Supreme Court empowers police

WASHINGTON, June 15 — Evidence found by police officers who enter a home to execute a search warrant without first following the requirement to "knock and announce" can be used at trial despite that constitutional violation, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The 5-to-4 decision left uncertain the value of the "knock-and-announce" rule, which dates to 13th-century England as protection against illegal entry by the police into private homes.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, said that people subject to an improper police entry remained free to go to court and bring a civil rights suit against the police.

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the ruling "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." He said the majority's reasoning boiled down to: "The requirement is fine, indeed, a serious matter, just don't enforce it."

Well, they have a search warrant. Why do they need to knock and "inform" the persons inside that its time to scram out the back and hide the loot?

I don't think the knock and announce rule is a 'constitutional protection' after all, they have warrant to search your house if you agree to it or not.

Well, they have a search warrant. Why do they need to knock and "inform" the persons inside that its time to scram out the back and hide the loot?

I don't think the knock and announce rule is a 'constitutional protection' after all, they have warrant to search your house if you agree to it or not.

Execution of Warrants--The manner of execution of warrants is generally governed by statute and rule, as to time of execution, method of entry, and the like. It was a rule at common law that before an officer could break and enter he must give notice of his office, authority, and purpose and must in effect be refused admittance, and until recently this has been a statutory requirement in the federal system and generally in the States. In Ker v. California, the Court considered the rule of announcement as a constitutional requirement, although a majority there found circumstances justifying entry without announcement. In Wilson v. Arkansas, the Court determined that the common law ''knock and announce'' rule is an element of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. The rule does not, however, require announcement under all circumstances. The presumption in favor of announcement yields under various circumstances, including those posing a threat of physical violence to officers, those in which a prisoner has escaped and taken refuge in his dwelling, and those in which officers have reason to believe that destruction of evidence is likely. Recent federal laws providing for the issuance of warrants authorizing in certain circumstances ''no-knock'' entries to execute warrants will no doubt present the Court with opportunities to explore the configurations of the rule of announcement.

As for scramming out the back, the police should be smart enough to cover the back because even during an unannouced entry, some one can still scram out the back.

Breaking down doors unannounced, especially in the middle of the night is not a wise idea, it is going to result in a lot of unecessary gunfire.

Now if someone wanted to round up unarmed Jews or members of other ethnic groups, this tactic is historically proven to work.

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.

The manner of execution of warrants is generally governed by statute and rule, as to time of execution, method of entry, and the like.

So you're saying this procedure is somehow a final step towards another Holocaust?

Announced entry is one of the standards that set civilized society apart from the kingdoms of old as well as dictatorships of today. Throwing one more in a countless number of drug dealers in jail isn't worth giving up the respect for individual rights which our forefathers have fought so hard to secure and maintain.

To Gokul,

Well, the quote you have cited is not the fourth amendment, so I will source it from wikipedia below:



In this, no where do I read about knocking. In fact, on reading your source, I clearly read:



Therefore, this is a state issue, and NOT part of the amendment. And NOT a violation of the constituional rights.

Announced entry is one of the standards that set civilized society apart from the kingdoms of old as well as dictatorships of today. Throwing one more in a countless number of drug dealers in jail isn't worth giving up the respect for individual rights which our forefathers have fought so hard to secure and maintain.

You are overlooking the intent of the term "unreasonable." our founders held enough respect for their fellow man to understand that kicking down a persons door unanounced with only suspension of evidence simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

You are overlooking the intent of the term "unreasonable." our founders held enough respect for their fellow man to understand that kicking down a persons door unanounced with only suspension of evidence simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

This is simply not the case. Who is giving up individual rights by not knocking?

Your forefathers fought to secure and maintain that police knock on your door when they have a legal warrant? This is a highly emotional argument. Please put try to keep it more relevant to the discussion.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case titled Wilson V. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, stressed the importance of the knock and announce rule by holding for the first time that the rule is part of the reasonableness element of the Fourth Amendment.