No Need To Knock

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

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

It sounds like it makes it a hell of a lot easier to plant evidence or, as the poster above noted, get caught in the middle of a shoot out.

22

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It sounds like it makes it a hell of a lot easier to plant evidence or, as the poster above noted, get caught in the middle of a shoot out.[/quote]

“[i}…only one of two possible remedies under federal law for violation of the knock-and-announce rule was removed.[/i]”

I think that you are over reacting. Granted, I have never spent a night in a Turkish prison, or a night in Urban Houston’s seedier ghetto’s, I just don’t see how this really changes anything. If the cops want to plant evidence, they will - knock or not.

23

[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]

No you are spot on. All a conservative republican is, is a libertarian lacking conviction.

Mike

24

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Zap Branigan wrote:
They still need a warrant don’t they?

Yes.

BostonBarrister wrote:
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.

Wreckless wrote:
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]

Explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.

Do they need to knock and shout “police!”, or don’t they?

25

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.

Do they need to knock and shout “police!”, or don’t they?[/quote]

Maybe it’s like that “intolerant” thread.

26

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.[/quote]

It would still go over your head

They still do - but evidence recovered as a result of not doingit will still be admissable. The victim of the search can persue a civil suit against the offending officer for a violation of their rights.

How hard is that to understand, really?

27

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
All a conservative republican is, is a libertarian lacking conviction.

Mike
[/quote]

You hit the nail right on the head.

BINGO!

28

the first thing that comes to mind is danger. i would think the likelyhood of being shot upon kicking some drug dealers door down would increase. where a desperate person most likely will not go as far as to shoot a cop,a suprise like that is not the normal police procedure. i believe it’s an accident waiting to happen. it might work to thier advantage, element of suprise and all. i still don’t like it.

29

[quote]mazilla wrote:
the first thing that comes to mind is danger. i would think the likelyhood of being shot upon kicking some drug dealers door down would increase. where a desperate person most likely will not go as far as to shoot a cop,a suprise like that is not the normal police procedure. i believe it’s an accident waiting to happen. it might work to thier advantage, element of suprise and all. i still don’t like it.[/quote]

Indeed, if some cop kicks my door down and I am not certain that he is a cop he may find himself with an .308 in the chest. This ruling is only going to make more Corey Mayes.

Mike

30

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

Yes.

BostonBarrister wrote:
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.

Wreckless wrote:
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.

BostonBarrister wrote:
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?

Wreckless wrote:
Explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.

Do they need to knock and shout “police!”, or don’t they?[/quote]

Yes.

31

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
mazilla wrote:
the first thing that comes to mind is danger. i would think the likelyhood of being shot upon kicking some drug dealers door down would increase. where a desperate person most likely will not go as far as to shoot a cop,a suprise like that is not the normal police procedure. i believe it’s an accident waiting to happen. it might work to thier advantage, element of suprise and all. i still don’t like it.

Indeed, if some cop kicks my door down and I am not certain that he is a cop he may find himself with an .308 in the chest. This ruling is only going to make more Corey Mayes.

Mike[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. If the cops decide they don’t need to knock there will be a few more cops shot. If they don’t identify themselves it could be considered self defense. Not a good scenario for the cops.

This just seems allow evidence to be used and not thrown out by a technicality.

If the cops are smart they will be knocking.

After thinking about it this appears to be a good thing. I don’t see the drawback.

32

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.

Do they need to knock and shout “police!”, or don’t they?[/quote]

They do, to stay out of trouble. But if they don’t, they only get their juice taken away. They still get to keep the cookie.

33

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If the cops are smart they will be knocking.

After thinking about it this appears to be a good thing. I don’t see the drawback.[/quote]

I’m not sure you know how things work around here.

The not-so-smart police will charge in and get shot.

After enough of these (5? 10? 50?), new legislation will be passed to protect the police, who are being gunned down in epidemic-like proportions.

I will leave it to your imagination what the new legislation would look like.

34

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the cops are smart they will be knocking.

After thinking about it this appears to be a good thing. I don’t see the drawback.

I’m not sure you know how things work around here.

The not-so-smart police will charge in and get shot.

After enough of these (5? 10? 50?), new legislation will be passed to protect the police, who are being gunned down in epidemic-like proportions.

I will leave it to your imagination what the new legislation would look like.[/quote]

Possible but people from both ends of the political spectrum would not stand for this.

35

Police can already execute a search warrant without you being home, they can knock, say “police” and then knock down your door(how long do they have to wait?, when you are surprised by a search warrant, how do you prove they didn’t knock and announce themselves anyway? and most courts still give the cops the benefit of the doubt) so I don’t see it changing much.

36

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the cops are smart they will be knocking.

After thinking about it this appears to be a good thing. I don’t see the drawback.

I’m not sure you know how things work around here.

The not-so-smart police will charge in and get shot.

After enough of these (5? 10? 50?), new legislation will be passed to protect the police, who are being gunned down in epidemic-like proportions.

I will leave it to your imagination what the new legislation would look like.

Possible but people from both ends of the political spectrum would not stand for this.[/quote]

You honestly think so? Who exactly is going to take the bold stand as an endorser of cop-killing?

37

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the cops are smart they will be knocking.

After thinking about it this appears to be a good thing. I don’t see the drawback.

I’m not sure you know how things work around here.

The not-so-smart police will charge in and get shot.

After enough of these (5? 10? 50?), new legislation will be passed to protect the police, who are being gunned down in epidemic-like proportions.

I will leave it to your imagination what the new legislation would look like.

Possible but people from both ends of the political spectrum would not stand for this.

You honestly think so? Who exactly is going to take the bold stand as an endorser of cop-killing?[/quote]

The leftists that seem to support criminals like Tookie would. They always seem to support cop killers.

You also seem to be forgetting how strongly the right wingers came out against the cops at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The bad guys were not sympathetic characters but the actions of the cops were over the line and the right wingers were up in arms.

America would not stand for cops breaking into houses unannounced in a violent situation. Smacks of fascism.

38

I appreciate the discussion that is taking place here and it is all well and good. The result of this ruling will not in fact change police procedure for executing a warrant too much. While it might appear that this is where you’d see a result, the actual results will be seen in the court room, allowing evidence that would have been excluded because the police did not announce there presence in the manner that the presiding judge would nave liked to have seen. As for a danger to officers…when executing a felony warrant the danger is always there and care is taken as much as possible, all an officer wants to do is go home at the end of his shift.