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.

 

Supreme Court Rules Police Don't Have To Knock.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that evidence procured through illegal means, specifically failure to knock and announce can be used in a criminal trial. The knock and announce law has existed to allow for the dignity of the accused when executing a warrant. It essentially allows for the accused to open the door within a predetermined time (10-12 seconds usually). This ruling is absolute, except where state law exists contradicting it.
 



www.sfgate.com
The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.

It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners, even unsympathetic homeowners like Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and coc aine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The Knock and Announce law essentially gives people the opportunity to answer the door, rather than risk being injured, or publicly embarrassed when police are executing a warrant.. Before this hearing, evidence gathered an unlawful search violating the knock and announce law could have been thrown out. The interesting thing is that previous decisions have always been in favor of the knock and announce. In fact, one of the 5 who ruled in against it stressed in 1995 the importance of K+A for the dignity of residents and their right to protect their own property.

Related News Links:
www.aclu.org
www.lectlaw.com




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Yes I submitted the same article but I feel yours should be up as well because of the fact that they are two totally different discussions since the direction I took with mine. I think this represents the possiblity of the actual case and mine represents the possiblities in general.

anyway if we look at this, it seems like its just more aggressive policing. They no longer have to really worry about whether or not the people they are arresting know its happening. This could be potentially dangerous. You have a bunch of armed guys announced busting your door down. To me this sounds like some one could get shot from a misunderstanding. If I was sleeping and my gun protection was next to me (legal of course) and these guys just bust in without notice I might shoot one thinking they are robbing me.

I dont know, the possibilities are not good to me.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The knock and announce law has existed to allow for the dignity of the accused when executing a warrant.

This is irrelevant. There are serious problems out there right now, this is simply not one of them.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Oh, for Christ's sake!


Who cares about the dignity of Americans when there's terrorists around every corner just waiting to kill you? /sarcasm

Lock your doors people!
And make sure you're dressed and ready for 'company' at any moment.

This is insane!



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Insane?

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?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I find this ruling to be rather reveiling more about intentions and agenda then actual substance of the issue. To me the issue is pretty stupid. Whats the difference between identifying yourself and a 5-10 second delay, or just busting the door down and not identifying yourself.

Maybe the fact the person in the home might shoot a cop because he thought he was being robbed. But really how is the issue so important and relevent 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.

Its not the actual ruling but just everything about the ruling. Who voted, why they voted, and the fact they felt it necessary to overthrow a ruling which isnt really that important. Its interesting that they feel something as simple as identifying themselves as police can ruin the entire raid....something just isn't right.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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.

These kinds of decesions are based on actual complaints though, not theoretical consitutional considerations. In this case, it was "Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360"


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.


The court decided that they didn't need to wait an additional 5-10 seconds. Hudson is the one that brought it before the court.

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).



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The example you gave is local level. Locally, if a law says otherwise, thats what goes. This is federal though, big difference. If the local government has a law that says they dont need the knock law, well then the case is void. Otherwise the knock was necessary.

I also think that simply barging in can be quiet dangerous. I mean you have to keep in my the knock thing was always expected. The only reason it became a problem is when earl warren made it that if they did it then the evidence was thrown out. This was because the knock rule was there, but there was no punishment for when it wasn't followed. Now obviously there was some reason they felt it necessary to implicate that.

Why suddenly out of the blue they decide to change that is suspicious.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

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?

Yes, because the police must always be subjugated to the people.

If they kick the door in, will they handcuff the homeowner? Surely they'll have their guns drawn ( for their own 'safety'
) Will the homeowner be allowed to read the warrant to ensure they do not violate the terms of it? Will the homeowner, face down on the floor, be able to observe police misconduct during the search?

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. The police (being agents acting in authority, not common men) have very limited rights. The authorities must always be controlled, and this control must be established by the people. If Americans do not care about this ruling or don't see it as important, that proves their hypnotized "homeland" mental state. I think some people here will need to have their own door kicked in before they see the last few years' events as being a destruction of fundamental rights in America. You people are seeing this ruling as only affecting 'criminals'? You think it'll help police take a bite out of crime? Give me a break.

Why fear the jackboot kicking your door in? Surely if you are a law abiding citizen, there's nothing to worry about, right? Oh, and thank God for the eavesdropping president, because it was your secretly tapped phone which allowed them to get that warrant in the first place.

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 American people will put the authorities in their place, and they will reclaim their full reservation of rights.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

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?


The almost daily creep of the Totalitarian Tiptoe is Insane.

Continuing to shred the Constitution to catch some dude doing recreational drugs in the privacy of his own home, not hurting anyone, is Insane.

Ignoring the real problems in this country while stomping on the privacy rights of its citizens is Insane!



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Since now they dont have to identify themselves while in progress of an arrest, I wonder if the next step will be reasonable cause.

I mean reasonable cause of terrorism they could bust in, and under this judgement not have to identify themselves, make an arrest, and poof you just got screwed.

If they dont have to Identify themselves that means when they come to your door you dont have the choice to come out willingly, thus protecting your personal possessions. I think we need to remember a search warrant and a warrant for your arrest are two different things, are they not?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
This was because the knock rule was there, but there was no punishment for when it wasn't followed.

The punishment would've been dismissing the charges against the criminal that was caught in that 'barging' in. And, note, they knocked, announced, waited, but went in 5-10 seconds earlier than is customary.

The SCOTUS ruled on the case, but it was brought to them by Hudson, who, it looks like, is trying to overturn his conviction. The court doesn't actually seem to be restricting anything, but rather is not 'granting' that a charge can be rejected merely because of this.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I have a friend who used to sell drugs. One day his house was raided, and the police did not announce themselves. They had a lot of valuables in the house, so when Dan (friend) heard a bunch of people break down the bottom door, and run up the stairs, the first thing he did was grab a boken (oak sword) and clobbered the first guy through the door, not knowing it was a cop. Of course Dan was beaten senseless for the assault, but not charged for it. Had he known that it was the police, this College junior, with a full time job, and prospects, would surely not have assaulted the cop.

One more reason for the K&A



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

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.

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.


If Americans do not care about this ruling or don't see it as important, that proves their hypnotized "homeland" mental state.

No, it simply doesn't. There 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. It simply does not serve the public interest to throw out a case against a person, who's been caught red handed, simply because the police didn't 'knock', and, remember, in this case, they knocked, annonced, waited, but the defendant is claiming that they shoudl've waited an additional 5-10 seconds.



[qyuote]before they see the last few years' events as being a destruction of fundamental rights in America.
The 'knock and wait' is simply not a fundamental right, nor an essential liberty.




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.

This is irrelevant. The case doesn't have anythign to do with the granting of warrants. Its merely concerned with some of the methods by which that warrant is executed.

The Consitution makes it clear that the state can send agents into your house to collect evidence of a crime.


The authorities may abrogate the right of intrusion to themselves, but it will be taken back by the people, someday.

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?


The almost daily creep of the Totalitarian Tiptoe is Insane.

This is simpy not part of the creep torwards dictatorship. To claim so is off base. 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.



grimreaper797
Since now they dont have to identify themselves while in progress of an arrest,

Thats not what this says, it says that they don't have to knock and wait when executing a search warrant.




I've got to say, I think that making an issue out of this is dangerous, because it pushes conspiracy to the 'fringe', and is a distraction from the real problems that we have.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
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.

Inch by inch



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanThere are problems in the US today, this is simply not one of them. This is a minor thing.


IMHO you couldn't have been further from truth if you tried. You see, I suppose many people (inluding myself) like America because it defined itself in a certain way - Bill of Rights etc, and that these documents are trying to answer to, and comply with, the common sense of a sane and honest person. There is some human dignity, dammit. If there is police at the door, let me answer the freaking door and not have it rammed and knocked down.


The police are already permited to execute warrants.


That statement is a little redundant, ain't it?


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.


Ah, same "public interest" argument can be made about wiretapping every freaking phone call in the country.



[qyuote]before they see the last few years' events as being a destruction of fundamental rights in America.

The 'knock and wait' is simply not a fundamental right, nor an essential liberty.


Obviously, it's seen by many as such. Including myself. It ties into the declared protection against unreasonable searches and the sanctity of the house. I know it's idealistic, but that's what America is about, or rather, what it used to be about. It's governed now by a bunch of ruthless people who are busy converting it into some kind of Eastern Despotism.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
there is police at the door, let me answer the freaking door and not have it rammed and knocked down.


But that a criminal should be set free, or evidence thrown out, because the police were didn't knock and wait????


That statement is a little redundant, ain't it?


Do you mean the 'permited' and 'warrants' part or were you being serious?


Ah, same "public interest" argument can be made about wiretapping every freaking phone call in the country.


And its those sorts of things that we should be worried about. By letting criminals go free because the police rushed in quicker than usual, thats not a good idea, and it sours the public on limiting federal and police powers. It permits the advocates of serious and terrible extensions of powers to say to the ravening mob "They'd have us let loose a terror cell if we were rude in arresting them, are you going to stand for that!".

Anyway, the mere existence of the power to search and seize materials from a home, thats fare more of a step towards dictatorship than this, but we all accept that the State has that authority.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
What a concept this has!

So slowly I turned! Step by step, , inch by inch, ... I crept upon him ... I grabbed him and.......smack....

Maybe this is where the Three Stooges in DC got the idea.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

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).



Roberts does not make the choice. They use sometiing called the rule of four to decide which cases will be heard.



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



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

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.

What the BoR does, is delineate a FEW rights that are essential. It does not list all of our rights. Many founders didn't want the BoR included anyway so as to further cloud the issue of what rights we Americans have, against the State.

Rights are full and unlimitied, to the common sovereign man living on the American soil. If you don't know this, and you think the US State is somehow allowing us to have certain rights, then you are mistaken.

We here in the US do not have a king, and therefore are a free people and have every right to do whatever we want to do so long as it doesn't hurt another person. That's a fact, and although judges won't really acknowledge common law in their courts, it still reigns supreme. Common law says we are essnetially God's agents here in America, and we retain all rights (so long as each American knows to reserve and claim those rights).



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

Oh yeah, the modern age where cops can catch people "red handed". Thank God for that, huh? We certainly wouldn't want the modern age to deliver a world where police powers are strictly controlled, eh? I mean really now, us modern Americans are too stupid to get along without the police.
I for one, do not feel safer knowing that the cops can kick in the door of the meth dealer across town. He was not a threat me anyway. But some people will see "crime" as a nebulous thing that lurks everywhere. Such people will also cheer every additional power granted to the police.



The 'knock and wait' is simply not a fundamental right, nor an essential liberty.

It is covered under the GENERAL understanding through common law that the State cannot interfere with a man's life. Every step the authorities take toward fascism is a further violation of the common law, which is all the law we need.



The Consitution makes it clear that the state can send agents into your house to collect evidence of a crime.

Why state the obvious? I am aware how warrants work. BUT, the homeowner has the prima fascia right of his property and any authority who wants in, has to display the proper papers at the door?

Evidence being lost? Are you really so off-kilter that you see dope going down the toilet as some tragedy for America? Is it really so bad if the right to keep cops at bay on your doorstep while you examine the search warrant is upheld, but a few people manage to use this as a way to hide or destroy evidence? It's police state thinking. Plain and simple. The people should be defended in their homes and their right to that terrirotry of their home. No pleas to "fighting crime" should be a valid reason to violate them in their home.



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.

Wrong. The "case" is concerned with what cops can do. The answer to that question according to common law is that "the cops can do NOTHING unless they show me the paperwork which is signed by a judge and which clearly describes what they are looking for, and where they intend to look."

If they kick my door in, then that visit by the cops becomes entirely their prerogative, and they are not likely to obey the terms of the warrant, but will stomp around the place, doing what they wish. It's a very key alteration of the power of one's doorstep.



Please explain how that evidence is acceptable if they wait, but not acceptable if they don't wait?

Terry versus Ohio described the particular situation in which a cop has the right to place his hand inside your pants pocket. If he pulls out evidence, it is inadmissable unless that evidence looked like a weapon from the outside of your pants. We aren't talking about what the evidence is, Nygdan, we're talking about what cops can do. You ask what makes evidence acceptable? The answer is, "Were the person's rights violated in gathering it?" That's the question.




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.

It's a right to hold cops at bay on your doorstep while you examine the validity of their warrant and the terms of it. If their paperwork is in order, then most Americans will submit to their authority. That key moment is removed and so the householder will not be able to examine the warrant since now the cops will be kicking the door in from the get-go. This ruling gives all police more power, and that is always a bad thing in a free country.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join