| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Alito Attacks Fourth Amendment; Leads actrivist court | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 26 2006, 01:11 PM (318 Views) | |
| Colo_Crawdad | Jun 26 2006, 01:11 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Lowell
|
No-knock ruling worrisome Emphasis added. The U.S. Supreme Court gave a glimpse of a potential philosophical shift in its recent 5-4 ruling that evidence seized from a "no-knock" raid can be admitted in court even if police barge in without announcing themselves. New Justice Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy in voting to throw out nearly a century of legal precedents and a cornerstone of Fourth Amendment law. Alito's vote broke the 4-4 tie that existed among the other members of the court. While Kennedy voted with the majority, he wrote that he didn't agree with ending the "knock and announce" requirement altogether. "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," he wrote. Kennedy's stand underscored his emergence as a swing vote in a court that already misses centrist Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in January and gave way to Alito. Earlier in the week, Kennedy ruled with the court's more liberal justices to give death-row prisoners more ability to challenge their sentences. In the no-knock case he ruled with the conservative bloc. The court upheld a drug possession conviction against Detroit resident Booker Hudson, even though the state of Michigan conceded that police violated the Fourth Amendment provision requiring that they announce their presence before entering. Police had a warrant, but one officer admitted that they only announced themselves as they crashed through the door. The high court majority agreed with the Michigan Supreme Court that exclusion of the evidence gained in the Hudson raid was an excessive remedy for the cops' violation. Scalia, writing in the majority opinion, acknowledged that the principle behind the so-called exclusionary rule is "ancient" precedent, but he argued that the rule carries "substantial social costs," namely allowing guilty people to go free. We're more inclined to agree with Justice Stephen Breyer, who noted in his dissent that decades ago the court recognized that when the police barge in unannounced, it is an assault on "the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." The Supreme Court held in a 1914 case that, except in rare circumstances, evidence seized in violation of the Constitution cannot be used. If such evidence were admissible, that decision held, the Fourth Amendment "might as well be stricken." There is a greater social cost to allowing police to play fast and loose with constitutional guarantees than there is to letting a few criminals off on a technicality. The court's decision sets a dangerous precedent by weakening the incentive for police to play by the constitutional rules. |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 26 2006, 02:38 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Jane
|
I've got mixed feelings about the no-knock issue. If the cops bust in on someone with drugs or phoney money or slaves, etc. then the evidence ought to hold up in court. If the cops bust in on someone who's not doing a darn thing wrong, the city/state ought to have to pay damages and offer a public apology and pay a reasonable sum for scaring the heck out of an innocent person. If someone dies as result of fear, the $$ damages should be BIG. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 26 2006, 04:26 PM Post #3 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
It's difficult to argue against a man's home is his castle, but I think the decision was much narrower than the broad brush the op-ed author uses: "Evidence seized from searches where police enter but don't necessarily knock or give suspects enough time to personally answer the door (or destroy evidence) may now be used in court." (source) |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 26 2006, 05:00 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Jane
|
I am assuming the cops have a search warrant to begin with. without a warrant to search, forgetaboutit. and with a search warrant, they are limited to looking for what they suspect is there. that means to me: if they bust in on me by mistake, looking for drugs or bombs, etc. and find an old sawed off shotgun that belonged to my daddy, they can't bust me for that. but that's what it's all about, because if they do find it, they're gonna bust me.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Colo_Crawdad | Jun 26 2006, 06:48 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Lowell
|
I think what bothers me the most is that if the search is found to be illegal, under this ruling the evidence will still be used in court. The exclusionary rule is/was the only reasonable method of controlling police behavior. |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 27 2006, 04:31 AM Post #6 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Sounds to me more like the current systems holds, search warrants, cause, etc, just that evidence may not be dismissed simply because police did not wait and knock. If you're engaging in criiminal activity, you deserve to pay the time. Another line of thought here is this: This is only one in a series of decisions by the court since Roberts and Alito have been sworn in that favors stronger central government powers. Slipped right by most, didn't it, with all the hoopla over social values? Not sure about Alito though, but Roberts holds true to his promise to keep decisions narrow. I don't think we'll see broad sweeping judicial activism out his court. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Jun 29 2006, 10:13 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
Lowell I disagree with this concept. The police really have nothing personal at stake if a guilty person goes free because of police misconduct. It is the public they are charged to protect and serve who are injured. If the police do something illegal, then they should be charged with a crime or misconduct and have to face the legal and civil reprecussions. The whole idea that someone who is guilty should go free to punish the cops is faulty logic. And, it is about time that philosophy be put to rest. No argument that police misconduct should not be tolerated. But, the deterant to that should be heavy penalties, not letting guilty criminals walk. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 30 2006, 10:35 AM Post #8 |
|
Member
|
I agree with this. The object is not to punish the police for making an honest mistake, but to put away obvious guilty criminals. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| campingken | Jul 2 2006, 11:35 AM Post #9 |
|
Member
|
Actually an arrest is personal. You put in a lot of time and effort into your case and want to see it end with the guilty being punished. The exclusionary rule does "punish" the police in that it requires them to learn and follow rules set by elected bodies and the courts because if the don't all their work was meaningless. The knock and notice rule was made to stop violent confrontations. We are a nation of gun owners and if your front door exploded late at night you may well believe it is time to un-limber the S&W. This is even more likely to happen when you add the fact that SWAT team members do not look like uniformed police officers. I have no wish to free the guilty but at the same time I enjoy the rights that we have lived with for many years. Having to knock and notice before you enter is no big deal especially since no knock warrants were already available if the circumstances warranted one. Ken |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |








1:27 PM Jul 11