Supreme Court empowers police

Hurkyl

Quote by Skyhunter

This is really your preferred method of serving a warrant?

Here is a scenario for you.

A man and his wife have an argument. He leaves and goes to his fathers house. She swears out a warrant, saying he beat her and has a gun. She gives his father's address as where he is. The police serve the warrant using your preferred "swat-team method."

I am glad we have not regressed to the police state mentality that you are advocating.

Are you saying that, unlike russ_waters, that you prefer the other option that was under consideration? That the police would break in, the father shoots at them, and he and some policemen die in the ensuing firefight?

Quote by Skyhunter

I am glad we have not regressed to the police state mentality that you are advocating.

kyleb

Wow Hurkyl, that is an enormous leep in logic you pulled there.

Hurkyl

Quote by kyleb

Wow Hurkyl, that is an enormous in logic you pulled there.

Well, I can't figure out what you meant to say, but allow me to recap:

Quote by Ivan Seeking (#37)

If the cops came bursting into my home unannounced, they'd likely be shot before I realized who it was.

Then of course I'd be shot, but oh well, as long as they catch more drug dealers.

Quote by russ_waters (#40)

That's why I prefer the swat-team method: break down the door and toss a couple of flash-bangs in. That gives the cops about 10 seconds to secure the area before the people in the house regain their eyesight and hearing. Just breaking down the door still allows someone with easy access to a gun to use it and announcing your presence allows someone without easy access to a gun to go get one.

Quote by Skyhunter (#50)

WOW

This is really your preferred method of serving a warrant?

Here is a scenario for you.

A man and his wife have an argument. He leaves and goes to his fathers house. She swears out a warrant, saying he beat her and has a gun. She gives his father's address as where he is. The police serve the warrant using your preferred "swat-team method."

I am glad we have not regressed to the police state mentality that you are advocating.

How do you propose I should have interpreted sequence of posts?

kyleb

Leap in logic, please pardon the previously missing leap.

*Skyhunter*

Quote by Hurkyl

Are you saying that, unlike russ_waters, that you prefer the other option that was under consideration? That the police would break in, the father shoots at them, and he and some policemen die in the ensuing firefight?

Other option?

I am suggesting that they do it the way they always have.

They knock on the fathers door, serve the warrant, arrest the husband and let a judge and jury decide his guilt or innocence.

Astronuc

Police See No Change in Policy on Searches
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5493387
by Nina Totenberg

All Things Considered, June 17, 2006 · A Supreme Court ruling that protects evidence collected by police who fail to knock and announce themselves. But police professionals say they see no need to change their normal practices. They don't feel handcuffed by existing rules.

The police officials apparently prefer policemen to knock in order to inform the resident(s) of a place for which they have a warrant. It is a matter of safety.

Cyrus

Quote by Gokul43201

1. Cyrus, I was providing the case history involving interpretation of the 4th. It's usually not your interpretation (of the Constitution) or mine that decides what's the law, but the legal precedent on the matter( if such exists). Besides, the argument that you needn't knock because you have a warrant is baseless. Why then, would there only be a specific type of warrant that gives the cops the right to not have to knock?

That being said, you are making a counter argument against yourself. If the police entering your home with a search warrant is unconstitutional, then the specific "knockless" warrant would be unconstitutional (if its unconstitutional, then any knockless warrant is unconstitutional, special issue or not). Was there any problems on the issuing of "knockless" warrants? Not until now.

2. Yes, it ticks me off when someone gets off on a technicality. I'm sure it pisses of most reasonable people including judges that have sat on various courts for hundreds of years now.

Those must be some very old judges

.

Let's look at this with some realistic considerations, since many here seem not to. (Not aimed at you Gokul).

Someone I know is becoming a police officer. He told me that once you put on that uniform, people treat you differently. No one wants to talk to you. That being said, the last thing the police are going to do is carry out knockless searches exclusively. It would ruin their reputatation on the street, and no one would be willing to aid them.

Now, correct me if im wrong, but it is up to the state to decide if they want to allow their police force to have the ablity to perform knockless searches with a warrant. They can always remove this authority if it becomes abused by the police, because defining reasonable is a flexability the state has to toy with so long as the supreme court does not say no.

Just because they can carry out that type of search does not mean that they will do it all the time.

kyleb

The Court says:

The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 931–932 (1995) . Since 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act, this traditional protection has been part of federal statutory law, see 40 Stat. 229, and is currently codified at 18 U. S. C. §3109. We applied that statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958) , and again in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U. S. 585 (1968) . Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment . Tracing its origins in our English legal heritage, 514 U. S., at 931–936, we concluded that it was.

Although obviously, as with a search itself, the right to announced entery can be suspended though a duly authorized warrant. Regardless, that was not an issue in this case:

Happily, these issues do not confront us here. From the trial level onward, Michigan has conceded that the entry was a knock-and-announce violation. The issue here is remedy. Wilson specifically declined to decide whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement. 514 U. S., at 937, n. 4. That question is squarely before us now.

Again, the Court's ruling here allows the use of illegal methods to produce legal evidence.

Cyrus

Quote by kyleb

The Court says:

Although obviously, as with a search itself, the right to announced entery can be suspended though a duly authorized warrant. Regardless, that was not an issue in this case:

Again, the Court's ruling here allows the use of illegal methods to produce legal evidence.

.....and there you go again saying things that are factually incorrect. If a court rules that it is acceptable, then by definition it cannot be an illegal method. Is this so hard for you to understand? By definition, the courts decide what falls within the bounds of the law.

You need to stop being so sloppy in your choice of words, this is getting pathetic.

kyleb

I chose my words carefully to reflect the truth, you understanding of that truth is the only thing that is pathetic and sloppy here.

Cyrus

I think the truth of the issue is quite clear and explained in the article. You are the one who is manipulating the facts with your poor choice of words. (on purpose I might add).

kyleb

The truth is explained in the opinion of the Court which I have linked to and quoted from multiple times now, but you keep getting your facts wrong while falling back to indirect sources and semantic arguments anyway.

Cyrus

Look at what you said in your last post with a source.

Quote by Kyleb

Again, the Court's ruling here allows the use of illegal methods to produce legal evidence.

As russ has already pointed out, how can a court allow illegal methods? What don't you understand?

You keep making arguments with statements that make no sense!

russ_watters

Quote by Skyhunter

Other option?

I am suggesting that they do it the way they always have.

They knock on the fathers door, serve the warrant, arrest the husband and let a judge and jury decide his guilt or innocence.

"The way they always have" depends on the perceived threat, Skyhunter. The method I described is a common method when the perceived threat is high.

Here is a scenario for you.

A man and his wife have an argument. He leaves and goes to his fathers house. She swears out a warrant, saying he beat her and has a gun. She gives his father's address as where he is. The police serve the warrant using your preferred "swat-team method."

If they believe her and think he's armed and willing to use the gun, what is the problem with that method? It is the safest for everyone involved, in that case.

Please explain your reasoning here.

russ_watters

Quote by kyleb

Could you please to go back though this thread and try and find a quote from me to back your statement here? When you don't find it, I'll gladly thank you to apologise for constructing your argument out of a strawman.

Doctor-patient confidentiality is what you were talking about, kyleb. That's information that is by defnition confidential and therefore getting the information itself is by definition illegal. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that. It is your scenario, not mine.

russ_watters

Quote by kyleb

The question is whether we require our police to work within our laws when pursuing evidence, or if we allow the use of illegal means to acquire legal evidence.

I didn't want to get into this because it is pretty much useless, but since it launched a semantics debate, let me at least explain my take. I'm sure you choose your words carefully, but perhaps even because of that, it is a very problematic statement.

The means (not waiting long enough before entering after knocking) is still illegal, and there is a remedy for it - just not the one you want. The Court decided that if the warrant itself was legal, then the illegal means of serving it is irrelevant to the legality of the evidence (as long as the means used do not affect the actual discovery of the evidence) - not allowed or disallowed, just simpy not relevant. So the ruling is not allowing illegal means or illegal evidence to be used.

This, perhaps, is where you get your jumping off point for the doctor-patient confidentiality thing. You haven't explained your logic - you haven't even outlined a hypothetical scenario, but perhaps you are thinking that if the evidence in this case is illegal (again, self-contradictory) then the courts might allow other illegal evidence (such as that protected by doctor-patient confidentiality) to be used. Nonsense.

But again, if you want to make a point, if you want to avoid confusion, make a coherent and reasoned argument. The one-liners, insinuations, and leading/misleading questions don't make for a very well-argued point.

Cyrus

The means (not waiting long enough before entering after knocking) is still illegal, and there is a remedy for it - just not the one you want. The Court decided that if the warrant itself was legal, then the illegal means of serving it is irrelevant to the legality of the evidence (as long as the means used do not affect the actual discovery of the evidence) - not allowed or disallowed, just simpy not relevant. So the ruling is not allowing illegal means or illegal evidence to be used.

This clarifies it for me Russ, thanks. Now my question for you. As Gokul has pointed out, there are knock less warrants that can be issued. Given this fact, doesn’t it seem illogical to say that knock less warrants are unconstitutional ? If they were unconstitutional, you could not issue them, period. And I think that this part you included, provided that they said the same is critical

Quote by Russ

(as long as the means used do not affect the actual discovery of the evidence)

In my opinion, the ruling shows good judgment unless someone can show otherwise.

Similar Threads for: Supreme Court empowers police
Thread	Forum	Replies
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

kyleb	Wow Hurkyl, that is an enormous leep in logic you pulled there.

Cyrus	I think the truth of the issue is quite clear and explained in the article. You are the one who is manipulating the facts with your poor choice of words. (on purpose I might add).