Supreme Court Rules Police Don't Have To Knock.

Well said smallpeeps

You have voted smallpeeps for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Even cited precident

Originally posted by smallpeeps
What the BoR does, is delineate a FEW rights that are essential.

indeed, they didn't wnat to give the impression that non-enumerated rights didnt' exist.

If you don't know this, and you think the US State is somehow allowing us to have certain rights, then you are mistaken.

I haven't stated anything as such. The rights talked about in the contitution are inalienable and their authority extends from beyond the scope of law.

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.

No you don't, you have to live within the law. You cannot, for example, consume banned substances, you cannot traffic in banned substances, there are limits on every freedom, this was a basic aspect of the revolution and why they opted to form a government at all, rather than eliminate government,

Oh yeah, the modern age where cops can catch people "red handed". Thank God for that, huh?

Yes, thank go for it. In the past, an armed insurrection and a rebel coudlnt' press delete on a computer and erase his harddrive, his storage of guns and papers were preservable as hard to dispose of evidence.

Besides which, this is irrelevant, the Founders never said that the police have to knock in order to execute a warrant. They explicitly note that, along side the freedom to personal property, is the right of the government to search and seize property.

I for one, do not feel safer knowing that the cops can kick in the door of the meth dealer across town.

I for one do not feel any less secure knowing that the cops, when kicking my door down, won't now necessarily knock and wait before doing so. It is a trivial matter, they can execute warrants, they can come into your house, bring their guns to bear, put you in irons, ramsack your house, and take you and your possessions away for public display in court. Them waiting 10-20 seconds before doing so is simply not an essential matter.

He was not a threat me anyway.

Since this is a society, it doesn't matter what you as a personal individual consider a direct threat, it matters what society considers to be a threat. And society, overhwhelmingly, considers meth labs to be dangerous places, and the gangs that run them to be extremely dangerous.

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.
Thats bogus. The Constitution and Founders explicitly recognize that the State can send Agents into your house to search you and your possessions and take you and your possesions away.

common law, which is all the law we need.

Thats entirely contrary to the foundation of the US republic and everything that the Founders beleived in and the Constitution enshrined.

Why state the obvious?

Because no one seems to be aware of it or recognize it.

I am aware how warrants work.

Your statements indicate the contrary.

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?

No, they don't. Thats infact rather silly to suggest. The state doesn't have to get you to agree to let them in, what would be the point of a warrant in such a case? You don't have to be given the warrant for review before they come in.

Evidence being lost? Are you really so off-kilter that you see dope going down the toilet as some tragedy for America?

Thats hardly 'off kilter'. This man is a criminal, period. You can disagree with the law, but the law stands as it is, his actions were criminal, by the law. To suggest that, yes, he's a criminal, but, no, that doesn't matter because the police knocked, announced, and waited 5-10 seconds instead of 10-20 seconds, which is what is alleged in the case, is ludicrous.

Is it really so bad if the right to keep cops at bay on your doorstep while you examine the search warrant

Thats nonsense. The police do not nor should they have to wait for your permission to execute a warrant, agian, there would be no need for a warrant in such a case.

It's police state thinking. Plain and simple.

Then the Founders founded a police state.

The people should be defended in their homes and their right to that terrirotry of their home.

Sorry, but they shouldn't. The law doesn't stop at a person's doorstep, never has, and never should.

No pleas to "fighting crime" should be a valid reason to violate them in their home.

Why put it in quotes? The man is a criminal, plain and simple.

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

I'm sorry but you are entirely incorrect. In the US, the police can enter your home without your permission. And, again, you are wrong, the case was not about whether or not the police can execute warrants, it was about whether or not they have to knock and wait. It is perfectly acceptable for them to give you the warrant once they enter the home. Itdoesn't make the slightest bit of sense to issue a warrant to search for evidence, but then say that the police can't actually enter the home until somoene lets them in. IN all cases, warrants are looking for evidence, evidence can be destroyed or hidden, it doesn't matter that you think selling crystal meth isn't a crime, the point is that warrants are for the express purpose of looking for evidence, period. Any evidence can be disposed of, given enough time. To say that the police have to wait for you to read and review a warrant before they enter defeats the entire purpose of the warrant.

We aren't talking about what the evidence is, Nygdan, we're talking about what cops can do.

I know that and I have not stated anything contrary to that. Warrants are exist to collect evidence.

You ask what makes evidence acceptable? The answer is, "Were the person's rights violated in gathering it?" That's the question.

The Founders made it clear that warrants can be issued, that the state can enter your home and take your property. Is that a violation of a person's right to property or not? Does 'knock and wait' make a substantial difference here? If warrants are acceptable, if police powers are acceptable, then not having to knock and wait clearly is acceptable; preventing this possibility of walking in on somone as they stroll about their house naked (ie, preserving dignity) is clearly inferior to the right to home and property.

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.

That is not a right.

If their paperwork is in order, then most Americans will submit to their authority.

Except, of course, for ANYONE that is actually guilty of a crime or has evidence of a crime in their house.

That key moment is removed and so the householder will not be able to examine the warrant p

You can and still examine the warrant once they are in the house.

This ruling gives all police more power, and that is always a bad thing in a free country.

Thats absolutely wrong. Police forces are necessary in any country, especially a free one.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Nygdan]

Ok I have a couple questions and issues to address. Mainly asking Nygdan right now

First question is, if the warrant already has them listed as a danger and the knock isnt needed, why have a court ruling to overturn the knock and announce? Doesnt this mean that their reason for overturning it was already technically handled? If the warrant doesnt say "no knock" or whatever it says, then apparently its uncalled for to just bust into the house, right? If the warrant can take care of the issue already, why is there a ruling to overturn ALL knock and announce cases?

Next question is, You do know that these people, though have a warrant out for their arrest (or search of their home/maybe executive warrant) are not guilty yet? They are still innocent until proven guilty in a court. I think we are assuming the person is innocent thus waving their rights. This is pretty dangerous if you ask me.

There is little difference in a cop coming up to you door because he heard a gunshot in your house and a cop having a search warrant or warrant for arrest where you are not deemed an immediate and dangerous threat on that warrant. That means that you are both still innocent civilians, you are both under suspicion, and the only real difference is a judge agreed that your a suspicion where the cop just said you were. To me it would be extremely wrong for the cops to bust in and look around at whats going on inside your house because they didnt have to knock. I mean technically the reason they knock is so that you will read the warrant and allow them access to your home.

Would you be alright with a cop busting in on reasonable cause? I would be alot more comfortable with cops coming to the door unless you are shown to be a killer (evidence is already collected to show that your a murderer or extremely dangerous).

Like I said though, if a warrent can take care of the Knock problem, why overturn it? This was made to enforce the law. Also I do think the evidence should be thrown out if they do not knock and the warrant does not say that they dont have to. Mainly because we need something to enforce the police to do their jobs right. We are not here to protect cops rights, we are here to protect citizens rights.

I don't see any reason why the police would want to avoid announcing themselves.

It puts them in danger unnecessarily. The vast majority of citizens would not take a shot at a cop, whereas the vast majority of citizens would take a shot at an unannounced intruder. It's wise to announce yourself, from a purely selfish standpoint.

If the cops want to get in to my house, and they have a warrant, I'm going to let them in to prevent damage to the house (if they give me sufficient time to get up and unlock the door). If they barge in unannounced, there's a very nasty surprise waiting across the threshold. Then it's their word against mine, and that's really unfortunate.

That's really an aside though, because this case had everything to do with evidenciary procedure, and little, if anything, to do with police procedure.

I think there need to be sensible limits set on the ability of police to gather evidence, to balance the needs of the individual (privacy, security) against the needs of the community. I expect the police and the courts to show me the respect and decency I'm due, as a citizen of this country. But if I'm engaged in unlawful activity, especially of the sort that puts my neighbors at risk (cooking meth), my rights go out the window as far as I'm concerned.

Rights are nothing without responsibilities.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by smallpeeps
This ruling gives all police more power, and that is always a bad thing in a free country.

Thats absolutely wrong. Police forces are necessary in any country, especially a free one.

What is absolutely wrong? No one said police forces aren't necessary. smallpeeps said giving the police more power is a bad thing.

Giving them ultimate power to come bursting into a peaceful home is a very bad thing. Another right I have lost under the Totalitarian Tiptoe. I used to feel secure that I could sit in my living room watching TV and anyone who wished to enter would knock first. I no longer have that security.

Terry v. Ohio

Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions.

This is a key point. The fruits of the invasion are what matter. What is the motive for the officer and for the courts who recognize his testimony and oath? Is it to kick the door down for his own safety, or for what the house might bear, if one can only break in fast enough?.


Rasobasi: Thanks! Here are some other cases from the court's terry commentary:

And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. [n15] This Court has held, in [p18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [p19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586-587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30-31 (1925).

Nygdan:

No you don't, you have to live within the law. You cannot, for example, consume banned substances, you cannot traffic in banned substances

I'm a conspiracist. I think the revolution was fostered and that most laws are unneeded because humanity is essentially good. To state it colloquially, we are all being kept down by "The Man". But you know what? I just found out The Man controls the drug trade, and which (as you obviously admit, using the example here yourself) very drug trade is what enables so much crime anyway.

I'm glad we can agree that the only thing we're talking about here is people using or trafficking in drugs from their homes. That'll make this discussion easier.

You know how firemen can sometimes become pyros? I mean hell, they live for fires, so why not create a few that don't hurt anyone? But see, fire is to the fireman, what criminals are to the legal profession (and its subsidiaries, i.e. the government).

there are limits on every freedom, this was a basic aspect of the revolution and why they opted to form a government at all, rather than eliminate government,

Laws are created to establish the barrister/lawyer class of persons, and keep them as the wranglers of the herd of humanity. Laws are created by the Govt and it's subsidiaries. You say I must live within the law, but what law? Written where? If I was born on the American continent, then the law is written on my heart.

It's funny that you mention banned substances. On what grounds are they banned? I suppose it's done by the "people" since politicians are elected? For the good and safety of society?

It is a trivial matter, they can execute warrants, they can come into your house, bring their guns to bear, put you in irons, ramsack your house, and take you and your possessions away for public display in court. Them waiting 10-20 seconds before doing so is simply not an essential matter.

If I am aware of my rights and can discuss them in court, then what you wrote above is not true at all. If I can display to the court, how I see the matter, I might persuade the court that the fruit of the search was meant to be used as profit (as in many drug seizures and warrants like this).

Since this is a society, it doesn't matter what you as a personal individual consider a direct threat, it matters what society considers to be a threat. And society, overhwhelmingly, considers meth labs to be dangerous places, and the gangs that run them to be extremely dangerous.

I said meth dealers not cooks. Most of the meth in the US comes through the Mexico border anyway, so you are perpetuating a bogeyman in this direction.

Thats nonsense. The police do not nor should they have to wait for your permission to execute a warrant, agian, there would be no need for a warrant in such a case.

Read the link above.

Sorry, but they shouldn't. The law doesn't stop at a person's doorstep, never has, and never should.

The Fourth Amendment says otherwise:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Itdoesn't make the slightest bit of sense to issue a warrant to search for evidence, but then say that the police can't actually enter the home until somoene lets them in. IN all cases, warrants are looking for evidence, evidence can be destroyed or hidden, it doesn't matter that you think selling crystal meth isn't a crime, the point is that warrants are for the express purpose of looking for evidence, period. Any evidence can be disposed of, given enough time.

Wrong, unless you are assuming they will execute me in my home and we wil not go to trial.

Read the Terry versus Ohio link above. They describe how a man being frisked is being violated and that there must be limitations on what powers police have. They must at least pause reasonably at the door.

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.

That is not a right.

It is if you know your rights. I'm not saying you won't go to jail or go to court, but if you know the law, you know where you stand in relation to the authorities, then you can secure your rights fully and the court must recognize that.

The policeman is a civil servant. He is sniffing out crime, as the decision above phrases it. This is a competitive pursuit. How old is that film Serpico? I wonder if drug crime and the collection of seized property has become any more sophisticated since then, hm? There is a fruit of this warrant process which the court has defined above.

Except, of course, for ANYONE that is actually guilty of a crime or has evidence of a crime in their house.

Like ten seconds is long enough to erase data from your hard drive? Try again with that one. And the drug thing is silly. From a consipiratorial viewpoint, do you think the supremes are all clued in at the same level? That they know everything about the drug trade and the neverending "war on drugs"?

That key moment is removed and so the householder will not be able to examine the warrant p

You can and still examine the warrant once they are in the house.

Okay so let's assume they just politely open the door and walk in. If anyone jumps off the couch and runs into the next room, this is a guilty person. A criminal, yes? And so they will draw their guns and pursue into the bedroom?

And at this point the subject has control of his domicile and his fourth amendment rights? I don't think so. DIGNITY is an issue here, if we care about the people.


[edit on 17-6-2006 by smallpeeps]