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

Thats a valid arguement there JimC. Peersonally I would feel better if they stuck with a warrant addressing whether or not a knock is needed. I mean if a guy murdered 16 people and is know to carry a sawed off shot gun, Id say warning isnt exactly needed. Now if its some guy whos suspected of stealing a car, well thats a bit different.

I think the option to come out willingly and avoid the possibility of a mistake is something that should be noted. I get worried when they make decisions on stuff where the plain facts really seem like its not that big of a deal. I mean by looking at it, I cant see the big deal, or why they should change it. That makes me question if there is something behind it. I still get chills from the idea a bunch of armed guys busting in without even having to say who they are.

Oh great, it's 3 o'clock in the morning and someone bursts in your home, what do you do? Go "Oh yea the cops are here better surrender." or "Oh no someone just broke into my home I better defend myself."

Many people I can see die of this.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

I agree with you and will state for the record that the system was working just fine, or so I thought and I am directly involved. I have no answer why they would change it. The issue of a No-Knock was always only given when it involved an armed suspect or where the evidence was of a nature that could have been easily and quickly destroyed. I will tell you this that the 2 hardest warrants to get, are the No-Knock and the Nighttime search warrant. I have written them that were 12 pages long and been rejected before.

As for announcing, I guess it varies state to state, but in the 3 states I have worked, you MUST announce as you enter the structure and every room as well. Your announcement must be clear and easily understood. but that is just DE, MD and SC.

The No-Knock only relieves you of the duty to actually knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time for the occupants to respond. The amount of time is always a matter of debate as well.

Just a little info.
Semper

The no knocking is worrying and everything surrounding it is just as bad. The supreme court thing is worrying me and I really hope to not see this continue. If every controversal issue is voted 5-4 same votes, we will see some serious problems in the future.

Now Im also wondering why the hypocracy on the supreme courts part. I think all this has to do with the people in the supreme court, and the 5 peoples personal agendas. Something is up, they are being contradictive and overturning issues, that aren't really an issue. Something feels very wrong about the things to come.

Does anyone know which case was presented to the Supreme Court that caused them to review the Knock/No-Knock issue?

What was the original case/charge/appeal?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Does anyone know which case was presented to the Supreme Court that caused them to review the Knock/No-Knock issue?

What was the original case/charge/appeal?

I caught the tail-end of a broadcast news story about it, so don't have links, etc., but the story indicated it was a case where officers apparantly entered under these conditions (no knock-announce, but evidently a warrant, albeit not a no-knock warrant) and found "a small amount of coc aine and a gun". My understanding is that the defendant was trying to have the case dismissed on grounds of illegal search.

Sorry I don't have better sources, nor time right now to do a proper search...

I'll see if I can find it later, if nobody else beats me to it.

So no one has done it yet, so im going to take it there. While on the face this isnt too bad. We all want to keep bad people off the streets and no matter how much you dilike the persona that is Law Enforcement they are still human beings and desrve to have a fair chance.

However, with "no knock" "no Announce" as the new Jurisprudence, cause thats what it is, all of the basic standards of police work have changed. Its like the New Cia director insisting that the consitution has a resonablness standard(which is courts) and not a Probable standard(which is constitution). While there will be those officers and precincts who do not slip down this mountain many will out of conviencience.

How long before non-mainstream ideas become illegal? How long before not being judeo-christian becomes illegal? How long before questioning the "decider" is illegal? When reading this article all I was cognizant of was the Nazi Gestappo. Now i know that this gets touted a lot, but in a real way tahts what this is. Much like the Gestappo, our law enforcement officers no longer have to announce, they can barge right in, arrest you and seize everything. While the current precident says that you have to have a warrant even if it is no knock no announce, how much longer before that lil inconvience gets removed, for a reaon like, "If we find out that they are going to do something in 5min we dont have time for a warrant we need to be able to act, we need retrogressive warrants", is it really all that out of the realm of the possible? I don't personally think so.

The whole they are going to flush thier stash is BS, no Offense Semper but my dad is law enforcment, and between him and the Statistics, I know the following is true. MORE COPS ARE KILLED IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE cases then drug cases. This is unbrideled truth, its not drugs that Kill cops its angry wives(generally stabbing or shooting cops in back as they take thier abusive husband away) that kill cops.

Not to mention if you break down a Tweakers door he/she will shoot first and ask questions later, and in my opionion they would be completely not at fault for shooting an ARMED officer who ILLEGALY broke down thier door. This is illegal regardless of what the supreme court says, and justified. As a pacifist i would be sol, as I have no weapons outside of steak knives to protect myself. This will cause more officers to be shot in the line of duty, and we all know what happens in major cities when heaven forbid a cop gets shot. The black bars come across the shields and cops are out in force "avenging thier own". Cops get more aggressive and in turn people are more aggressive and so on and so forth and then thats used to pass more restrictive laws, because we already have to have 24/7 babysitters because we cant be trusted to not break laws.

All the ranting aside, and I hope that i didn't overtly step on anyone's feet, Alito and Roberts are a danger to our civil liberties. Libertarians and Liberals alike came out in droves to try and stop this, with petitions(The only legal recourse against Gov), I know that in Tucson alone on one day we nabbed over 1k signatures against Roberts nomination. Whats that say about how disconnected our GOV is.

The court is revisiting more cases now than taking on new ones. This case is just the latest example, we can expect to hear more and more cases from the supreme court going back and reexamining cases heard under the liberal activist judge Sandra Day O'Connor(sarcasm).

The days when our freedoms will start being stripped publically is at hand. This is a test, opinion research polls, think tanks, etc will all be pouring over data about the American people this week and next to determine wether or not we will do anything about this. And as usual nothing will happen with the exceptions of maybe a few protests here and there but the general sheep population wil still be asleep with beer in hand and Tivo on TV.

Else,

No-Knock warrants have been in existence for years. There was just a requirement for more expedient incursion in order to get it.

In fact, not to many years ago, all warrants were No-Knock. That is actually a fairly recent decision as decisions go. Now the Nighttime, VS Daytime warrants have been an issue for decades. The court has always upheld the Nighttime warrant as needing more PC to obtain.

And reading the decision, there is still no removal on the Officer to announce when entering. Just no obligation to announce prior to.

Also let us be clear on this. The Only thing the court ruled on was the validity of the evidence obtained during a properly issued and correctly obtained warrant.

www.renewamerica.us...

Hudson v. Michigan

Let us not also forget that the suspect did indeed have a weapon under the chair he was sitting in surrounded by Dope. Also the only reason the Court heard the case, is that the SUSPECT, appealed it to them and challenged the exclusionary rule and attempted to have the evidence suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

Also brought to the courts attention is that the police did call out "Police" prior to entering. They did not wait the standard 20 seconds though before the front officer simply OPENED THE DOOR. Thats right there was no Door Breaking, or Busting in. He turned the knob and entered seeing Hudson sitting in the afore-mentioned chair with the afore-mentioned dope.

Now maybe it is just me, but it does not quite look like such a bad decision anymore.

Semper

This is very troubling.

Rulings will increasingly go toward the "rights" of the state and the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas on board.

I have a sense of respect for the science fiction writers of the 30s, who were able to see the total bifurcation of society into the elites and the under-educated, disempowered laborers -- best expressed in Metropolis.

The more I learn about how corporations treat their lowest-rung workers while presenting CEOs with multimillion dollar compensation packages, the more clearly I see how far we have come from our revolutionary origins.

What will it take to awaken Joe Sixpack?

I think its more about enforcing rules semper. Whats to actually stop a ground of them from not announcing anymore. This rule was good because it was punishment for not following rules. The announcing should ALWAYS be in place, and I believe unless noted specifically in the warrant, the knock should be too.

I don't care what semantics are used this is still an erosion of the basic search and seizure laws... and yes for today it could be used for good. But, when it comes down to things like this I am a line in the sand type of guy. As it is I think we have eroded the illegal search and seizure portion of the constitution enough, and this is just one more sign of a developing repressive government.

But on paper I do agree it does seem pretty harmless

semper... I'd like to ask your professional opinion on a few points (Might as well take advantage of the guy in the know... )

I'd like to ask you to set aside for a moment your personal feelings (as best you can, anyway), and answer as a professional in the field.

1) Is it your opinion that a significant number of raid teams (for lack of a better term) will deliberately move toward NOT knocking/announcing, as the standard of operation?

If your answer to that one is a true 'No', then the rest are pretty much meaningless.

2) Do you think the hard core types, big time druggies and what not, will start being more 'immediately armed', and ready to resist with violence (if they are going to at all, anyway)?

3) Do you think the raid teams might be even more tense than you must be now, if they start not knocking as a matter of course?

4) Do you think not knocking as a matter of course will affect the safety, not only of the officers involved, but of other, totally innocent (children) people that may be on the scene?

5) If 4 is Yes, do you think it will be an improvement or a degradation of safety?


I am troubled by this decision. I see the potential for severe abuse (NOT the certainty, but the potential) here. If the system works perfectly - it's always the right house, it's always a legitimate warrant, etc, then OK, but I'm a little concerned about the "If" part.

Also, I've been trying to find where the amount of drugs was specified? The only mention I've heard so far is "a small amount". Was it in the link you posted and I'm just blind today?

My dad was a State Police office in the state where I grew up. I wish he was still around to ask about this...

Anyway, I'll most appreciate any thoughts you may have on the above questions... Thanks!

I still think something like this must be only on a case by case basis.

A balance of safety and reason.

Again this all depends on the severity of the alleged crime.

There must be consideration for children, other family members and pets.

Barging into someone's home is a great way to be eaten by a pit bull.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
semper... I'd like to ask your professional opinion on a few points (Might as well take advantage of the guy in the know...

)

I'd like to ask you to set aside for a moment your personal feelings (as best you can, anyway), and answer as a professional in the field.

1) Is it your opinion that a significant number of raid teams (for lack of a better term) will deliberately move toward NOT knocking/announcing, as the standard of operation?

If your answer to that one is a true 'No', then the rest are pretty much meaningless.

2) Do you think the hard core types, big time druggies and what not, will start being more 'immediately armed', and ready to resist with violence (if they are going to at all, anyway)?

3) Do you think the raid teams might be even more tense than you must be now, if they start not knocking as a matter of course?

4) Do you think not knocking as a matter of course will affect the safety, not only of the officers involved, but of other, totally innocent (children) people that may be on the scene?

5) If 4 is Yes, do you think it will be an improvement or a degradation of safety?


I am troubled by this decision. I see the potential for severe abuse (NOT the certainty, but the potential) here. If the system works perfectly - it's always the right house, it's always a legitimate warrant, etc, then OK, but I'm a little concerned about the "If" part.

Also, I've been trying to find where the amount of drugs was specified? The only mention I've heard so far is "a small amount". Was it in the link you posted and I'm just blind today?

My dad was a State Police office in the state where I grew up. I wish he was still around to ask about this...

Anyway, I'll most appreciate any thoughts you may have on the above questions... Thanks!

WHEW!!! Well I will try, but remember I am only one man with one man's opinions and can not speak for all of the Emergency Response teams. (SWAT) I am also going to "tell" a couple of SWAT stories on my blog coming up, so I don't want to give too much away.

1st. I do not see this ruling changing the warrant system in any significant way. This was one ruling on one case and I am just guessing that there will be others now. But "Do I see more SWAT teams going to the No-Knock or No-Announce? Possibly, but I do not expect a rush to this sort of action. I will reiterate that the only reason we ever went for one, was if there was thought to be a genuine danger to the entering team. We had a very specialized team, used mostly in Narcotics work. Speed is of the essence and we could clear a 4 bedroom one story in under 12 seconds. Kind of a shock and awe. Yet even at that speed I have personally been the front man and faced more than one firearm pointed at me. (Very tense moment I can assure you)
So the end answer I believe is no. Plus you don't want your cases challenged, if you begin having too many cases challenged, you start being looked at by the DA. (Ask the 9th circuit HAHAHA)
2 is no, not really. They know they are no match for a well trained team no matter how much they like to "blow" about it. In their hearts they know that they will lose if they do. SO I don't see that happening.
3. Can't get anymore tense, trust me. If you could I would have pooped my pants everytime.
4. The required announce time prior to entry was always arbitrary, but accepted at 20 seconds. I really don't see a big impact and as I stated, I believe most teams will still operate as usual. Also remember, the Detectives are the ones usually getting the warrant, the team only executes them.

Gotta go, dinner is ready. Hope this helps.

Semper

A man's home is his castle. He has every right to expect privacy and security inside the walls of that home. The first time some officer gets shot by a startled homeowner (and the homeowner lives to be prosecuted), I don't see how anyone could convict the homeowner of anything. If the police did not announce their presence before breaking in the homeowner would have every right to shoot them in self defense.

This is something I can relate to in a personal way. I rent, and over the past month or so a gang has moved in upstairs and is in the process of turning my little corner into an open air drug market and prostituition center. They have muscle (2 men with a pitbull) hanging literally outside my livingroom and kitchen windows. I am an old hippy liberal but this is a beast of an entirely different color, its either meth, or crack or smack or all of the above (and this is as a rule a nice neighborhood, so this is an invasion) I have contacted the local neighborhood forum, the local crime watch commitee, my landlord, the police in gereral and the vice squad, the local newspaper, businesses and tv stations. There is not much more that I can do without drawing attention to myself that would put my life in danger and the police say that they cannot raid without probable cause (though if you were to ask anyone within 2 blocks of here they would tell you what is happening) so while I am a firm believer in the police or other instituitions foloowing strict guidelines, this brings the situition home in a way that abstractions never will.

Originally posted by grover
This is something I can relate to in a personal way. I rent, and over the past month or so a gang has moved in upstairs and is in the process of turning my little corner into an open air drug market and prostituition center. They have muscle (2 men with a pitbull) hanging literally outside my livingroom and kitchen windows. I am an old hippy liberal but this is a beast of an entirely different color, its either meth, or crack or smack or all of the above (and this is as a rule a nice neighborhood, so this is an invasion) I have contacted the local neighborhood forum, the local crime watch commitee, my landlord, the police in gereral and the vice squad, the local newspaper, businesses and tv stations. There is not much more that I can do without drawing attention to myself that would put my life in danger and the police say that they cannot raid without probable cause (though if you were to ask anyone within 2 blocks of here they would tell you what is happening) so while I am a firm believer in the police or other instituitions foloowing strict guidelines, this brings the situition home in a way that abstractions never will.

I feel for you Grover.

For a number of years I was one of those "Live in the Area" cops. We got a "comped" apartment in order to have a police officer living there. It was right in the projects and was like living in a war zone.

I can not answer the poster as too the validity of shooting anyone that blunders into your home. Only to say that the taking of a human life is something that NO ONE ever really gets over. It does NOT MATTER how you justify it in your own mind, it will haunt you. All of us can talk about what we would do and how we would shoot first, protect this piece of property, not let the "man" come busting in. But it really is only talk, words typed on here and though possibly well meaning, still just words.

When the team comes in, I have personally observed vacated bowels (more than a couple of times too) Uncontrolled urination, weeping, frozen in place, running etc. Unless you are a Combat Vet, you truly do not know exactly what you will do and the police count on that.

Well more thoughts from me for what they are worth.

Semper

thanks semper....fortunately they have been in no wise threatening to me YET, but if it continues unchecked (like I said this is a nice neighborhood) it will happen since it is right outside my door, literally. They may not technically be a gang as in crips/bloods type of thing, but there are people involved as opposed to a person, they have muscle, a runner or two etc. so in my book they are a gang. A friend asked if I was sure they weren't just dealing pot and I said potheads don't behave like this, what happens when ya get stoned, ya raid the refridgerator, pig out and fall asleep and they don't behave like that, besides they are a totally different (more threatening) caliber of person, never heard the word threatening in relation to a stoner before unless you are standing between them and a bag of doritos.

But back to topic sorta: Knock and announce as far as I am concerned should be the rule, not the exception, but as always there are exceptions, such as in gangs and drugs and the danger that they are either armed or that they will flush the evidence if they have advance warning. Generally speaking those and more dangerous senerios breaking in should be allowed (I think) for every case there is always the exception, trouble is once a precadent is set, using it as an excuse is always tempting. On one hand rights need to be respected, on the other laws need to be inforced, drawing a line is always difficult, unless you are some armchair pundit who has no clue unless one comes up and bites them in the ass.

Originally posted by semperfortis
WHEW!!! Well I will try, but remember I am only one man with one man's opinions and can not speak for all of the Emergency Response teams. (SWAT) I am also going to "tell" a couple of SWAT stories on my blog coming up, so I don't want to give too much away.

...

Gotta go, dinner is ready. Hope this helps.

Semper

It does indeed, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond... and understood; just one guy's opinion.

Many thanks! (I hope your dinner was good... mine was fantastic! )


[edit on 18-6-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Originally posted by grover
thanks semper....fortunately they have been in no wise threatening to me YET, but if it continues unchecked (like I said this is a nice neighborhood) it will happen since it is right outside my door, literally. They may not technically be a gang as in crips/bloods type of thing, but there are people involved as opposed to a person, they have muscle, a runner or two etc. so in my book they are a gang. A friend asked if I was sure they weren't just dealing pot and I said potheads don't behave like this, what happens when ya get stoned, ya raid the refridgerator, pig out and fall asleep

and they don't behave like that, besides they are a totally different (more threatening) caliber of person, never heard the word threatening in relation to a stoner before unless you are standing between them and a bag of doritos.

But back to topic sorta: Knock and announce as far as I am concerned should be the rule, not the exception, but as always there are exceptions, such as in gangs and drugs and the danger that they are either armed or that they will flush the evidence if they have advance warning. Generally speaking those and more dangerous senerios breaking in should be allowed (I think) for every case there is always the exception, trouble is once a precadent is set, using it as an excuse is always tempting. On one hand rights need to be respected, on the other laws need to be inforced, drawing a line is always difficult, unless you are some armchair pundit who has no clue unless one comes up and bites them in the ass.

And as a Cop, I do not disagree with you at all. I have been witness to many infractions (Of course) in my years and there needs to be checks and balances. As it was, the only check was that the Detective would lose any evidence he obtained if the entry did not match the warrant.
I am not happy with this either, but it is also not as clear cut as some are making it out to be.
1st, they did wait, though not the accepted amount of time and
2nd, apparently the cop just opened the door. There was no "Breaking" in on the part of the team. A locked door vs an unlocked door is relevant.

Actually I will say this. As it is being described, it does not "sound" to me like it was a professional team anyway. What it does sound like is a group of street officers (ie untrained in SWAT) doing the raid on their own.

I've been the Point man before and simply knocked, got a response and asked if I could come in. They almost always say "come on in." Then who needs a warrant, I have an invitation. But I digress, that is more for the blog and I do not want to give it all away. HAHAHA

Semper