Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Supreme Court empowers police

  1. Jun 15, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    Yet another Constitutional protection weakened.

    Was that rule just dumb in the first place or is this the need of the times?
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 15, 2006 #2
    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.
  4. Jun 15, 2006 #3
    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:rolleyes:
  5. Jun 16, 2006 #4
    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.
  6. Jun 16, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So you're saying this procedure is somehow a final step towards another Holocaust?
  7. Jun 16, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 :

    Last edited: Jun 16, 2006
  8. Jun 16, 2006 #7
    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 :rofl:.

    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.
  9. Jun 16, 2006 #8
    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 see:

    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.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2006
  10. Jun 16, 2006 #9
    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.
  11. Jun 16, 2006 #10
    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.
  12. Jun 16, 2006 #11
    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.
  13. Jun 16, 2006 #12
    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.
  14. Jun 16, 2006 #13
    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.
  15. Jun 16, 2006 #14
    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.
  16. Jun 16, 2006 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ... 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?
  17. Jun 16, 2006 #16
    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?
    It is historical fact, and one quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2006
  18. Jun 16, 2006 #17
    I wonder how the Supreme Court reconciles it's recent ruling with the one below?

    http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring2003TR/spring2003knockandannounce.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Jun 16, 2006 #18
    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.
  20. Jun 16, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can you restate this phrase or fix it, im a little confused about what your saying near the middle (edit). Specifically, "would you think you anything up there" is confusing me
  21. Jun 16, 2006 #20
    With all due respect art, if you are going to quote something, don't misquote it.

    I suggest reading through the rest of your source. It clearly states that:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook