It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hidden Problems In The Ruling (Knock And Announce Case)

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Today in the supreme court, a 5-4 vote approved that police could enter without announcing, and use the evidence they collect after entering. This is the knock and announce method that police use before busting down the door. This is no longer the case to this new ruling. But is there hidden information inside of this ruling and quotes from it thats telling us more then just this case?
 



www.csmonitor.com
WASHINGTON – Police who burst into a private building without first knocking and announcing their presence can use evidence they discover in a criminal case.

In a boost to aggressive police tactics and a setback to the privacy rights of business and home owners, the US Supreme Court has rejected the legal principle that evidence obtained in violation of the so-called knock-and-announce rule must be excluded from use at a trial.

Instead, the high court said in a 5-to-4 decision announced Thursday that such evidence can be used at trial. The social costs of excluding evidence because of a violation of the knock-and-announce rule are considerable, the high court said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Now I know the report has its own set of possiblities, but I felt after reading this there was something much more important I noticed.

Point 1: '5-4 vote again'

If you will look at the last big Supreme court case as of late, another 5-4 vote rings a bell. This case is the restriction to whistleblowers rights.


Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the high court's newest jurist, cast the tie-breaking vote for the majority ...

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and endorsed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

www.wpherald.com...

Here we see the same group of people voting for another action which limits the protection of certain rulings and amendments. Could it be we are seeing the supreme court theory turning true and that it is truely unbalanced now more then ever?

Point 2: 'Supressing guilt is unjustified...unless...'

As we look at a statement from Justice Antonin Scalia we see something funny going on
"Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified,"
that is, unless they are whistleblowers or other people that expose important people.

How can they rule whistleblowers illegal, but then say something like supressing evidence of guilt is unjustified? Is there something we aren't seeing or are they playing semantics?


Related News Links:
www.abcnews.go.com

EDIT: Change title

[edit on 15-6-2006 by grimreaper797]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I probably should have titled this so people know its the Knock and Announce case because I just saw a second thread started about it.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I am very familiar with the various rulings on knock and anounce, daytime vs nighttime and no-knock search warrants having written a few hundred myself.

As every warrant the police serve has been signed by a Judge or Magistrate, the only difference I can see in the knock or no-knock is do we want them to have the time to flush the evidence down the commode?

If your beef is with the warrant itself, that is another matter altogether and maybe we can address that.

Can you be more specific in what you are saying? Not what the ruling is, we can all read that.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well I am Saying two things. 1 is that im seeing a pattern of the same 5 people voting everything through on the supreme court when it comes to issues. 2nd Im seeing the hypocracy of the supreme court people who are passing this stuff. They are saying they want justice, and evidence should be found by the harshes means, but at the same time they convict whistleblowers.

To me this is contradictive. You want to get evidence to put the bad guys away, but not if its a whistleblower of a major company or of the government. This reeks of something fishy.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Well thanks Grim, I got yours and don't totally disagree with you. Except on the ruling possibly.

But I really was asking the original thread author what he was saying. Does he agree with the ruling? Disagree? and if so why?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Well since I am the original thread author I would say that to me the issue wasn't as big but could be abused. I do think its rather pointless. I doubt that 5-10 second would be enough time to get rid of any real proof. Plus chances are they are taken by suprise so it isnt like they are ready to get rid of the evidence as soon as they say "police", then they run up stairs, evidence in hand down the toilet.

If they are expecting it I would say they would have just left before you came.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I see this as a very dangerous decision. Grim, you have a good point about the difference in the degree of 'justice' the Court seems to promote. It appears justice is only for the few.

And the comments both you guys have made show what I believe is a major impetus behind this... the so-called war on drugs. You both spoke of 'flushing evidence down the toilet'. What other kind of evidence is likely to be flushable?

So we have the increased possibility of police busting into homes without first identifying themselves. This could very easily result in immediate escalation into severe violence, with high possibility of deaths, both of officers and citizens. Officers in the execution of their jobs. Quite possibly innocent citizens.

And for what? Is a drug bust worth an officer's life? Especially if the amounts involved are so miniscule that they could be flushed effectively? I respectfully submit not.

Add in the virtual certainty of hitting the occasional wrong house, and the occasional 'bad' warrant, i.e. issued via corruption in high places. Probably not a large number of either of these, but 1 is too many.

I just don't think the potential costs are worth it. I see this more as another creeping step on the road of diminished freedom. Especially in light of the fact this decision is a 180-degree departure from legal precedent of what, around 100 years? Something on that order.

I consider this to be a terrible decision. Sadly, I am not surprised by it.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Sorry, I have had a day from hades. HAHAHAHAHA

Missed that you were the original poster.

My concern with knock and announce is not even the evidence so much as the second or two it takes to pick up a Glock and punch my ticket when I come in the door.

I could regale you with all kinds of "close calls" that I have experienced in my 15 years as a SWAT officer and Team Leader, as well as the number of times the NO-Knock truly saved a cops life. "MINE", but suffice it to say, if the warrant is authorized and thus legal, what does it matter? Besides maybe saving a police officers life.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Another thing that bothers me is the complete randomness. Its not a big issue, or at least not one that we know about. I mean WHY is the real question? I simply cannot be that identifying themselves is so ruining to the raid that it must be eliminated so why?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Yes but Why do you think earl warren made this in the first place? did they simply not have a clue as to what they were doing? Something has to be important about this. I understand how it can be dangerous, but simply busting in without identification, it just seems a bit ominous to me in recent events.

With all the accusations of terrorists, then some turning out to be innocent people scares the hell out of me.
Like the guys in britian. The police busted in, no identification they were police. The guy comes down the stairs, doesnt know they are police, and the police shoot him. He claims to not known they were police till after he was shot and dragged outside. That is truely a tramatic event. Not only that but the guy turned out to be innocent, no proof of any sort of terrorist connections or plots.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
While I completely understand your concern for safety, we must also keep the protection of our constitution in mind.

Granted, if you a serving a warrant on suspected violent criminals, you hopefully already have probable cause to use every safety measure available to you.

I think it may be prudent to consider the true severity of the alleged crime before taking such extreme measures.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

While I completely understand your concern for safety, we must also keep the protection of our constitution in mind.

Granted, if you a serving a warrant on suspected violent criminals, you hopefully already have probable cause to use every safety measure available to you.

I think it may be prudent to consider the true severity of the alleged crime before taking such extreme measures.


The severity of the charges are exactly what is considered when the Judge determines if it should be a knock, no-knock, daytime or nighttime warrant.

And yes Grim, mistakes happen when making donuts too, but then cops don't lose their lives. No system is perfect, but we have got to protect the men and women in uniform when doing one of the most dangerous things in the world.

Did you notice the donut pun?
I found out I have diabetes last year and have not had a donut in a year. I'm dying here!!!










posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Just curious,

I'm wondering why law enforcement could not employ some form of fast acting knockout gas
to control a violent situation?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I just find it way too suspicious. Its pretty random with all the big issues going on. Not only is it random but just the entire situation in general is very suspicious. The comments, the 5-4 vote again. I just dont see the urgency of this issue. I think that if the warrent already has no knock on there, then obviously thats local law conflicting with federal law, in which local wins.

Otherwise it should be a knock. Now you dont need to knock at all, regardless of the accusations. Combine that with the terrorism accusation and what you have is a raid, which the cops in the raid do not need to identify themselves, or knock. They can simply bust in, arrest you, and take you away. And the cops dont have to tell anybody whats going on, especially if they accuse you of being a terrorist. I think Identification is the most important part here. If they simply just said, this is the police then busted in I would feel more comfortable. I think they should still identify themselves, even if they bust in after 2 seconds.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Positive I.D. is a good point.

What happens when criminals start busting into victims homes pretending to be police.

Also what happens the first time law enforcement uses these techniques to raid another
congressman?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I tend to agree with you here grimreaper797. While I don't want to see police officers unnecessarily endangered, I believe the owner/occupant of a home has every right in the world to know who is busting down his door. My personal inclination if someone came bursting into my home would be to shoot first and ask questions later.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I think the valid concern here is give an inch take a mile.

We've seen more extreme attacks on our constitutional rights during this administration
than in any other time in our history.

While I do not wish to defend the acts of violent criminals, I can also see how easily
these extreme measures could be abused by less than honorable jurisdictions.

What happens if law enforcement acts in this manner on a false lead
and someone innocent is severely injured?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Knock or don't knock.

Use the evidence or throw it out.

Whistleblower hypocrisy.

Who's to say whether they announced, or waited 10-12 seconds for you to get dignified?

And they're not out there breaking down doors to get your personal stash of a dime's worth of candy.

Throw the evidence out? BS. Warren was wrong; this court set it right.

What has this got to do with whistleblowers? That ruling dealt with unauthorized releasing of classified documents. Which is a crime, btw.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Knock or don't knock.


Whatever the warrant says, otherwise knock and announce. Thats what it should be.



Use the evidence or throw it out.


If the police follow proceedure use it. If they go busting in the door which they STILL aren't suppose to, then throw it out. This rule wasn't made by earl warren. Earl Warren was tired of the police not following the rule, and made throwing out the evidence the consiquence...suddenly police started following this rule.



Whistleblower hypocrisy.


Looking at the supreme court, not the individual case, yes it is. They are ruling in this case so that evidence can be used even if they don't follow the rules. Guess what, a whistleblower uses evidence even if they don't follow the rules, so why should the whistleblowers be in trouble, but police not?



Who's to say whether they announced, or waited 10-12 seconds for you to get dignified?


Well I would say that would be all dealt with in a court of law. If the officers lie and a witness were to say otherwise, I think that the policeman would be in a world of trouble. You break the laws, of course they have to prove it, just like they have to prove WE are guilty.



And they're not out there breaking down doors to get your personal stash of a dime's worth of candy.


hahaha jsobecky meet new york/los angeles police. Maybe after a couple run ins with them you wouldn't be saying that. If they weren't the cops I swear some of them would be the criminals.



Throw the evidence out? BS. Warren was wrong; this court set it right.


Just trying to enforce a rule police werent following.



What has this got to do with whistleblowers? That ruling dealt with unauthorized releasing of classified documents. Which is a crime, btw.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I'm wondering why law enforcement could not employ some form of fast acting knockout gas
to control a violent situation?


Headline: Police Resort to Chemical Warfare Against the People!!!

Ask the Russians about knockout gas.


I wasn't aware that the warrant specified whether it was knock or no knock.

As I posted on the other thread on this subject, we have had a rash of home invasions where police officers were impersonated.

I'm not too worried about a warrant being issued for me, but mistakes happen. I understand that the chances of a mistake are slim, but I have to wonder. I moved into my house three years ago. Aparently the people who lived there before me had some run ins with the Police. I still get cops knocking on my door and asking for someone who used to live there, three years later. So I consider the chances of a mistake happening at my house being just a little greater than might usually be the case. I'm not too worried about the local police as I know most of them socially (gun range), but with all of the task forces being run these days the chances are pretty good that it is going to be someone I don't know.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join