WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.
The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.
The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Woah. I'm not sure what to think. On one hand if I were a cop executing a warrant I wouldn't want to announce my presence either. Why let the person you're trying to catch know you're coming?
On the other hand it's pretty scary. We already have secret warrant courts; what's to stop these being used in correlation with each other?
Any thoughts on this?
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
Strategically, this will probably save many police lives. Not having to announce yourself means catching bad guys off guard and without the chance to shoot you as easily. It makes sense from their standpoint.
On the other side, I don't want someone just coming in my house, BUT I'm not a criminal and I don't intend on having a warrant for my arrest. If you have something to hide or you're a criminal with a warrant you're already doing something wrong and against society's rules. . .
It's a fine line, it's a fine -f**k- line
- Lewis Black.
Really it just saves the extra time of trying to get a "no-knock" warrant, which is generally issued for dangerous people and served at 4 a.m. or gotten when it is believed that evidence will detroyed between the time of the knock and the time the door is opened and the warrant served.
I expect that most of the time where they don't believe these will be major issues or the person they're after is known to have a tendency to dash out the back door as soon as they let their presence be known that most of the time they'll still knock. This will just give them another option to use if something comes to light rather than having to go back to the judge specifically for a no-knock warrant.
If they exercise a no-knock by tearing down the door and they're wrong, they'll be sued for least the damages, so I figure they'll exercise some discretion using this option.
Strategically, this will probably save many police lives. Not having to announce yourself means catching bad guys off guard and without the chance to shoot you as easily. It makes sense from their standpoint.
On the other side, I don't want someone just coming in my house, BUT I'm not a criminal and I don't intend on having a warrant for my arrest. If you have something to hide or you're a criminal with a warrant you're already doing something wrong and against society's rules. . .
.
I agree with you; I'm split on this.
A friend of mine who is an EMT on SWAT raids says that a majority of times, the dealer inside is more afraid of rival gangs, and will not grab a weapon if they know it's 'just' the Police. This might not actually save any Police lives because of this.
For your second paragraph, I have to invoke the tired 'slippery slop' argument. It is a dangerous thing to say 'If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.' Many tyrants of late have made this argument. The Police would be justified in searching every house on a city block where there is suspected drug (or illegal cable hookups, or unregistered software - you name it) activity.
"Yesterday Mr. Hall wrote that the printer's proof-reader was improving my punctuation for me, & I telegraphed orders to have him shot without giving him time to pray." -Mark Twain
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
Ayn Rand
". . .and the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."
Seriously though I agree with the 'slippery slope' POV. Just because I'm innocent doesn't mean I want agents looking for 'evidence' in my house. I know we're not there yet but this makes it that much easier.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
well. . .they still have to have a warrant. . .i mean. . .this isn't about them being able to search whatever. this is about not having to announce yourself. i always thought that was lame.
Donut Muncher wrote:hi, we're coming in to get you. here's your fair warning to grab a weapon or run
I don't know. . .I still stand that if you're not breaking the law, they won't have a warrant for you, so what's the worry?
I would worry about the one time they make a mistake and barge in while I am sitting naked eating a large greasy burger watching porn, but then again thats just me.
Exactly, they still have to have a warrant. Not knocking before serving a warrant certainly holds up to the prohibition against "unreasonable" searches. To declare no-knocks unconstitutional would require the Supreme Court yet again "finding" a "right" in the constitution that's not actually there. Wouldn't be the first time - Miranda, Roe (not to get that started again), Marbury, etc... Glad to see maybe my vote for Bush is paying off in Constitutionalists on the court. Still probably wouldn't do it again though.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic
www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant is safety (i.e. catch dangerous people when they're most likely to be sleeping) and evidence preservation.
It would also be useful if they have reason to believe that someone is being held against their will but no one will answer the door for a search warrant. There's been a legality that unless they can actually see or hear someone who needs help they could not enter without someone answering the door and being served a warrant or else invited in.
Yes, there will be abuses of the no-knock, I don't question that. But after a few runs through the system most of that will get settled down. Every change to a system has to have kinks worked out of it, and the more experienced an officer is the less mistakes they're likely to make in such things.
If the no-knock is taken away entirely, that would cause more problems than allowing it totally.
bassjones wrote:To declare no-knocks unconstitutional would require the Supreme Court yet again "finding" a "right" in the constitution that's not actually there. .
Agreed, there is no provision or wording in the 6th Amendment that says 'knock first."
Yes, as long as the Police have a warrant, they can bust in.
I do know there will be mistakes of address made and innocent people will be hurt. Also, as I said, some dealers will hear the door burst open, assume it's a rival gang, grab their wewapon, and start firing indescriminantly. I think more Police will be hurt this way.
"Yesterday Mr. Hall wrote that the printer's proof-reader was improving my punctuation for me, & I telegraphed orders to have him shot without giving him time to pray." -Mark Twain
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
Ayn Rand
". . .and the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."
thank you arkface! it is good to see someone talk some sense on this thread.
there's a friend in my hometown who is in a court battle with the police over a botched warrant serving. they came to his mother's house to serve one to his brother, who was'nt there at the time, and when my friend answered the door they came through and snatched him up. they basically hogtied him and tore the hell out of his mother's living room. it was not until 10 minutes of struggle passed that they stopped long enough to find out they had the wrong guy. they destroyed several hundred dollars worth of furniture, bruised the hell out of my buddy, and their only response was "let your little brother know we're coming."
situations like this might be few and far between, but they are still insane. and now they don't even have to knock on the door? this only spells trouble for citizens, troublemakers or not.
"A moment of realization is worth a thousand prayers."
