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.
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The knock and announce law has existed to allow for the dignity of the accused when executing a warrant.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
that they felt it necessary the cops shouldn't have to identify themselves? to me the fact that a non issue got in their makes me uneasy.
Detroit police acknowledge violating the knock-and-announce rule when they called out their presence at Hudson'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. Hudson was convicted of drug possession.
Originally posted by Nygdan
The police can come into your house and take stuff out of it, but if they don't knock, and give you time to let them in, then its crossed a line and become insane?
Originally posted by Nygdan
The police can come into your house and take stuff out of it, but if they don't knock, and give you time to let them in, then its crossed a line and become insane?
Originally posted by grimreaper797
This was because the knock rule was there, but there was no punishment for when it wasn't followed.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
The American homeowner has more rights than the police. He retains EVERY right including but not limited to the Bill of Rights which guarantees a right to be secure in person and property.
If Americans do not care about this ruling or don't see it as important, that proves their hypnotized "homeland" mental state.
What is someone going to be doing in the privacy of their home which gives the cops a right to kick the door in? Making drugs? Beating their kid? Sorry, but privacy of a person within their own home is paramount and is a fundamental right.
The authorities may abrogate the right of intrusion to themselves, but it will be taken back by the people, someday.
The almost daily creep of the Totalitarian Tiptoe is Insane.
grimreaper797
Since now they dont have to identify themselves while in progress of an arrest,
Originally posted by NygdanThere are problems in the US today, this is simply not one of them. This is a minor thing.
The police are already permited to execute warrants.
This merely says that they don't have to announce themselves and wait outside the door before executing it. This makes sense in the modern age, when evidence of a crime can be disposed of in a moment.
[qyuote]before they see the last few years' events as being a destruction of fundamental rights in America.
Originally posted by Aelita
there is police at the door, let me answer the freaking door and not have it rammed and knocked down.
That statement is a little redundant, ain't it?
Ah, same "public interest" argument can be made about wiretapping every freaking phone call in the country.
Originally posted by Nygdan
However, I will agree, the court gets to pick and choose what cases they will hear and decide on, and the Cheif Justice, in this case Roberts, is the one that does that (I beleive).
Every year the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to have the high court hear specific cases. Experts estimate that roughly 5000 requests are made annually. These petitions, called writs of certiorari, are essentially pleas stating, "please hear my case." Each justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has a number of skilled law clerks working for him or her and these clerks review every writ of certiorari and submit a "cert memo" regarding the writs they review to the justice they are assigned. The judges review the memos and hold a conference to determine which of these cases should go on the court's docket.
The "Rule of Four" controls matters when deciding which issues the high court will hear. If four justices agree that a specific writ of certiorari should be granted, then the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's docket and an order stating that certiorari has been granted will be issued to the petitioner.
Source
Originally posted by Nygdan
And warrants permit the police to come into your house and look for evidence of a crime, thats right in the bill of rights too.
This makes sense in the modern age, when evidence of a crime can be disposed of in a moment. It simply does not serve the public interest to throw out a case against a person, who's been caught red handed
The 'knock and wait' is simply not a fundamental right, nor an essential liberty.
The Consitution makes it clear that the state can send agents into your house to collect evidence of a crime.
That 'right' never existed. The State can search your person and belongs, privacy doesn't trump the law. The police can carry out searches. This case wasn't even concerned with that aspect, it merely tried to decide if evidence collected without a long enough 'waiting' period is admissibile in a court.
Please explain how that evidence is acceptable if they wait, but not acceptable if they don't wait?
Please explain why a person has a fundamental right to be given enough time to dispose of evidence when police are carrying out a search warrant? Its not in the consitution, its not in the logic of the founders, in fact...its not anywhere.