Police No Longer Have to Announce Intention to Raid Homes if They Have a Warrant

[Starbuck1975]

Story Here

I know some of you will be venemously against this ruling, but it seems like common sense to me.

That law enforcement officials have to obtain a warrant prior to entering a home seems like adequate protection from unlawful entry.

However, as Hudson's case points out, it seems a bit ridiculous that criminals could potentially walk over the technicality of officers "announcing" their intention to enter.
"Your honor, my client is innocent because the police didn't knock at the door and declare themselves before coming in and siezing illegal drugs and weapons from his home."

This seems especially ludicrous for armed and dangerous suspects, as police lose the element of surprise in announcing their presence, thereby giving the subject of their warrant adequate time to prepare...whether it be the attempted elimination of evidence or arming themselves for confrontation with the police.

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."

This is perhaps the most reasonable interpretation in support of this ruling. Police are still expected to follow the guidelines for lawful entry...this ruling does not entitle law enforcement officials to simply barge into any home without a warrant.

However, in cases where law enforcement officials DO have a warrant, having to announce their presence seems a bit absurd.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Story Here

I know some of you will be venemously against this ruling, but it seems like common sense to me.

That law enforcement officials have to obtain a warrant prior to entering a home seems like adequate protection from unlawful entry.

However, as Hudson's case points out, it seems a bit ridiculous that criminals could potentially walk over the technicality of officers "announcing" their intention to enter.
"Your honor, my client is innocent because the police didn't knock at the door and declare themselves before coming in and siezing illegal drugs and weapons from his home."

This seems especially ludicrous for armed and dangerous suspects, as police lose the element of surprise in announcing their presence, thereby giving the subject of their warrant adequate time to prepare...whether it be the attempted elimination of evidence or arming themselves for confrontation with the police.

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."

This is perhaps the most reasonable interpretation in support of this ruling. Police are still expected to follow the guidelines for lawful entry...this ruling does not entitle law enforcement officials to simply barge into any home without a warrant.

However, in cases where law enforcement officials DO have a warrant, having to announce their presence seems a bit absurd.

Yeah, why not? The United States Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

And only the guilty need worry.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, why not? The United States Constitution is just a goddamned oiece of paper.

The Constitution protects citizens from unlawful entry. If law enforcement officials have a warrant, then doesn't that make their entry lawful? Reasonably speaking, the "announcing their presence" achieves what exactly? If the police come to my home with a warrant, and knock at the door, and I say, "Sorry you can't come in." If they have a warrant, aren't they within their rights to barge down the door.

 

[zendari]

Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing back common sense to the court system.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

This is perhaps the most reasonable interpretation in support of this ruling. Police are still expected to follow the guidelines for lawful entry...this ruling does not entitle law enforcement officials to simply barge into any home without a warrant.

However, in cases where law enforcement officials DO have a warrant, having to announce their presence seems a bit absurd.

It's still an erosion of a long-existing Constitutional protection. The police have always had the ability to get no-knock warrants when it was felt to be necessary for safety reasons or the concern that the inhabitants of the home would destroy evidence.

Honestly I think the knock requirement generally protects the safety of the police and the people inside (leaving aside the privacy issue for the moment). Assume, for the time being, you are an innocent person (or non-violent criminal), and the police knock down your door and come in with guns drawn - doesn't it strike you that creates a MORE dangerous situation for you, your family, and the police than if they knocked and announced themselves? Obviously the reverse might be true if the police were entering a crack house, gang hangout, etc., but each situation calls for different measures, and it seems to me there's no harm in requiring them to get a warrant specifically for no-knock entry.

This may be the first of many civil rights taken away under the Roberts court, or not. We shall see . . .

 

[DealMonkey]

Homeland Security don't need no stinking warrants, comrade! National Security, baby! That's all you need to know. :|

(Sorry, I had a Dave moment there)

Well as long as they're armed with real warrants AND they actually have the right address AND there is a substantial belief they might encounter violent/armed criminals, I don't care if they knock or not. Although I agree with DV, it'll just increase the possibility of a violent confrontation between an armed but innocent resident and the police, who with alarming frequency, serve warrants on the wrong address.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: zendari
Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing back common sense to the court system.

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


So the Supreme Court Has had no common sense for the last 90 years?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Honestly I think the knock requirement generally protects the safety of the police and the people inside (leaving aside the privacy issue for the moment). Assume, for the time being, you are either an innocent person (or non-violent criminal), and the police knock down your door and come in with guns drawn - doesn't it strike you that creates a MORE dangerous situation for you, your family, and the police than if they knocked and announced themselves? Obviously the reverse might be true if the police were entering a crack house, gang hangout, etc., but each situation calls for different measures, and it seems to me there's no harm in requiring them to get a warrant specifically for no-knock entry.

A reasonable assessment of the ruling, but you also have to expect that police will utilize force that is proportional to the threat presented. I can think of any number of scenarios where a warrant may not necessarily require a sense of urgency such that the police would not knock anyway.

In essence, this ruling is leaving the use of force to the discretion of law enforcement officials. But I have always been of the opinion that needless bureaucracy that goes well beyond Constitutional considerations have made things incredibly difficult for our law enforcement officials. As I know numerous police officers that serve in high crime areas, I can empathize with their frustrations and perhaps understand how this ruling will help them do their jobs.

The knee jerk reaction from some of you will be OMG police state, followed by references to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion.

So the Supreme Court Has had no common sense for the last 90 years?

Precedent is not always a measure of Constitutionality.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: zendari
Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing back common sense to the court system.

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

So the Supreme Court Has had no common sense for the last 90 years?

Funny thing about precedent is that it only matters when it agrees with you.

What happened to centuries of standard marraige precedent?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

"Ok, this guy downloaded the new Dixie Chicks album off of usenet. We got a warrant, and thankfully, we can bust down the door and seize his iMac before he has a chance to flush it down the toilet. If anyone resists or looks like they're holding a wireless mouse, take 'em down. Ok, on 3..."

I really have no problem with the basic intention of this ruling, what scares me is how it can and most likely will be used to "take down" average Joe who grabbed a cam copy of Cars from eDonkey and needs to be apprehended with extreme preudice.

Just like the phone records, wire tapping, and internet logs, if this is used only for the right reasons, I am fine with it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari
Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing back common sense to the court system.

Yep, those raving loon liberals they replaced were terrible!

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: zendari
Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing back common sense to the court system.

No, Activist Judges from the top down.

Now where's that 'Constitution' so I can wipe my ass with it?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah, why not? The United States Constitution is just a goddamned oiece of paper.

The Constitution protects citizens from unlawful entry. If law enforcement officials have a warrant, then doesn't that make their entry lawful? Reasonably speaking, the "announcing their presence" achieves what exactly? If the police come to my home with a warrant, and knock at the door, and I say, "Sorry you can't come in." If they have a warrant, aren't they within their rights to barge down the door.

"Oops. sorry, wrong address, sir...sorry about the flash grenades through the kids' bedrooms...they'll get over the shock in a few years, oh, here, maybe I should take this pistol out of your wife's face...sorry little lady, we usually get the address correct."

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah, why not? The United States Constitution is just a goddamned oiece of paper.

The Constitution protects citizens from unlawful entry. If law enforcement officials have a warrant, then doesn't that make their entry lawful? Reasonably speaking, the "announcing their presence" achieves what exactly? If the police come to my home with a warrant, and knock at the door, and I say, "Sorry you can't come in." If they have a warrant, aren't they within their rights to barge down the door.

"Oops. sorry, wrong address, sir...sorry about the flash grenades through the kids' bedrooms...they'll get over the shock in a few years, oh, here, maybe I should take this pistol out of your wife's face...sorry little lady, we usually get the address correct."

"Hello sir, we're investigating you for possession of cocaine, you have 5 seconds to open the door in which you can flush the stuff down the toilet, then we have to barge in and look in your flower pots!"

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: zendari
Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing back common sense to the court system.

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

So the Supreme Court Has had no common sense for the last 90 years?

Funny thing about precedent is that it only matters when it agrees with you.

What happened to centuries of standard marraige precedent?

The word is MARRIAGE.


And please list the United States Supreme Court Precedents regarding marriage of which you speak.

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Oops. sorry, wrong address, sir...sorry about the flash grenades through the kids' bedrooms...they'll get over the shock in a few years, oh, here, maybe I should take this pistol out of your wife's face...sorry little lady, we usually get the address correct."

"Hello sir, we're investigating you for possession of cocaine, you have 5 seconds to open the door in which you can flush the stuff down the toilet, then we have to barge in and look in your flower pots!"

These two scenarios basically summarize the pros and cons of this ruling, with compelling arguments to be made for both.

Where you stand ultimately resides in your faith regarding the professionalism of law enforcement officials.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

"Oops. sorry, wrong address, sir...sorry about the flash grenades through the kids' bedrooms...they'll get over the shock in a few years, oh, here, maybe I should take this pistol out of your wife's face...sorry little lady, we usually get the address correct."

"Hello sir, we're investigating you for possession of cocaine, you have 5 seconds to open the door in which you can flush the stuff down the toilet, then we have to barge in and look in your flower pots!"

These two scenarios basically summarize the pros and cons of this ruling, with compelling arguments to be made for both.

Where you stand ultimately resides in your faith regarding the professionalism of law enforcement officials.

Perhaps, but if one has that much faith in the cops, why require a warrant at all?

Oh, yeah...to protect the innocent, and something about due process.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: feralkid
The word is MARRIAGE.


And please list the United States Supreme Court Precedents of which you speak.

Marriage in its proper form existed long before the Supreme Court did.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari
Judge Roberts and Alito making their mark and bringing fascism to the court system.

Fixed for you.

The world is slowly becoming fascist again. DO AS WE SAY!

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Honestly I think the knock requirement generally protects the safety of the police and the people inside (leaving aside the privacy issue for the moment). Assume, for the time being, you are either an innocent person (or non-violent criminal), and the police knock down your door and come in with guns drawn - doesn't it strike you that creates a MORE dangerous situation for you, your family, and the police than if they knocked and announced themselves? Obviously the reverse might be true if the police were entering a crack house, gang hangout, etc., but each situation calls for different measures, and it seems to me there's no harm in requiring them to get a warrant specifically for no-knock entry.

A reasonable assessment of the ruling, but you also have to expect that police will utilize force that is proportional to the threat presented. I can think of any number of scenarios where a warrant may not necessarily require a sense of urgency such that the police would not knock anyway.

In essence, this ruling is leaving the use of force to the discretion of law enforcement officials. But I have always been of the opinion that needless bureaucracy that goes well beyond Constitutional considerations have made things incredibly difficult for our law enforcement officials. As I know numerous police officers that serve in high crime areas, I can empathize with their frustrations and perhaps understand how this ruling will help them do their jobs.

The knee jerk reaction from some of you will be OMG police state, followed by references to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion.

So the Supreme Court Has had no common sense for the last 90 years?

Precedent is not always a measure of Constitutionality.

Of course not, but 90 years of it flushed away the first time BushCourt looks at it?

"What?, no activism here...it was those other guys, you know The Supreme Court of The United States for the last 90 years; they were the ones that were activist"

 

[Starbuck1975]

Perhaps, but if one has that much faith in the cops, why require a warrant at all?
Oh, yeah...to protect the innocent, and something about due process.

Well there in lies the balance...warrants are the safeguard to ensure that law enforcement officials adhere to and respect due process...I can certainly think of scenarios where the police could easily abuse due process were it not for the necessity of warrants.

Marriage in its proper form existed long before the Supreme Court did.

Don't we have enough gay marriage threads?

The world is slowly becoming fascist again. DO AS WE SAY!

HA!!! Already called it...I knew the fascism card was inevitable.

"What?, no activism here...it was those other guys, you know The Supreme Court of The United States for the last 90 years; they were the ones that were activist"

I have stated many times that I think the whole notion of activist judges is absurd...judges cannot make laws, nor can they change laws...they can simply rule on the Constitutionality of laws...however, the Supreme Court is not all knowing and powerful, and can certainly make mistakes. Similarly, given the leanings of the Supreme Court at any given time, it is quite easy for the pendulum to swing on issues such as these that are debateable.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah, why not? The United States Constitution is just a goddamned oiece of paper.

The Constitution protects citizens from unlawful entry. If law enforcement officials have a warrant, then doesn't that make their entry lawful? Reasonably speaking, the "announcing their presence" achieves what exactly? If the police come to my home with a warrant, and knock at the door, and I say, "Sorry you can't come in." If they have a warrant, aren't they within their rights to barge down the door.

"Oops. sorry, wrong address, sir...sorry about the flash grenades through the kids' bedrooms...they'll get over the shock in a few years, oh, here, maybe I should take this pistol out of your wife's face...sorry little lady, we usually get the address correct."

"Hello sir, we're investigating you for possession of cocaine, you have 5 seconds to open the door in which you can flush the stuff down the toilet, then we have to barge in and look in your flower pots!"

The judge can issue a no knock warrant if the officers feel the need.

Hooray for the fascist war on drugs.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: feralkid
The word is MARRIAGE.


And please list the United States Supreme Court Precedents of which you speak.

Marriage in its proper form existed long before the Supreme Court did.

I knew you couldn't cite precedent.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: feralkid
The word is MARRIAGE.


And please list the United States Supreme Court Precedents of which you speak.

Marriage in its proper form existed long before the Supreme Court did.

I knew you couldn't cite precedent.

How long did the Segregation case exist before it was reversed? Somewhere around 100 years?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Perhaps, but if one has that much faith in the cops, why require a warrant at all?
Oh, yeah...to protect the innocent, and something about due process.

Well there in lies the balance...warrants are the safeguard to ensure that law enforcement officials adhere to and respect due process...I can certainly think of scenarios where the police could easily abuse due process were it not for the necessity of warrants.

Marriage in its proper form existed long before the Supreme Court did.

Don't we have enough gay marriage threads?

No kidding.