights infringed upon.
I try to live by this rule; I always try to treat people the way I would want my wife, children, or parents treated if they involved with a police officer. My other rule is I'm always going to try to be a little nicer or meaner than the person I am dealing with. You treat me with respect, I'll treat you equally or more. If you are being a jerk, I'll be a bigger one. Dealers choice.
06-17-2006, 03:19 PM
Police officers already have the ability to enter unannounced if it is for their safety. This ruling means that officers never have to knock and announce even on routine matters like failure to appear warrants.Originally Posted by delta314
06-17-2006, 06:07 PM
Every department has their own standard operating procedures. 99% of the time they are going to knock and identify themselves.
06-17-2006, 09:34 PM
I think this ruling is designed to save "busts" more than lives.
I imaging a scenerio where a cop on a routine "failure to appeal" warrant, walks in an open door and discovers a terrorist cell network. The officer in his excitement to apprehend Osamas # 2 guy, forgets to announce that he is a police officer serving a warrant.
Previous to the new ruling this "could" be an illegal entry.
Now, there is a precident ruling on the books.
There will still be illegal entries, especially if the search does not
yield a high profile bust. There will be a few random lower end felons that are released, just to make the system look honest.
06-17-2006, 10:32 PM
This would be wise. In all honesty, my first thought when I heard the ruling was "****, cops and civilians are going to die because of this."Originally Posted by delta314
There are whole swaths of criminals (setting aside innocent people) who would NEVER attack a cop, but they would attack a rival busting into their home looking to steal their stash or settle a score. Cops who bust down a door without identifying themselves are going to get mistaken for bad guys.
If there are exigent circumstances, cops can already enter without identifying themselves. If the cops have reason to fear for their safety, they can already enter without knocking. I just don't see the need for this ruling. It overturns 90 years of precedent. This ruling seems to only protect evidence collected when the police admittedly ignore their own SOP to knock and announce (as was the case in the facts at bar here).
Most cops are professional as can be and don't need the lattitude to have evidence admitted that was collected in violation of their own rules. This is just license for sloppy police work......and when cops are sloppy, people get hurt.
06-18-2006, 10:39 AM
As there are officers who go their whole careers without drawing their weapons. Point being that doesn't negate the very real violence police are involved with on a fairly regular basis.Originally Posted by delta314
Understandable. Why do we have laws that make the SWAT style swarm raid of people's houses so common place that the police need a specific court decision giving them a pass on making themselves known? That is the issue. I don't want a cop having to announce to someone with an automatic weapon that he's coming to arrest him. Point being, and once again this is the issue, is if the government weren't trying to regulate idiotic things like which recreational drugs people used, for the most part such situations would not come up. There's no need to raid Pfizer's manufacturing plants.As far as identifying yourself, that is SOP for 90% of the warrants served. There are special circumstances that you would not want to identify yourself. If that is going to happen, it is going to be the decision of the WC. A patrolman will not make that decision. Think about this scenario; you are serving a warrant on a occupancy that contains multiple suspects that are known to be armed and dangerous. You identify yourself and come through the door after a brief wait. All occupants are now pointing their weapons at the entrance from concealed points in the room. The officer through the door is at a terrible disadvantage. The last thing I want to do is go into a home that I don't know who is in it, and they are not expecting me. It's like that feeling you get when you are 20 miles offshore in the ocean...your feet get that cold, unknown feeling.......you never know where the shark is.
And that is the slippery slope which when drug laws were put in place people like me, those whiners and pricks who constantly blab on about freedom and all that useless ****, warned we'd be heading down. Give the cops that goal, and they're going to need and eventualy get more powers. And those powers are simply not restricted to drug cases but are applicable to everyone. Eventually there will be another decision, another ratcheting up of their power, that will allow entry without announcement under less extreme circumstance, and again and again. What the justices essentially said is if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about. The idea is totally opposed to the idea of a free society, where regardless of what you're doing you have rights are inviolable. Now no one has the right to gun down an officer or to be warned that one is coming so that they can be ready to do so. That's no the issue. The existing laws that make such tactics on the part of law enforcement 'necessary' are the issue.
Far be it for a man whose house has been smashed into, his family terrorized and possibly injured or killed, to be a jerk eh? Those 'mistakes' do happen, they are the result of the drug war, not drugs, and if this country was not hell bent on determining what recreational chemicals people used, such tactics would not be necessary to begin with. There would be no reason to swarm someone's house, like Tommy Chong's for example, Rambo style because when the need to use such tactics came up the target of the raid would make it obvious that such tactics were needed. No one would begrudge the police the obvious need not to announce themselves when the time came if the laws they were enforcing did not target non violent people, or if they did not require the large scale use of such tactics which resulted in these inevitable 'mistakes.'A 911 call is entirely different. It all boils down to the situation. No one wants their rights infringed upon.
I try to live by this rule; I always try to treat people the way I would want my wife, children, or parents treated if they involved with a police officer. My other rule is I'm always going to try to be a little nicer or meaner than the person I am dealing with. You treat me with respect, I'll treat you equally or more. If you are being a jerk, I'll be a bigger one. Dealers choice.
06-18-2006, 04:06 PM
The No-Knock State
by C.T. Rossi
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail its roof may shake the wind may blow through it the storm may enter the rain may enter but the King of England cannot enter all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"
Have no fear, America! Despite the claims of alarmists, the United States is not coming underneath the type of steely totalitarian gauntlet where we need fear a knock at the door. No, your Supreme Court has eliminated that fearful scenario. Instead, there will be no knock.
In its June 15th ruling in Hudson v Michigan, the Supreme Court has basically eviscerated the requirement that there be a knock on the door by authorities before the execution of a search warrant. While the prohibition essentially remains in form, the penalty for the failure to knock has lost its major deterrent force the exclusionary rule.
Quite simply, what the exclusionary rule did was to exclude from the available evidence at trial any evidence that was obtained from a violation of the standards for execution of a search warrant. One of these search warrant standards is (or more aptly, was) the requirement that police knock and announce themselves. While the court has formerly whittled away at this requirement through the use of certain "exigent circumstances," Hudson effectively lays the practice of knocking in a shallow grave.
While the death of the knock is in itself troubling enough, the Courtís rationale may be even more troubling. The Court, relying on the ever arbitrary and equally dubious "balancing test," weighed the "deterrence benefits" of the use of the exclusionary rule against its "social costs." Such social calculus always provides an interesting insight into the mind of the Court.
For the majority, "social costs" consist of such factors as (1) "a constant flood" of legal challenges for alleged failures to observe the knock and announce rule, (2) the risk that "officers would be inclined to wait longer than the law requires" after knocking (and we all know that SWAT team types truly tend to agonize decisions before springing into action), and (3) that the delay after knocking (in the past, three seconds has been viewed by the Court as adequate wait time) provides time for the destruction of evidence and the arming of dangerous suspects.
Conversely, the "deterrence benefits" of the exclusionary rule as a check on rampant police aggression are viewed as minimal. Rather, an aggrieved party who has been the victim of a knock and announce violation can file a civil rights law suit. But even more surreal is the Courtís contention that such law suits might not even be necessary because of the "increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline." Who could argue with that?
One can almost take a perverse pleasure in watching the "originalist" and "textualist" Justice Antonin Scalia hypocritically perform the arbitrary balancing test that girds so many of the Courtís pro-State rulings. It is not explained (if explainable at all) how the supposed "constant flow" of legal challenges to the knock requirement at criminal trial is somehow more onerous to the court system than the constant flow of civil rights law suits which the Court views as a more proper remedy. Of course the real benefit to the aspiring authoritarian state is that those civil rights law suit would most likely be pursued by people in prison. A deterrent to police abuse indeed!
Likewise, the timing issue surrounding a proper knock is bizarrely treated. One is left to ask how much crack cocaine can be flushed down a toilet if the scruple-ridden cops wait 10 seconds (instead of the permissible three seconds) after knocking and is the preservation of such a paltry amount worth calling in the jack-booted thugs? Additionally, isnít it the Łber-ninja style raids that send panicked suspects grabbing for their guns in the first place? What happened to the film noir scenes of the cops telling Mugsy that the jig is up, the joint is surrounded, and he better come out with his hands held high?
As an insulting coup de gr‚ce for this injurious constitutional coup d'ťtat, the Court assures us that law enforcement has had Original Sin exorcised at the new and improved police academy. Justice Scalia writes that concerns about police behavior may have been valid in 1980 but that now "we now have increasing evidence that police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously." While on one level such a statement is worth a gasp and a chortle, on another level Scalia writes the truth for as constitutional rights are stripped away by the Supreme Court, there are fewer and fewer police behaviors that are violative of the law. By legalizing thuggery, thuggish law enforcement is not only christened but encouraged.
But the heralding of contemporary law enforcement as the new Soviet man is instructive as to how the Court sees itself. There is no thought of "inalienable rights" or the 9th Amendment. The much-feared "natural law" of Clarence Thomas is not to be found. Instead, with the Hudson decision, the Supreme Court has not only laid a firm foundation for a police state, they have reminded us that we the people are the ruled and they are the rulers. They are the wise balancers of scales. They are the sole guardians of justice. They are the ultimate guarantors of our rights. So help us God.
As an aside, while I agree with most of this article, as far as deterence on the part of cops goes I say use whatever evidence there is no matter what, but fire the cop who collected it wrongly and take his pension away. When the consequences are personal, then there will be fewer violations. After a simplifying of the standards of course so no cop has to find his way through a maze of regulations before he's sure of what is legal and what is not.
And as one more edit, for anyone who likes wine, Rosemount Estate who makes that nice Shiraz makes a shiraz cabernet mix that's DAMN good. I've already been through one bottle of that and half a bottle of pinot grigio in the last 12 hours or so. As I had nothing to do on this fine Sunday afternoon, I decided to alternate between reading an old book I love and watching movies I love while getting piss ass drunk and trying, occasionally, to fold laundry. As I had to give up Jaegermeister because of the violent tendencies I had while drinking, I've found wine much more an amiable companion for the amiably sloshed. Drop some fruit in for an ad hoc sangria and it gets even better, and you get some fiber.
06-19-2006, 03:46 PM
CDB, I now see what your problem is. You should be drinking a nice red zinfandel instead of that shiraz. Try the Bonney Doon Cardinal Zin, or Consentino Cigar Zin....leave the pinot grigio's alone.
06-19-2006, 04:20 PM
Not to into the zinfandels, way too sweet. It's like drinking sugar water, at least the ones I've tried. I like a little bite to my wine, just a little crispness. The zinfandels, well I can only say this: you shouldn't be able to or enticed to funnel wine, and that stuff just goes down like Gatorade. The shiraz is and the shiraz cab mix is pretty good, and when it's on sale at 6 or 7 bucks a bottle well, I bought a few bottles...Originally Posted by delta314
06-19-2006, 07:52 PM
Not even close to that simple.Originally Posted by yeahright
In most states, you cannot shoot someone simply because they are in your home or on your property. They have to pose a threat to your life or the life of someone else in your presence. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property alone. There must be a threat to human life. I think Texas and maybe another state or two allow more of a shoot first response. Obviously if the home intruder is armed, feel free to open fire.
It is true, though, that a person in their own dwelling or place of business usually has no duty to retreat.
06-19-2006, 07:54 PM
You're thinking about white zinfandels. Red zinfandels are an entirely different animal. Dry and rich, not sweet at all.Originally Posted by CDB
My parents drink a red zin, I believe it's made by St. Francis, and it's called "Old Vine Zinfandel." It's made with (surprise) grapes from old vines, so it is a very deep, rich, dry flavor.
Similar Forum Threads
- By bla55 in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 31Last Post: 11-14-2011, 11:18 AM
- By Rah22491 in forum SupplementsReplies: 46Last Post: 04-05-2009, 12:37 PM
- By Blindfaith in forum AnabolicsReplies: 48Last Post: 05-03-2006, 07:30 AM
- By Rictor33 in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 0Last Post: 03-07-2003, 04:38 PM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 20Last Post: 12-07-2002, 04:02 AM