No Need To Knock

I’m wondering what T-Nation members think of a recent Supreme Court ruling stating that Police who have a search warrant need not knock on the suspects door first. They can simply walk right in.

"WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don’t knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush’s new justices.

The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court’s conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O’Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man’s door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

“Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house,” Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O’Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O’Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: “Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?”

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush’s other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia’s opinion.

Hudson’s lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given “a get-out-of-jail-free card” to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say “it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry.”

Well to be fair, they said that they had to knock, but not doing so doesn’t invalidate the contents of the search.

The problems I see are in cases where people don’t realize it’s the police and then someone gets hurt, either the person being searched or the officers.

Castle Doctrine laws and this law look like they are conflicting, especially, as has happened, the police mistakenly enter the wrong residence.

I don’t really see a problem about kicking down doors, especially in high risk warrants, but announcing you are law enforcement seems key.

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Well to be fair, they said that they had to knock, but not doing so doesn’t invalidate the contents of the search.
[/quote]

That amounts to saying that you don’t have to knock. If there’s no penalty for knocking, the there’s no reason the police will feel compelled to do it.

See #12… also the other 13.

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

  2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

  3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

  4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

  5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

  6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

  7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

  8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

  9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

  10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

  11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

  12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

  13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

  14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Haven’t you ever seen “Cops”? For the drug busts, they knock, wait about two seconds, then bust down the door. It seems like any law about knocking is pointless if they don’t specify how long you have to wait after the knock, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Actually, it’s an improvement since it will reduce the number of drug dealers who get a battering ram to the chest while they’re reaching to open the door.

[quote]larryb wrote:
Haven’t you ever seen “Cops”? For the drug busts, they knock, wait about two seconds, then bust down the door. It seems like any law about knocking is pointless if they don’t specify how long you have to wait after the knock, so this doesn’t really change anything.[/quote]

Very good point.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court’s conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O’Connor.

[/quote]
I thought conservatives were more for the rights of citizens than the rights of government? Wouldn’t this be something liberals would do over conservatives? I am confused.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court’s conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O’Connor.

I thought conservatives were more for the rights of citizens than the rights of government? Wouldn’t this be something liberals would do over conservatives? I am confused.
[/quote]

Historically, probably, but more police power has been recently a more Republican trait.

Orin Kerr, a professor at GMU, is one of the leading experts on 4th Amendment law - here’s a post he wrote on this:

http://www.orinkerr.com/2006/06/15/hudson-v-michigan-and-fourth-amendment-precedent/#comments

Hudson v. Michigan and Fourth Amendment Precedent

One of the debates between Justice Scalia?s majority opinion and Justice Breyer?s dissenting opinion in the new knock-and-announce decision, Hudson v. Michigan, is which opinion is more consistent with the Court?s Fourth Amendment precedents. According to Scalia, automatic suppression for a knock-and-announce violation is inconsisent with precedent; according to Breyer, precedents strongly support such a rule. Which side is right?

As a doctrinal matter, it seems to me that Justice Scalia?s majority opinion has it basically right. First, Fourth Amendment rules traditionally have focused on the facial validity of the warrant ? the requirements of probable cause and particularity ? rather than its execution. So long as the evidence discovered is within the scope of the warrant, the execution of the warrant traditionally receives very little constitutional scrutiny. Second, even where the Court has announced a constitutional suppression remedy, that remedy is typically limited by all sorts of exceptions such as good faith and fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine. As every practicing criminal lawyer knows, when the police have a warrant the evidence is probably coming in even if the defense can find some technical violation along the way. So if the question is which rule fits most naturally into the preexisting framework of Fourth Amendment law, it seems pretty clear that it?s the majority?s rule, not the dissent?s. Put another way, Scalia?s opinion essentially restores the constitutional status quo.

Justice Breyer?s dissent relies heavily on policy arguments, but also accuses the majority of departing from the Court?s precedents. According to Breyer, suppression is required as a matter of ?elementary logic? drawn from the Court?s cases:

We have held that a court must “conside[r]” whether officers complied with the knock-and announce requirement “in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure.” Wilson, 514 U. S., at 934 (emphasis added); see Banks, 540 U. S., at 36. The Fourth Amendment insists that an unreasonable search or seizure is, constitutionally speaking, an illegal search or seizure. And ever since Weeks (in respect to federal prosecutions) and Mapp (in respect to state prosecutions), “the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure” is barred” in criminal trials.

To be candid, though, this is pretty amateurish. If you?re going to rely on ?elementary logic,? I think you need to address the difference between holding that the knock-and-announce requirement is not irrelevant to reasonableness and holding that a violation of the requirement automatically renders a search unreasonable. That?s the issue presented by the case, and it?s not covered by the syllogism. Further, it?s just not accurate to say that ?the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure” is barred” in criminal trials,? as that is clearly not the case under doctrines such as the good faith exception of Leon, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine of Wong Sun, and lots of other doctrines such as inevitable discovery and standing rules that limit the scope of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. In light of that, an automatic suppression rule for knock-and-announce violations would have been a pretty dramatic departure from existing Fourth Amendment law.

Reasonable people can disagree on what the remedy should be for knock-and-announce violations. The rule wasn?t constitutionalized until 1995, and the Court had carefully avoided the remedies question until now. And my guess is that most Fourth Amendment commentators don?t much care about the precedents: If you think that existing Fourth Amendment law has it wrong, then doctrinal coherence is a liability rather than an asset. But if the question is finding a rule that best fits into the framework of the Court?s precedents, it seems to me that the majority has it basically right.

Here’s the opinion, if you want to read it:

To quote from Orin Kerr again:

http://www.orinkerr.com/2006/06/15/what-is-the-holding-of-hudson-v-michigan/#comments

What Is the Holding of Hudson v. Michigan?

At least based on my initial read of Hudson v. Michigan, it seems to me that the legal rule announced by the Court?s majority opinion could be either of these two rules:

1) Violations of the knock-and-announce rule do not lead to automatic exclusion of evidence obtained, although they may still be relevant to suppression in some contexts because they alter the constitutional reasonableness of the search.

2) Violations of the rule must be enforced throught civil suits, not throught the exclusionary remedy.  Violations of the knock-and-announce rule are completely irrelevant when a defendant seeks suppression of the evidence.

Reading over the majority opinion, I see hints of (1) and hints of (2), although it?s not clear to me which is the Court?s holding. Am I missing something, or does the Court?s opinion leave that important question unclear?

[quote]ExNole wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court’s conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O’Connor.

I thought conservatives were more for the rights of citizens than the rights of government? Wouldn’t this be something liberals would do over conservatives? I am confused.

Historically, probably, but more police power has been recently a more Republican trait.
[/quote]

LOL. You mean there are people who still haven’t figurede out that current “conservatives” are all about MO’ GOV’MENT, MO’ GOV’MENT, MO’GOV’MENT? There is nothing “conservative” about today’s conservatives other than how tight they can hold their anal sphinters.

I am wondering if anyone is clueless enough to not be worried at all.

They still need a warrant don’t they?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They still need a warrant don’t they?[/quote]

Yes.

As per the posts above, this isn’t revolutionary - it’s a logical extension of existing precedent.

If people have a problem with this, they should address the efficicacy of the proposed remedy: suing the police/state under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

There is the issue of the tension between Castle Doctrine and the slight weakening of the knock rule by virtue of removing one remedy, but in reality because there’s no time requirement between the knock and announce and breaking the door down, any furthering of the problem by this ruling is de minimus. Also, for liability reasons (Section 1983 there), most jurisdictions have substantive requirements that the officers announce their presence before entering when serving a warrant.

The knock and announce requirement is still there – this is a question solely of remedy.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL. You mean there are people who still haven’t figurede out that current “conservatives” are all about MO’ GOV’MENT, MO’ GOV’MENT, MO’GOV’MENT? There is nothing “conservative” about today’s conservatives other than how tight they can hold their anal sphinters.[/quote]

I don’t think this has anthing to do with more government. If I am understanding this correctly, it means that evidence discovered as a result of executing a search warrant - but LE failed to knock - will still be admissible in court. The alternative would be to make the evidence unusable in court.

But I could be wrong.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LOL. You mean there are people who still haven’t figurede out that current “conservatives” are all about MO’ GOV’MENT, MO’ GOV’MENT, MO’GOV’MENT? There is nothing “conservative” about today’s conservatives other than how tight they can hold their anal sphinters.

I don’t think this has anthing to do with more government. If I am understanding this correctly, it means that evidence discovered as a result of executing a search warrant - but LE failed to knock - will still be admissible in court. The alternative would be to make the evidence unusable in court.

But I could be wrong. [/quote]

It sounds like bullshit to me. If someone shows up at my door, I expect to SEE a warrant, not come home to people already having broken into my house searching through shit. The potential for abuse is so great that it bothers me that anyone would just rule this into being. I guess Conservatives are the only ones who trust police officers to that degree. I personally have seen enough growing up to not trust them at all.

I’m as pissed as the next guy when I see bad guys walk away after breaking every rule, because a police officer didn’t jump through every hoop, or some other technicallity.

This doesn’t seem a technicallity though. When faced with a hardened criminal, the police is probably safer when they break down the door asap, without knocking the door and waiting for an answer.

They are probably safer announcing themselves to a law abiding citizen who might reach for his gun because he thinks he’s getting attecked, but who wouldn’t go against the police knowingly.

We all KNOW this is what will happen eventually:
The police, warrant safely tucked way, barges through the door, and the surprised owner shoots one of them right in the chest. And he is then shot and killed himself, his wife seriously hurt and a couple of wounded kids.

So the idea is that the police gets some extra safety, but the ordinary citizen is less safe.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They still need a warrant don’t they?

Yes.

As per the posts above, this isn’t revolutionary - it’s a logical extension of existing precedent.

If people have a problem with this, they should address the efficicacy of the proposed remedy: suing the police/state under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

There is the issue of the tension between Castle Doctrine and the slight weakening of the knock rule by virtue of removing one remedy, but in reality because there’s no time requirement between the knock and announce and breaking the door down, any furthering of the problem by this ruling is de minimus. Also, for liability reasons (Section 1983 there), most jurisdictions have substantive requirements that the officers announce their presence before entering when serving a warrant.

The knock and announce requirement is still there – this is a question solely of remedy.[/quote]

I’m impressed. “The knock and announce requirement is still there”. Except they don’t really need to knock and announce. But, the requirement is still there.

How many years of law school before you start to see any logic in that?

Again, my concern is not the damage done to the door. My concern is that a law abiding citizen might reach for his gun when his door is brooken down without the police identifying themselves.

Law school is three years.

How many years of reading comprehension would it take to note that only one of two possible remedies under federal law for violation of the knock-and-announce rule was removed?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It sounds like bullshit to me. If someone shows up at my door, I expect to SEE a warrant, not come home to people already having broken into my house searching through shit. The potential for abuse is so great that it bothers me that anyone would just rule this into being. I guess Conservatives are the only ones who trust police officers to that degree. I personally have seen enough growing up to not trust them at all.[/quote]

How is that any different than before the supreme court ruling? Honestly, you act as if this one decision changes anything. It changes nothing.