   Police Don't Have to Knock
  The 4th Amendment takes another blow from the Bush administration ... Police don't have to knock, justices sayQuote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said disallowing evidence from every "knock-and-announce violation" by officers would lead to the "grave adverse consequence" of a flood of appeals by accused criminals seeking dismissal of their cases. (Opinion -- pdfexternal link)He was joined by Roberts and his fellow conservatives Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Alito.Scalia added that police might put their lives in danger if they were uncertain when and if entry was legally permissible. "If the consequences of running afoul of the law were so massive, officers would be inclined to wait longer than the law requires -- producing inevitable violence against officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in many others."The justices sparred in an appeal they are hearing for a second time, and reflected the deep divisions that remain on a court divided along ideological lines. There was little unanimity over how to ensure law enforcement officers do not routinely violate the constitutional protection against "unreasonable searches-and-seizures."...Supreme Court backs wide police search powersQuote:WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court said Thursday that police with search warrants who barged into homes without knocking didn't risk having evidence they uncovered tossed out at trial, a ruling that civil liberties advocates called a major blow to privacy protections.The 5-4 decision turns on a distinction drawn between how police enter a home and what they find once they're inside.Yes, the so-called knock-and-announce rule is violated when police fail to announce their presence and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering someone's home. But no, that violation isn't sufficiently related to what they find during a search to justify banning drugs, guns or any other evidence that's uncovered from later criminal proceedings.Justice Antonin Scalia said the increasing professionalism of police and the threat of civil suits was enough of a deterrent to keep officers from abusing their authority.To exclude evidence from a trial merely because of an entry violation, the court said, would unnecessarily increase the risk of "grave, adverse" consequences, including the technical exoneration of guilty - and often dangerous - criminals.The "jackpot" for criminals would be enormous, wrote Scalia, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. He said the court essentially would be issuing "get-out-of-jail-free" cards if it indulged suppression of evidence based on an entry violation....And yes, I know that the Supreme Court isn't part of the Executive, but this destruction of the 4th Amendment can be laid at the footsteps of Bush's judicial appointments. Does anybody think Scalia's remarks make sense? Is police professionalism and the threat of civil suits a more robust deterrent of abuse than the 4th Amendment?    
  If they have a warrant, thats understandable but ONLY if they use what the warrant was FOR as evidence.  If I let the police in because im being nice, and they find 100 pounds of pot in my basement, thats my fault, but if they break in with a warrant for a shotgun, and find the 100 pounts of pot, I shouldnt be put on trial for something they werent searching for.  In fact, I was watching Law and Order the other day, and this very thing happened, and the judge in the show threw out the evidence because its not what the police were supposed to be searching for.  Granted, that would probably never happen in real life, its supposed to.In this case, if I read correctly, it was "search-and-seizure" with no objective in mind?  That makes no sense, the warrant should have something they are looking for, even if its vauge like "Possible links to terrorism" or "Drugs", but what it says there as far as I can see, it doesnt say, which means "Anything", which is in my mind unconstitutional.  Anything in your house can be turned against you.  If some guy was killed with a knife, they could say you did it with your giant steak knife.  That's not right.~Polantaris   ;  My first thought is that if police have a warrant to search your private property, then why would they need to knock? Isn't a search warrant basically a limited license to violate your 4th amendment rights? And what if you were out at the time, anyway? Can they only search when you're in the house? They probably need an independent witness to make it harder for them to plant evidence, but you're hardly independent as it is, they should have to bring an attorney or something, even if you are there.   ;Quote:Original post by Nathan BaumIsn't a search warrant basically a limited license to violate your 4th amendment rights?The 4th amendment isn't violated when a warrant is served.Quote: 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.Actually, I didn't realize the police had to knock when they had a warrant. If they have warrant, they can go in if the occupant isn't around anyway. In some cases, it seems like it might be more dangerous to knock. However, if you're just searching the premises for something relatively minor and the person isn't a serial killer or something, it seems only reasonable to knock anyway, instead of bothering to break the door down.   ;  Prior to this ruling, a "no knock" warrant required a judge to sign off on that provision. Now it appears that all warrants have become "no knock" warrants. We had all better hope the police have the right address...No SWAT The most important Supreme Court case you've never heard about.Quote:Sometime this spring, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the case of Hudson v. Michigan. At issue is whether or not police who used an illegal "no-knock" raid to enter a defendant's home can use the drugs they seized inside against the defendant at trial. To understand the importance of this case, some background is in order.As the name indicates, a "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter a private residence without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. The tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly, this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.These raids are often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of "wrong door" raids we read about in the news. In fact, there's a disturbingly long list of completely innocent people who've been killed in "wrong door" raids, including New York City worker Alberta Spruill, Boston minister Accelyne Williams, and a Mexican immigrant in Denver named Ismael Mena. It's impossible to estimate just how many wrong-door raids occur. Police and prosecutors are notoriously inept at keeping track of their own mistakes, and victims of botched raids are often too terrified or fearful of retribution to come forward. But over the course of researching a paper for the Cato Institute on the subject, I've found close to 200 such cases over the last 15 years. And those are just the cases that have been reported.It's bad enough when the police serve a no-knock warrant at the wrong place. But this is not regular service of a warrant. No-knock raids are typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics more appropriate for the battlefield than the living room. In fact, the rise in no-knock warrants over the last 25 years neatly corresponds with the rise in the number and frequency of use of SWAT teams. Eastern Kentucky University criminologist Peter Kraska, a widely cited expert on the "militarization" of domestic police departments, estimates that the number of SWAT team deployments has jumped from 3,000 a year in the early 1980s to more than 40,000 a year by the early 2000s.In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that at least in principle, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home. In doing so, the court acknowledged the centuries-old "Castle Doctrine" from English common law, which states that a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders. The announcement requirement gives an innocent suspect the opportunity to persuade the police that they've targeted the wrong residence before having his home invaded. It also protects police from being targeted by innocent homeowners who have mistaken them for criminal intruders and those same homeowners from the burden of determining if the armed intruders in their home are police or criminals....;  Isn't there a possible reason they're having this "no knock" policy? Perhaps there have been too many police officers killed in drug searches when they had to knock.While there are exceptions, there generally is a reason why these changes come about. It isn't like a bunch of guys are sitting in a basement somewhere thingking up stuff like this just to piss people off...right..? Right?   ;Quote:Original post by Programmer OneIsn't there a possible reason they're having this "no knock" policy? Perhaps there have been too many police officers killed in drug searches when they had to knock.While there are exceptions, there generally is a reason why these changes come about. It isn't like a bunch of guys are sitting in a basement somewhere thingking up stuff like this just to piss people off...right..? Right?Police hate having to knock and wait because it potentially gives a suspect time to flush evidence down the toilet and/or grab a gun.   ;Quote:Original post by Programmer OneIsn't there a possible reason they're having this "no knock" policy? Perhaps there have been too many police officers killed in drug searches when they had to knock.I don't think there have been any, otherwise their names would have been listed in the articles. Here are the names of three people killed by police serving a no knock warrant on wrong addresses: Alberta Spruill, Accelyne Williams, Ismael Mena. Quote:Original post by Programmer OneWhile there are exceptions, there generally is a reason why these changes come about. It isn't like a bunch of guys are sitting in a basement somewhere thingking up stuff like this just to piss people off...right..? Right?Basement? More like a corporate suite. Quote:Original post by SneftelPolice hate having to knock and wait because it potentially gives a suspect time to flush evidence down the toilet and/or grab a gun.That's understandable, but it doesn't justify making all warrants no-knock warrants. This is just another step along the road to transforming the US into a complete police state. ;  This may be true, but instead of no-knock policies, why don't they just ring the doorbell like a normal person, with 1 cop. When someone opens the door, everyone pops out of gardens and what not to support the one knocker.  To make it better, they should dress the guy like normal so the criminal doesnt know whats going on. I bet there are more mistakes than correct raids therefore they are violating a lot of people by these no knock policyies.  Not only that, when no one is home, they litterally TRASH your house.  Then you come home doing nothing wrong, and your house is ripped apart, your doors on the ground and your personal belongings crashed on the floor, shattered in pieces.  Its wrong, but they dont care.  If no one is home it should be a cautious search, but it never will be.  Police are like children when searching.  If theres no one home, they go wild.   ;Quote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by SneftelPolice hate having to knock and wait because it potentially gives a suspect time to flush evidence down the toilet and/or grab a gun.That's understandable, but it doesn't justify making all warrants no-knock warrants.Er.. when did I say it did?I do wonder, however, whether knocking is quite the panacea you claim it is. In particular, the essay from the Cato Institute seems strangely vague... of the hundreds of botched raids they've documented, what percentage were no-knock.. and what percentage of all raids are no-knock?   