Bad Things. . . . bad things man Rocket River esp considering the new Govt thinks it just has to get a Warrent . . After the fact. High Court backs police no-knock http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches WASHINGTON - 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. ADVERTISEMENT Get Our Top 20® Newsletter in Your Inbox Each Week! The Most "WOW!" Travel Deals on the Internet - here's a sampling: Released JUN 14, 2006 Barbados: 7 Nights & Air $359 CheapCaribbean.com 4-Diamond Las Vegas Resort on The Strip $79-$89 Treasure Island Las Vegas 6 & 7-Night Caribbean Cruises this Fall $499 Royal Caribbean Fly to Canada from Across the U.S. $107 & up United Airlines Click on Any Deal and Check Them Out Today! *Fares listed may not include all taxes, charges and government fees. More information. © 2006 Travelzoo Inc. The 5-4 ruling 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. 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 then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. "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. But 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 home owner 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, both supported Scalia's opinion. Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him. 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 will feel free to 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." The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.
Our personal freedoms and protections provided by the constitution are being trampled rather quickly. I think I better bury a cache of Guns and Ammo in my back yard before they outlaw those and conduct door to door searches.
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!
Like the police already dont over-abuse their power enough. You know they're above us, we're just "citizens", they have badges which makes them superior. That's why they can wrongly kill a person and only get suspended, whereas we normal folk get the death penalty. Yup, the constitution and its amendments are below them, its very sad what is happening to the once land of the free.
I mean seriously Someone bashes through your door no warning or anything then you blow them away you get the death penalty for killing a cop that you did not even know was a cop who was breaking into your house unannounced how does that work? I mean . .. cops can kill people and say well . . my life was in danger and i thought i saw a glint of something in the light but I mistaken kill someone breaking into my house and they turn out to be a cop . . . well . . .I'm on death row . .that is if i even get to goto court Rocket River
Max, can you believe this? It is a direct consequence of your party coming to absolute power, as absolute as we've ever seen, so absolute that they can trample the Constitution, and then attempt to pass laws in Congress saying that all those who have broken the law are now granted immunity. I'm referring to the NSA wiretaps, against the explicit will of Congress, and against our Constitution. This goes beyond that. With this ruling, are any of our rights safe from this President, his party, and this Supreme Court, now that another moderate conservative is gone? It's unbelievable. What, in God's name, is happening to our country? It's frightening. This is exactly the reason that I said over and over again, prior to the last election, that it was imperative to defeat Bush... not because of Iraq, and his incredibly bad fiscal and foreign policies, but because he would be apponting lifetime Federal judges, including judges to the highest court in the land. What do we do? How long will we be able to do what we are doing today, for example, posting our thoughts on politics, secure in the knowledge that we are in a free society, protected by our Constitution? This is nightmare, become real. Keep D&D Civil.
I willing to bet the first time this happens it will be in Texas, where you can take out an intruder who has entered your house.
Oh sure...deny it now. We all know you're the one behind all this. (must we expose you like we did that creepy guy???)
Sorry. I forgot that you've distanced yourself from the GOP, as it is today, and I applaud it. Having said that, what do the people in your circle of friends and acquaintances think about this? You may not have had time to get feedback, since the news is new. I recall you mentioning in a thread several days ago, a post I meant to reply to, that you had several friends and colleagues who had said the Coulter madness had been the last straw, and they were talking about voting Democratic in November. That's what I've been hearing for quite some time from Republican friends and relatives of mine, but we move in different circles. Are you still hearing comments like this, and do you think this will make even more of an impact? What concerns me is that I think we both hang around educated, intelligent people, who keep up very well with the news and issues of the day. That doesn't describe too many of our fellow Americans. What is your sense of what we'll see in November, Max? Keep D&D Civil.
Doesn't this ruling just apply to this one case (and, I assume subsequent cases that mirror this one)? For example, in this case, they knocked but (I guess) did not give a reasonable amount of time to answer. If someone just barges in without any type of knock or announcement, isn't that a different circumstance than this particular case?
I know a lot of direhard Republicans and while they think Iraq has gone badly, they are still squarely behind the Republican party. I don't think they'll be a big change in November, but I am pessimistic after 2004.
i have friends all over the place, frankly. politically and otherwise. i'll tell you what i'm hearing from Jesus freaks, though. they feel like they've been duped. they're disappointed that compassionate conservative was a farce. issues like this are ones that most of my friends aren't real aware of, unless they're lawyers and took criminal procedure laws. most people don't have a sense of what previous cases provided in terms of 4th amendement protection. but, yes...i'm hearing lots of people who would traditionally vote republican say they're definitely listening to the other side next time. that their vote is up for grabs, at the very least.
Thanks, Max. Let's hope the Democratic Party can offer enough to get us a change in Congress. The only check to this President, and his Congress, is to change the party in control of one, and hopefully both branches. Most of the talk I hear points to the House as likely becoming Democratic. My personal hope rests with the Senate, because they will stop Bush from appointing what I consider to be hardline, conservative judges (who reside largely far-right on the political scale, on far too many issues, IMO), instead of moderate conservatives, who I don't have a problem with, in the main. You can talk and reason with moderate conservatives, and reach compromises. That doesn't seem possible with the hardliners preferred by Bush and the current GOP leadership. Keep D&D Civil.
I think the police should be required to wait until all of the evidence is disposed of before executing a search warrant. In fact, I think we shouldn't even bother performing searches. Let's switch to the honor system, criminals can just turn themselves in.
This has been my experience with my collegues, friends, whatnot, as well... not that I'm a lawyer or have studied Constitutional law, either, but still... The attitude regarding a lot of these kinds of decisions is that the police should have very broad powers to deal with criminals and that these sorts of things will never affect them because they're not criminals. It shocks me that people can be so blase about this sort of thing, especially living in a city where some members of the police department have proven to be corrupt (everything from planting fake drugs on Mexicans to arresting people for things that specifically aren't against the law and then illegally pleading them out without their knowledge to avoid embarrassment when those people attempt to fight the charge to stealing from the impound lot and selling stuff on eBay and, reportedly, to murder). Of course, given how police officers who work outside the bounds of the law are often painted as heroes who get criminals off the streets and even the score for justice in our popular media (Dirty Harry, Vic Mackey, etc.), then it's really no surprise that a large number of people in this country would support the idea of police not being hamstrung in their pursuit of criminals without really thinking about what the Constitutional protections are there to protect. If that makes any sense at all.
