Police don't have to knock, justices say.

Well looky here - another one bites the dust.

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.

Found here

Now, you hear a noise, grab your gun and its obvious the sequence of events that will follow - and not follow.

Scratch the forth amendment off now - next?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by godservant]

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 11-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Sadly, I ponder this ........... how many times in this thread will the mentality of "nothing to hide - nothing to fear" will come up?

Every few days, something else about this government comes out that scares me yet more .

NN

I know it will be practically impossible for people on ATS to imagine such a thing, but,

Put yourself in the shoes of a cop serving an arrest warrant on a house where an prisoner escapee is hiding with his girlfriend and her minor children.

Surveilance indicates that everyone is asleep. If you knock on that door, you're giving the escapee the chance to arm himself, and go into the back room and get some child hostages.

So, do you still want to knock?

On the flipside. If you are serving a warrant in a state where most law-abiding citizens have guns in their homes (like TX), you won't "just barge in" unless you are REAL SURE of what you're doing. ie., correct address, correct profile of suspect, etc.

A warrant give the officers the RIGHT to enter a place OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the inhabitants.

Knocking at that point is a courtesy, for when safety will be improved by their possible cooperation. But a warrant is permission, a literal "engraved invitation," to be there.

I have never seen cops "bust in" just for the supposed joy of doing so. The last thing you want is confrontation, and use of force always escalates. Which means police will be loathe to act this way unless it carries a benefit that outwieghs the risks to their own safety.

But again, a person would have to sympathize with police to think THAT way . . . .

.

You know.. I own a Smith and Wesson 500 Magnum, for those of you who dont know what that is, it's a hand cannon that fires a 400 grain Hawk softpoint round at a leasurely 1675 feet per second... It usually sleeps with me between my mattress and my box spring, for easy access in times of need.. You know like.. when some unknown decides to break into my house, Now if my door comes crashing open and I see a silouhette standing there.. or many.. I'm not going to ask questions, I'm going fire a round at whoever broke down my door.. I'm sure the muzzel flash will provide plenty of light for me to see who I just blew in half.. I dont care if it's the police or not.. That's called "Breaking and Entering" it's a crime.. and it's a joke.. I pity the fool who decides to ever do it to my house..

I am not a big fan of raiding houses. But the System to get a warrant isn't just allthat easy. You have to have all sorts of reasonable cause. Then when they do come to your home with the warrant they can be snoopy and find out what the heck is going on with everything before they bust up in your home. Think about it ... if they know there is going to be trouble. The team that is going to be raiding your house are most likely going to sneak in ... not BUST in .. and hopefully get all the kiddos outta the way. or Anyone else who might have been harmed.

Originally posted by Ox
I dont care if it's the police or not.. That's called "Breaking and Entering" it's a crime.. and it's a joke.. I pity the fool who decides to ever do it to my house..

And they will lock you up and throw away the key unless they blow you away.

I'm 100% in favor of home defence, but it is comments like that one that give the anti-gun crowd enough ammunition to keep trying. Comments like this are what the television news crowd want to hear when they ask for people's opinion on changing the home defence laws.

Yeah and I can understand that.. And I respect your point Jim.. My point is, that this is wrong.. and the American people will just go along with it because they believe that it's in their best interest and that it's helping "The War on Terror" and the new "War on illegals".. Slowly but surely the Bush administration is erasing the amendments as it was mentioned before.. There goes the 4th Amendment.. next.. Where will it end? With people arming themselves? Or ?? something else?

I'd really like your insight..

I know what Ox is saying. I think the primal example is waco.

That was a no-knock warrant that instantly created four officers dead and 87 hostages, all but 5 of whom later died.

Again. REASONABLE police will knock, in the interest of EVERYONE's safety.

On the other hand, criminals who have a "shoot-first" attitude (that they've copied from Ox, or rap music) are the exact reason why you DON'T KNOCK if you think the other guy is trigger happy.

For the rotten police, they didn't need the supreme court to tell them how to do it wrong. For the good cops, the sane ones, they'll keep knocking if it saves lives, regardless of what ANY government says.

The KGB used to knock btw, for the same reasons I gave above. Because the most dangerous animal is the one that know's its cornered.

That's why you don't surround a house during a raid; you "flush" it. You don't cover the back door, but the alley exits.

You let "the gingerbread man" get down the alley, in the open, where there's no cover or hostages. THEN you take him down. And 9 times out of 10, he surrenders and shouts don't shoot.

It's the guy who's crawled behind the waterheater in the garage, who plans to "take as many out" as he possibly can.

SOURCEJustice 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."

I guess it will be a serious matter ... for the first one through the door!



If riots happen again in Los Angeles, the LAPD better do their job right quick, cause they really pissed off the law-abiding citizens with that show called "no-show" the last time.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by 2stepsfromtop]

My point in what I said earlier is this.. If you knock and announce.. *knock knock knock* POLICE OFFICER!.. Then.. I know who is knocking on my door and no one gets a dinner plate sized hole in them due to a mistake.. I respect the law and respect the police and the job they do... It's a safety issue.. I wouldnt want to kill someone that was doing their job.. But I would want to protect my house and my family from some unlawful turd that saw it fit to break into my house to be a theif... So.. if there is a knock and announce.. there would ZERO room for error.. Does that make sense?

Dr. Strangecraft, have you been studying Sun Tzu, or perhaps ancient Mongol tactics when raiding a castle? As you've stated, it's always better to allow your enemy to believe he can escape.

Ox, what would your opinion on this be if we can assume for a minute the SWAT team busting in unannounced through the front door start yelling "POLICE!" to identify themselves the second they get through the door? Basicly, you've got a workable self defence argunment there, which goes away once to police identify themselves.

Granted, the primary difference here is between:
*knockknockknock*"SEARCH WARRENT! POLICE!" *Crash!*
and
*CRASH!* "POLICE, SEARCH WARRENT!"

Originally posted by Travellar
Dr. Strangecraft, have you been studying Sun Tzu, or perhaps ancient Mongol tactics when raiding a castle? As you've stated, it's always better to allow your enemy to believe he can escape.

Funny you should mention those. Yeah I've read up on that stuff. But my curriculum has had a much shorter title:

Hindsight.

It can, when applied effectively, assist in the use of your fore-sight.



Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Originally posted by Travellar
Ox, what would your opinion on this be if we can assume for a minute the SWAT team busting in unannounced through the front door start yelling "POLICE!" to identify themselves the second they get through the door? Basicly, you've got a workable self defence argunment there, which goes away once to police identify themselves.

Granted, the primary difference here is between:
*knockknockknock*"SEARCH WARRENT! POLICE!" *Crash!*
and
*CRASH!* "POLICE, SEARCH WARRENT!"

As I said.. I believe they should Identify themselves before the door comes crashing open, it's a safety issue... The Police.. arent the CIA.. They shouldnt have the power to just barge in.. what if there are children in the house, possibly near the door and it comes flying open and injures a child... or an animal... Personally.. I dont have kids... but I do have a cat, And if a door was to come flying open and injure my children (when I have them) or my cat.. Someone would pay dearly.. And there are also people out there.. who have studied different forms of fighting, I myself have studied Aikido since the age of 7 (I'm 29 now) and can be rather dangerous people when need be I'm sure....

So bottom line.. it's a safety issue.. No one wants to see a Police officer doing their job get hurt in anyway.. Just the same that No one wants to see one of their children hurt on accident..

Only the future will tell with this one.. Lets see what happens.. I'm sure it will go both ways and eventually there will be a change.. Who knows?

Originally posted by Ox
My point in what I said earlier is this.. If you knock and announce.. *knock knock knock* POLICE OFFICER!.. Then.. I know who is knocking on my door and no one gets a dinner plate sized hole in them due to a mistake.. I respect the law and respect the police and the job they do... It's a safety issue.. I wouldnt want to kill someone that was doing their job.. But I would want to protect my house and my family from some unlawful turd that saw it fit to break into my house to be a theif... So.. if there is a knock and announce.. there would ZERO room for error.. Does that make sense?

Ox. The point that I am trying to make in this is that you are not going to fire without identifying your target first and you know it. I'm not too thrilled with this No Knock bit either, but I'm not going to start shooting blindly as soon as someone kicks in my door. I would say that those cops had better be wearing something that identifies them as cops or else all bets are off. My other concern is that some people are going to start kicking in doors wearing jackets with POLICE all over them and they aren't cops. We have had a rash of home invasions around here and we have had a bunch of false police cars trying to pull people over, usually young women at night.

Yeah Jim I know what you mean and youre right... I would have to identify my target first.. But.. I'm sure it would slow down anyone charging through a door.. staring down the business end of pistol..

Did you read my last post when I said it was a simple safety issue?

And there was a rash of police impersonations around here too, Actually there was one last week.. Where two men entered the home of an elderly man posing as police and beat and robbed him.. It's pathetic.. Also there were reports of someone pulling people over with a blue bubble light on the dashboard.. so.. I see your point..

I hope this wont last long.. I'm sure someone is going to be hurt for this to change

Originally posted by Ox
Yeah Jim I know what you mean and youre right... I would have to identify my target first.. But.. I'm sure it would slow down anyone charging through a door.. staring down the business end of pistol..

Did you read my last post when I said it was a simple safety issue?

And there was a rash of police impersonations around here too, Actually there was one last week.. Where two men entered the home of an elderly man posing as police and beat and robbed him.. It's pathetic.. Also there were reports of someone pulling people over with a blue bubble light on the dashboard.. so.. I see your point..

I hope this wont last long.. I'm sure someone is going to be hurt for this to change

This could get interesting. I'm trying to figure out which body orifice the Supreme Court has it's head up. Last year they issue a descision that states that the police are under no obligation to protect an individual. (Gonzales vs Castle Rock) To me this descision states that I am responsible for the protection of myself and my family. Now they decide that the Police do not have to give warning or identify themselves before entering my house with a warrant. I know of at least three cases over the last few years where people were shot because the Police and or ATF entered the WRONG house. The main problem I have with this is that I go out of my way to follow the law (even if I don't agree with it) so the chances of the Police having a warrant for me is slim to none. Therefore the people kicking down my door can't be the cops. If it is Police impersonators and I wait to ID my target...........see where I'm going here?

I do see where you're going..
As for identifying your target..Here's a scenario I wouldnt mind your opinion on... ok.. so ATF or Police knock down your door.... And they have nothing on their person that ID's them as ATF or Police.. except for a badge hanging around their neck, You surrender and are taken into custody.. only to find that the badge reds "Security Officer" and you're robbed with your own gun... I know that sometimes Police wear vests that Identify them.. but sometimes not..

As with you Jim, I obey the law.. even if I dont like it I do go out of my way to stay within the lines of the law.. However.. I will protect my family with my life... And like I said.. I doubt this is going to be a permanent change.. I'd be interested to see what's going to happen when a new administration comes into office

There are situations where it is upheld that K&A isn't required. Those are:
* "Circumstances presen[t] a threat of physical violence"
* There is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given"
* Knocking and announcing would be "futile" Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997)

Wikipedia

If these could be proven, then the evidence was allowed. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when they flat out say it's a free-for-all, and they can do it whenever they want.

Originally posted by Ox
I do see where you're going..
As for identifying your target..Here's a scenario I wouldnt mind your opinion on... ok.. so ATF or Police knock down your door.... And they have nothing on their person that ID's them as ATF or Police.. except for a badge hanging around their neck, You surrender and are taken into custody.. only to find that the badge reds "Security Officer" and you're robbed with your own gun... I know that sometimes Police wear vests that Identify them.. but sometimes not..

I'd try for a standoff and then call 911 and ask if this is legit. If it is then I'd surrender, if not I'd start shooting.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'd try for a standoff and then call 911 and ask if this is legit. If it is then I'd surrender, if not I'd start shooting.

How many people do you see survive an armed police standoff? And when they do, how many of them get a nice sentance afterwards?

AS for the security officer thing, I'm sure if they were going to rob you they would say they were the police anyway.