420 Magazine Background

High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

Marianne

New Member
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 signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the homeowner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, supported Scalia's opinion.

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used at his trial. He was convicted of drug possession.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police can now enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."

Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

And Scalia wrote that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.

In response, Breyer said there is no evidence of anyone collecting much money in such cases.

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.

Newshawk: LizardKing - 420Times.com
Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: Thursday, June 15, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Associated Press
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BluntKilla

New Member
i've heard about this case... it seems we lose more rights everyday, this case is huge and the decision would have went the other way 8 years ago, its a shame
 

JohnnyBlazed

New Member
Thats such bullshit........they dont even have to knock. Man, if i was sittin there just chillin, nothin on me or in the house, and they bust down your door and find nothing, god i'd be pissed........ "No problem boys, i'll just go buy a new door now, you fucks!" :allgood:
 

Brett2theMax

New Member
Fuck this government in the ass repeatedly.
 

RooRman

Well-Known Member
If they stop the "knock and announce" policy then they will risk being killed if the occupants of the house they are raiding thinks that they are burglers and not police officers. VERY stupid decision, I could see many police officers being accendentily killed by civiallans who were just rightfully and lawfully defending their home from intruders.

Bush and the Patriot Act are destroying America, the Constiution, especially the Bill of Rights, and tearing apart the very fabric of what our forefathers layed out as the basis of our country. Quite frankily, it makes me want to puke. The idea that I will see the desintigration of the rights put fourth in the "Bill of Rights" in my life time is a very scarey and real thing, and furthurmore I am ashamed to live in a country where such idealism manifests and is not only readily accepted, but propagated by the masses.
 

Brett2theMax

New Member
I'll shoot first, its my right to protect my self from unknown danger, leastwise it used to be I thought. Did they change that one too?
 

RooRman

Well-Known Member
Probably the only really legal thing to do by now is watch Seseame Street and play with wooden blocks as the world gets torn to pieces around you.

If I hear another helicopter over my house today, I'm shooting it down. :laugh2:
 

Brett2theMax

New Member
Take a picture and post it if you do, I wanna see.
 

JohnnyBlazed

New Member
RooRman said:
Probably the only really legal thing to do by now is watch Seseame Street and play with wooden blocks as the world gets torn to pieces around you.

If I hear another helicopter over my house today, I'm shooting it down. :laugh2:
:adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore:
Ya, Post that shit!!!! I can see it now. "Today in local news, a Sheriff's dept helicopter was gunned down while scanning the local area for Marujuana plants". Local authorities have yet to comment, but they believe that motive was a citizen representing his CONSTITUTIONAL FUCKING RIGHTS to privacy!
Can you imagine, that would be crazy:laugh2:
 

RooRman

Well-Known Member
Nah, I wouldn't want to hurt innocent people with falling debris. :laugh2:

If they are scanning for pot plants, then they are breaking the law, not me. Infrared heat scanning for grow rooms has been deemed an act of illegal search and seizure by the courts.
 

Brett2theMax

New Member
REALLY!?!?!?! I had no clue, fuck it then. My electric bill isn't that high, and I already knew that a heat sig is only enough cause for them to speculate and not to get a warrent. I wasn't ever really worried about them anywho.
 

BluntKilla

New Member
yea police use of infrared cameras into a persons home has been deemed illegal by the supreme court about 6 years ago. its an invasion of privacy
 

RooRman

Well-Known Member
Infrared heat scanning is a way of monitoring a searching your propety without your knowledge. For legitimate search criteria, a judge must review and sign a search warrent meant for a specific date and time, and in search of specific articles. Also, at the time of the search, the occupants must be served with this court approved search warrent.

Therefore, the police cannot just fly over the neighborhood on any given day scanning peoples houses with FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) cameras in search of things they aren't even sure are there. They cannot monitor your house in any means that would directly violate these constitutional guide-lines, and infrared scanning now falls under that category.
 

Brett2theMax

New Member
Speaking of invasion of privacy did the "Patriot Act" re-pass when it was up? I seem to remember reading some where about it being up for vote again soon. In congress I think.
 

Keith Lake

420 Emeritus
420 Staff
Yes, the Patriot Act passed again (at least all but 2 of the articles as I recall)

I personally believe that Libertarian is the only way to go. The Repub's are way too intrusive, agressive, and want to control the population's behaviour,regardless of whether it effects others. They don't even spend less money than the Dem's like they used to.

The Dem's act like children (though a far more preferable choice than voting Repub)

We need a legitamate 3rd party - like the Libertarian's which generally want way less government. Also, the Liber's want the little government that's left focusing on essential services (leaving the people alone). I'd die a happy man if I lived to see the "war on drugs" abandonded and all those employeed in the fight recycled into productive activities benefiting Amercia's general economy.

Lib's generally think Pot smoking is none of the gov's business

Logician's say that "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument, but the way the goverment is chipping away at our freedoms, and the speed we've slid down the slope under Bush is empirical evidence to the contrary

Soniq420
 
Top Bottom