Supreme Court empowers police


by Gokul43201
Tags: court, empowers, police, supreme
Gokul43201
Gokul43201 is offline
#1
Jun15-06, 11:21 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,154
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/wa...rtner=homepage

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."
Yet another Constitutional protection weakened.

Was that rule just dumb in the first place or is this the need of the times?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Lemurs match scent of a friend to sound of her voice
Repeated self-healing now possible in composite materials
'Heartbleed' fix may slow Web performance
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#2
Jun15-06, 11:56 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
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.
edward
edward is offline
#3
Jun15-06, 11:58 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
So now according to recent Supreme Court decisions, the police can enter and search my home unannounced. Then the local jurisdiction can take my property and sell it to a developer who will build a motel 6. GREAT

edward
edward is offline
#4
Jun16-06, 12:14 AM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861

Supreme Court empowers police


Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
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.
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.
Pengwuino
Pengwuino is offline
#5
Jun16-06, 12:16 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,125
So you're saying this procedure is somehow a final step towards another Holocaust?
Gokul43201
Gokul43201 is offline
#6
Jun16-06, 12:17 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,154
Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
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.
You are aware that there is (or has been, until two days ago, at least) such a thing as a "no-knock" warrant, that could be given for special circumstances?


The Fourth Amendment :

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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt04/02.html#1
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#7
Jun16-06, 12:24 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by edward
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.
Well sure, I realize that the police cover the back door. I was just saying that to make a point. It really serves no purpose to knock on the door. If the police knock on the door of a drug lab, let's not assume that they will open the door welcoming the police in .

In any event, we cannot say what is or is not safer to any degree of authority.

Your last comment serves no benifit to the discussion, so I will respectfully ignore it.
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#8
Jun16-06, 12:30 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
To Gokul,

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

Quote Quote by Fourth Amendment
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.
In this, no where do I read about knocking. In fact, on reading your source, I clearly see:

The manner of execution of warrants is generally governed by statute and rule, as to time of execution, method of entry, and the like.
Therefore, this is a state issue, and NOT part of the amendment. And NOT a violation of the constituional rights. In fact, it states the police can enter via any method deemed acceptable by statue or rule.
kyleb
kyleb is offline
#9
Jun16-06, 12:31 AM
kyleb's Avatar
P: 115
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.
edward
edward is offline
#10
Jun16-06, 12:33 AM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
Quote Quote by Pengwuino
So you're saying this procedure is somehow a final step towards another Holocaust?
No, but historically it was the first step in the original one.

BTW I am thinking that federal agents don't have to knock and announce anyway. I have seen a lot of local police departments who just are not qualified to make this kind of entry.
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#11
Jun16-06, 12:36 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by kyleb
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.
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.
kyleb
kyleb is offline
#12
Jun16-06, 12:36 AM
kyleb's Avatar
P: 115
Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
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.
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.
edward
edward is offline
#13
Jun16-06, 12:40 AM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
Quote Quote by kyleb
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.
I would imagine this is more about drug dealers flushing the evidence than anything. Hells bells a simple inflatable drain plug used by plumbers could resolve that. The plugs can be snaked in from down the street. They even have cameras that can be snaked in and look right up the potty.

Just turning of the water to the residence will only allow the bad guys to have one flush.
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#14
Jun16-06, 12:47 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by kyleb
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.
Did they? Then why did they not explicitly state this in the constitution? The founders of the constituion used the wording they did for a very important reason. When they had to be specific, they were VERY specific.

When they were not as specific, they left it to the states to decide what is "unreasonable."

Finally, your argument is factually incorrect. We are not talking about "only suspicion of evidence", we are talking about a warrant.
Pengwuino
Pengwuino is offline
#15
Jun16-06, 12:48 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,125
Quote Quote by kyleb
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.
... the founding fathers had people tossed in jail simply for not supporting their cause... do you really think they would be appauled at the idea that someone with a warrant out for them is being unreasonably dehumanized by having a piece of wood broken?
kyleb
kyleb is offline
#16
Jun16-06, 12:51 AM
kyleb's Avatar
P: 115
Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
This is simply not the case. Who is giving up individual rights by not knocking?
If you happened to get your door kicked in unannounced would you think you gave anything up there or rather would you conclude that your right to be secure in your home was forcibly taken from you?
Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
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.
It is historical fact, and one quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
edward
edward is offline
#17
Jun16-06, 12:54 AM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
I wonder how the Supreme Court reconciles it's recent ruling with the one below?

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.
http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring200...ndannounce.htm
Cyrus
Cyrus is offline
#18
Jun16-06, 12:54 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by kyleb
If you happened to get your door kicked in unannounced would you think you anything up there or rather would you conclude that your right to be secure in your home was forcibly taken from you?

It is historical fact, and one quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
When the police come into your house, they must present you with a warrant. So if they break down your door and handcuff you, you will still be shown a warrant. (As far as I am aware).

If it is a historical fact, I would be interested in reading the link.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Supreme Court Suicide Ruling Current Events 17
U.S. Supreme Court General Discussion 5
Bush Supreme Court Current Events 12
Supreme Court Judges should be ELECTED Current Events 10
US. Supreme Court Current Events 139