Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"May I Come In And Arrest You, Please?"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "May I Come In And Arrest You, Please?"

    Police don't have to knock, justices say
    Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case
    By Bill Mears
    CNN

    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 -- pdf)

    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."

    The appeal involves Booker Hudson, a Detroit, Michigan, man whose case has wound its way through various courts for nearly seven years.

    Seven city police officers executed a search warrant in August 1998 on Hudson's home, finding crack cocaine on him and around the residence, as well as a gun.

    Prosecutors said officers shouted "Police, search warrant," but readily admit that they did not knock on the door and that they waited only three to five seconds before entering and finding Hudson sitting on his couch. He was eventually convicted of drug possession.

    "People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner," Hudson's lawyer David Moran had told the high court. The justices have ruled in the past that police should announce their presence, then normally wait 15 to 20 seconds before bursting into a home.

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a lengthy dissent, saying, "Our Fourth Amendment traditions place a high value upon protecting privacy in the home." A centerpiece of those protections, he said, includes the "exclusionary rule," under which evidence seized in illegal searches should be suppressed at trial.

    "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," concluded Breyer, who said he fears police will now feel free to routinely violate the knocking and waiting requirements, knowing they might not be punished for it.

    Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported Breyer's position.

    The majority-conservative court has been generally supportive of police discretion since the 9/11 attacks, including disputes over home and car searches, suspect interrogations, and sobriety and border checkpoints. Several of the more liberal justices have disagreed sharply in many of those cases.

    The high court has already ruled on two other search-and-seizure cases this term. In March, it said police were wrong to search a Georgia man's home over his objections, even though his estranged wife gave her consent. And last month, police in Utah investigating reports of a loud party were found to be justified entering a home under "emergency circumstances" to break up a fight, even though they did not have a search warrant to enter.

    Alito turned out to be the deciding vote in the Hudson case. He was not yet on the bench when the case was first argued in January. His predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor, heard the case and appeared to support the defendant.

    But she retired before a decision was issued and, under court rules, her vote did not count. That left a 4-4 tie, prompting the court to rehear the arguments.

    search warrants
    "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

    "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

    "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

    "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

  • #2
    Let me focus on this:

    Seven city police officers executed a search warrant in August 1998 on Hudson's home, finding crack cocaine on him and around the residence, as well as a gun.

    Prosecutors said officers shouted "Police, search warrant," but readily admit that they did not knock on the door and that they waited only three to five seconds before entering and finding Hudson sitting on his couch. He was eventually convicted of drug possession.

    "People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner," Hudson's lawyer David Moran had told the high court. The justices have ruled in the past that police should announce their presence, then normally wait 15 to 20 seconds before bursting into a home.
    The man was convicted of drug possession. Had they waited for him to answer the door himself, he may have swallowed or flushed the drugs. He could have fed them to the dog. He may have shot the officers. Who knows? No one was hurt, the man was arrested and convicted - whats the problem?

    Now onto "...answer the door in a dignified manner"? Are they serious? How does someone sitting around with a mirror and some coke answer the door in a dignified manner? Do they put the bong down first? Maybe clean up a bit? Sweep any loose heroin needles under the carpet so no one steps on them and gets some fatal disease?

    "Just a moment, officer, just let me take one more hit..."
    Oh hell.
    "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

    "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

    "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

    "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

    Comment


    • #3
      They had a warrant and there was a question? Sad...
      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
      I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

      Comment


      • #4
        Not that I am agreeing with the defense here, nor will I in this case, but crap like this below is why someone has to draw the line...

        IRVING, Texas -- The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has taken its fight against drunken driving to a new level. TABC agents, along with Irving police, targeted 36 bars and clubs Friday, arresting some allegedly intoxicated patrons before they departed the businesses.

        The officers and agents also kept watch on bartenders who might have over-served patrons.

        Agents arrested 30 people Friday night. Most of the suspects now face charges of public intoxication.

        The agents and Irving police officers traveled from bar to bar and worked undercover, according to an NBC 5 report.


        The report also said that some agents shared tables with suspected drunken patrons. Some patrons were subjected to field sobriety tests inside bars.

        Agents and officers said the operation represented an effort to reduce drunken driving.

        Sgt. Chris Hamilton, of the TABC, said some inebriated bar patrons "end up killing themselves or someone else" after departing the businesses.
        What's next? Arresting people on the way to the bar? How about at their homes before they leave for the bar...yup, sounds absurd, but so does the story above.

        oops...here's the link

        http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8034788/detail.html

        Comment


        • #5
          If some one blows through my front door without proper notification and an ID, my response would be to shoot first and ask questions later. I do not want to shoot cops but I have a right to defend my home and family and unless the intruder's ID themselves I have no choice but to consider them as a viable threat and respond in kind. If they identify themselves as cops and a few moments of waiting could save an accidental cop death or two at my house. Cops have served warrents on the wrong addresses before and could easily find themselves in a hornets nest by their haste. Otherwise, my home is open as I have nothing to hide. Note to law enforcement. Call first and the coffee and doughnuts will be waiting.
          It really does not take much detective work to know if a suspect is a hardened criminal or one who MAY have somehow ran afoul of the law, but is otherwise no real threat to society.

          What irritates me is that quite often, law enforcement will follow a suspect all over town and wait until he is at home to make their move when they could have just as safely and easily taken the suspect at any other place. They could have also served the search warrent while the suspect is away could they not? If I were inspecting a cobra's nest for eggs I would much rather the adult snake not be there at the time. Have law enforcement not learned anything from Ruby ridge, Waco etc? A couple of years ago the Portland's "finest" put a suspect under surveilance. They could have arrested the fat blob while he was at work, to or from the car, while at the park, etc. Instead they waited until he went home. When they knocked at the door, Portland lost its first woman cop to gunfire. After the suspect was taken into custody, the police said they were surprised the druggy was armed and were in shock he had the balls to actually shoot back. The suspect had a camera trained on his front door so he knew excactly where the officers were standing. The sad part was that every one who knew him knew he was well armed at home but rarely, if ever, carried in public and considered his home as his castle. In short, this guy was a lamb while in public, but a lion at home. The camera on the front door was also common knowedge on the street. A little bit of detective work would have saved the life of a cop.

          as for the waiting outside the door while the suspect gets rid of the evidence, many druggies can see a working bong on the table, powder lined up on the mirror etc, and see the cops at the door, but still can't put the two together until they are in jail. Yes there will be some evidence lost, and there are criminals who will ambush cops at the door so maybe law enforcement should think outside the box and try a new approach. I doubt they ever will though, They are too addicted to the addrenalin rush when they break the front door down, sweep in the house and nab the bad guy(s).

          I have no problems with cops making an arrest when they stumble upon felonies as long as there is a legit "probable cause" for the search usually justified by a warrant, or the suspect's actions.
          Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have mixed feelings about this ruling. I am afraid more police officers will get shot by confused residents, but then it doesn't make much sense to have to knock on a door for two minutes with a search warrant, that could give a criminal time to shoot the officers.

            I think the police should have to announce themselves as that and show a badge. Also, make sure they're at the correct place on the warrant. This ruling was that the officers in the case did not knock long enough, and the man charged and convicted wanted the evidence thrown out.
            "Prozac Nation moves along at the speed of a Norwegian glacier, yet it provides the observer with nowhere near the pleasure."

            Comment


            • #7
              IRVING, Texas -- The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has taken its fight against drunken driving to a new level. TABC agents, along with Irving police, targeted 36 bars and clubs Friday, arresting some allegedly intoxicated patrons before they departed the businesses
              .
              They should absolutely have to be in the car with the keys in the ignition and the car started before I think it can be implied that they were going to drive anywhere. Sleeping drunk in your car should not be cause for arrest if you are not planning on driving.

              The officers and agents also kept watch on bartenders who might have over-served patrons.
              This is a crock!! Over served patrons!?!

              What about the guy @ the mom and pop store on the corner who sold cigarettes for the last 20 years to some loon with lung cancer? Should he be charged with murder?

              Or the guy who sold a faulty condom that caused someone else to get AIDS - is he guilty of a crime?

              What about the companies that make the alcohol....let's just sue Jack Daniels himself for making such a good beverage.
              "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

              "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

              "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

              "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TopHatsLiberal
                .
                They should absolutely have to be in the car with the keys in the ignition and the car started before I think it can be implied that they were going to drive anywhere. Sleeping drunk in your car should not be cause for arrest if you are not planning on driving.


                This is a crock!! Over served patrons!?!

                What about the guy @ the mom and pop store on the corner who sold cigarettes for the last 20 years to some loon with lung cancer? Should he be charged with murder?

                Or the guy who sold a faulty condom that caused someone else to get AIDS - is he guilty of a crime?

                What about the companies that make the alcohol....let's just sue Jack Daniels himself for making such a good beverage.
                As soon as Jack Daniels makes a good beverage we will get back to you. Untill then I will stick to the single malt variety.
                Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TopHatsLiberal
                  Now onto "...answer the door in a dignified manner"? Are they serious? How does someone sitting around with a mirror and some coke answer the door in a dignified manner? Do they put the bong down first? Maybe clean up a bit? Sweep any loose heroin needles under the carpet so no one steps on them and gets some fatal disease?

                  "Just a moment, officer, just let me take one more hit..."
                  Oh hell.
                  They should at least let the guy wipe his nose before answering the door...
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Confed999
                    They had a warrant and there was a question? Sad...
                    HA!

                    Wiretapping without a warrant, BAD.

                    Data mining without a warrant, BAD.

                    Arresting a druggie WITH a warrant, still BAD.

                    The Bushitler regime should just come out and say that it's bad either way according to the libs, so they stopped caring.
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TopHatsLiberal
                      .
                      They should absolutely have to be in the car with the keys in the ignition and the car started before I think it can be implied that they were going to drive anywhere. Sleeping drunk in your car should not be cause for arrest if you are not planning on driving.


                      This is a crock!! Over served patrons!?!

                      What about the guy @ the mom and pop store on the corner who sold cigarettes for the last 20 years to some loon with lung cancer? Should he be charged with murder?

                      Or the guy who sold a faulty condom that caused someone else to get AIDS - is he guilty of a crime?

                      What about the companies that make the alcohol....let's just sue Jack Daniels himself for making such a good beverage.
                      They didn't charge them with drunk driving, they charged them with public intoxication. They may say that the point was to prevent them from DUI, but they were completely within the law, if there's a law on the books banning public intoxication.
                      I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This reminds me of the argument Jefferson's lawyers are using. Basically, the legislative something or other privilege gives congressmen the right to be present when a search of their offices is performed, and the right to go through all papers before the investigators see them, and decide whether they are privileged legislative documents. That's right, the suspect has the right to decide whether something is evidence or not. If the suspect is a congressman, at least. I mean, you could hide crack in your legislative papers, and the cops couldn't touch it, according to this theory. Luckily, the judge seemed pretty incredulous.
                        I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wooglin
                          Not that I am agreeing with the defense here, nor will I in this case, but crap like this below is why someone has to draw the line...



                          What's next? Arresting people on the way to the bar? How about at their homes before they leave for the bar...yup, sounds absurd, but so does the story above.

                          oops...here's the link

                          http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8034788/detail.html
                          That happened in WW II with gas rationing. If a cop saw you drive up to a bar after work for a couple of beers, he would ticket you and your gas ration card would be revoked for a month because you were not using the car for work.
                          Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            When I first read this news item, it vividly reminded me of "Brannigan" starring John Wayne and Richard Attenborough. An American police lieutenant (Wayne) is in London, England looking for a fugitive. His point of contact at Scotland Yard (Attenborough) takes away his gun and instructs him on the proper way to approach a suspect in an apartment or house.

                            "We always knock first"

                            Later, when Brannigan has to surprise one of the bad guys, he caves in the door with his shoulder and THEN says, "Knock knock".
                            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral
                              They didn't charge them with drunk driving, they charged them with public intoxication. They may say that the point was to prevent them from DUI, but they were completely within the law, if there's a law on the books banning public intoxication.

                              Which brings up another interesting point about this whole thing. It seems the officers were not required to administer a breathalyzer or other objective tests...

                              I'm not really sure how arresting someone between the hotel bar and their room is helping to reduce DUI's, but sure enough, it happened. I guess this is why:

                              Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was instrumental in getting the increased staffing, as a member of both the powerful Senate Finance Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee, which oversees the alcohol commission.

                              "Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant," he said. "There is certainly potential danger."
                              Using the same logic I would say that "even though a Senator is not planning on taking bribes or embezzling funds, that could change in an instant. There certainly is a potential danger".

                              I guess we should arrest him.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X