Supreme Court upholds no-knock police search

[align=left]what's the big hurry to bust down doors and shout at people? can't the loving cops in black masks and stormtrooper gear who are protecting our freedom and serving us wait for just a minute?[/align]

one step closer to the new freedom of dictatorship.

Supreme Court upholds no-knock police search
AP | June 16 2006

The Supreme Court made it easier today for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.

It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners, even unsympathetic homeowners such as Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and cocaine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.

The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, said police blunders should not result in "a get out of jail free card" for defendants.

Dissenting justices predicted police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

"The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson.

"There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

Supporters said the ruling will help police do their jobs.

"People who are caught red-handed with evidence of guilt have one less weapon to get off," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

The case provides the clearest sign yet of the court without Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Hudson had lost his case in a Michigan appeals court. Justices agreed to hear his appeal last June, four days before O'Connor's surprise announcement that she was retiring.

O'Connor was still on the bench in January when his case was first argued, and she seemed ready to vote with Hudson.

"Is there no policy of protecting the homeowner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" she asked.

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held this spring so Alito could participate, apparently to break a 4-4 tie.

I saw that crap on the news last night..going to be some dead officers and innocent people before to long with that kind of stupid ruling. I really couldn't believe it..its just stupid! Do they honestly think that someone that does not want to be caught is going to pay heed to turning around and seeing cops in their house?? A license to kill..

you guys are morons...

Giving people who are probably armed a warning you are coming thru the door is just ample time for them to grab their shotgun and point it at the Door.

This is a good move

This is nothing to get worked-up over. But wait until they push it to the next level: Warrentless searches? :mad:

I live on the texas mexico border and if you come busting down peoples doors your're gonna get shot regardless if you have a big target that says ATF.. This no knock is just more police state control. and people like myth love this kind of control

This trend certainly doesn't offer much comfort to innocent people who might get busted in on, and from a legal standpoint I'd have to land on the same side as the dissenting justices. It seems like shaky ground to stand on.

From the standpoint of officer safety, though, I can see how the sudden bust-in approach makes sense. SWAT teams are a lot LESS likely to get shot when they make the sudden surprise bust-in than they are by going in openly or announcing themselves first. That's why SWAT teams use that tactic. They move so swiftly and take everyone by surprise so much that they're at far less risk of criminals grabbing guns and blasting them than they are if the bad guys have advance notice. SWAT officers still wear combat gear, of course, but, surprising as it may seem, that's why they use that surprise approach so routinely--because it's a lot safer for them.

We had some local SWAT cops here who bungled a raid by accidentally signaling to the bad guy, a man who'd murdered a woman, that they were on their way, and two of the officers got shot. The cops had spent too much time opening and closing their van doors loudly and planning their approach outside, and Mr. Murderer was watching it all through a corner window, where he'd drawn a bead on the officer wearing the SWAT vest with the most visible letters. There was tons of publicity about the case, and the safe approach versus stupid-risky approach got a lot of local and national coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth1184

you guys are morons...

Giving people who are probably armed a warning you are coming thru the door is just ample time for them to grab their shotgun and point it at the Door.

This is a good move

---

Speak for yourself..not all LEO and/or retirees think that..some Depts. are still going to use SOP already in place and effective. Not all town,cities etc. have SWAT teams and even when SWAT is in place they are not used as a rule on all search warrants..so whats going to happen to the Officers that do not have the training and gear that SWAT temas do?? Reality is that many Depts. send Regular Patrol Officers to serve warrants..and they will eventually suffer because of this asinine ruling. Experience should also tell you this is not about "shotguns"..more like "evidence" being destroyed imo.

screw you Myth! your innocent until proven guilty and you have thr right to know who is breaking down your door, otherwise you have the right to defend yourself and you property with letal force. Beside police officers are required to annonce there presence! they have no right to break or change a law for there convenience!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

[align=left]what's the big hurry to bust down doors and shout at people? can't the loving cops... who are protecting our freedom and serving us wait for just a minute?[/align]

---

The big hurry, moron, is that evidence can be flushed. The Constitution says they have to have a warrant, the SCOTUS said that knocking and waiting 3-5-15 secs, or not, wouldn't have made a difference. Sorry, Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling no matter how big a mountain you try to make of a molehill....again.

Eitherway if they dont knock that gives a person reason to blast them. I can see it now.
"I just saw a bunch of guys busting my door down in matching uniforms what was I suppose to think I always keep my 45 handy they should of knocked."

The thing about this is we have asshole cops around here and they will use and abuse this to no end.

This applies to a warrant situation, I assume. We're still protected under the constitution, for now. :thumbsup:

This is stupid. Warrant or not its destruction of private property.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th amendment to the US constitution.

I guess its all about what classifies as 'unreasonable' nowadays. I think breaking down your door and shooting your wife in the head cause she ran out of fear counts. Apparently the courts don't agree.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - 2nd amendment to the US constitution.

And this is why you shoot the f**king pig who bangs your door down.

Man I was talking to my poli sci teacher about the purpose of the 2nd amendment he says for the formation of miltia but he relates militia directly to the national guard. I belave the 2nd ammendment is in place to make sure of a well armed populas so that they are able to combat any oppression foreign or domestic.

if you read the federalist papers, they make it quite clear that the 2nd amendment is for exactly what you said, to defend yourself against foreign and domestic enemies...not just for militias...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth1184

you guys are morons...

Giving people who are probably armed a warning you are coming thru the door is just ample time for them to grab their shotgun and point it at the Door.

This is a good move

---

Speak for your self!
If anyone brakes down my door, they'll get my collection of knives stuck in their stomachs. I don't have any guns unfortunately... But have fun licking the grownd after your master's guards knock you down.