Huge Supreme Court change in directions today

[Avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches

The Supreme Court has ruled that police no longer have to knock before entering a place of residence when they have a search warrant. This is a huge change from what the Court was requiring before.

 

[CockySOB]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches

The Supreme Court has ruled that police no longer have to knock before entering a place of residence when they have a search warrant. This is a huge change from what the Court was requiring before.

What's hilarious is that the article calls this a sign of the high court's shift to the right. In point of fact, Kennedy is now the only swing vote where before both he and O'Conner were wildcards. SCOTUS is as close to balance now as it has been in the last 40 years.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's hilarious is that the article calls this a sign of the high court's shift to the right. In point of fact, Kennedy is now the only swing vote where before both he and O'Conner were wildcards. SCOTUS is as close to balance now as it has been in the last 40 years.

Well it is a shift to the right. The Center is to the right of where it was before. The problem is that the left for some reason believes they are the mainstream of America and that such a shift to the center is a shift to the far rght.

 

[dmp]

The whole issue of the 'courtesy knock' was retarded:

(knock) "Police - we have a warrant!"

(SMASH!) the door gets pounded in.

(shrug) shouldn't make a difference to anyone.

 

[5stringJeff]

If they can seize your property on a whim (ala Kelo), why not search it on a whim too?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Interesting rule. What if it was one of those automatic sliding doors?

 

[acludem]

This is a bad sign for people who care about civil liberties. We now have a Supreme Court that appears to be prepared to give police Constitutional Carte Blanch (to borrow a term from Sandra Day O'Connor) to do whatever they want.

Be afraid, America, be very afraid. Big Brother government is looking like a possibility with this court.

acludem

 

[dmp]

This is a bad sign for people who care about civil liberties. We now have a Supreme Court that appears to be prepared to give police Constitutional Carte Blanch (to borrow a term from Sandra Day O'Connor) to do whatever they want.

Be afraid, America, be very afraid. Big Brother government is looking like a possibility with this court.

acludem

Can you explain why 'knocking first' is somehow 'better' for civil liberties? wtf? It's a DOOR knock. Geesh..

 

[Annie]

Can you explain why 'knocking first' is somehow 'better' for civil liberties? wtf? It's a DOOR knock. Geesh..

Devil's Advocate moment, not necessarily for civil liberties, but problems:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjJhZTgxYmQyMDhiZjA3YTI4MjA2MWMxMWI3MzBkZWM=

(What's this?)
Knock, Knock... Bang [Jonah Goldberg]
This might paint the situation in too dire a light, but it seems a legitimate concern to me:



Jonah, the problem is that when someone kicks down a door they are creating an unreasonable risk of violence.

The recent trend in state gun laws has been the "castle doctrine." So if a reasonable person could be expected to act in compliance with the "Castle Doctrine," she will be in bed with a gun on the night stand fully confident of the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into her home is there to cause death, and that, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

In the end, Ms. Homeowner may not be prosecuted for killing the first three police officers who cross her threshold, and at the same time her orphaned children may not be able to sue the police for violating her rights when they kicked down the door and then shot her in self-defense. Perhaps the courts will determine that everyone was acting within their rights, but the situation is hardly a wash.

Posted at 11:41 AM

 

[dmp]

Devil's Advocate moment, not necessarily for civil liberties, but problems:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjJhZTgxYmQyMDhiZjA3YTI4MjA2MWMxMWI3MzBkZWM=

Right - not a civil liberties issue; and the guy who shot those cops should be released and pardoned and junk.

 

[Annie]

Right - not a civil liberties issue; and the guy who shot those cops should be released and pardoned and junk.

Can't say I disagree, but perhaps the best reason that in most cases the police would knock. They have mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, and children too.

 

[dmp]

Can't say I disagree, but perhaps the best reason that in most cases the police would knock. They have mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, and children too.

What about knocking would have saved their lives?

 

[Annie]

What about knocking would have saved their lives?

'Non-violent' people with guns, do not tend to blast away at a knock. However, show up in their bedroom, when awakening suddenly?

If there are policemen around, it would be great to hear from them. Not Arch, regular policemen.

 

[Gunny]

'Non-violent' people with guns, do not tend to blast away at a knock. However, show up in their bedroom, when awakening suddenly?

I'm trying to picture that. Gives a whole new meaning to "knock knock" jokes.

If there are policemen around, it would be great to hear from them. Not Arch, regular policemen.

I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling. Identifying yourself BEFORE crashing in my door will definitely save a few people eating bullets. Maybe.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is a bad sign for people who care about civil liberties. We now have a Supreme Court that appears to be prepared to give police Constitutional Carte Blanch (to borrow a term from Sandra Day O'Connor) to do whatever they want.

Be afraid, America, be very afraid. Big Brother government is looking like a possibility with this court.

acludem

I am sorry, but the Constitution does not give criminals the right to have the cops announce their presence and hide evidence before opening the door. There is no civil liberty involved in the matter.

The Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. There is nothing unreasonable about going into someones home with a warrant without knocking.

The fact of the matter is if someone is innocent, it doesnt matter whether they knock or dont knock. It only matters if you are guilty. And you dont have a right to commit crimes.

 

[Avatar4321]

I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling. Identifying yourself BEFORE crashing in my door will definitely save a few people eating bullets. Maybe.

The ruling doesnt say that police shouldnt knock. Just that failure to knock does not mean you get to throw out evidence. Why should criminals be set free because Police don't knock? Is there some place in the Constitution that I havent read that requires police to knock?

Just because it might be a good idea, doesnt mean its a Constitutional requirement or a civil liberty.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Constitution or not, the police ought to be knocking for their own safety. Quite honestly, I can't bring myself to shed a tear if they're using heavy-handed Gestapo tactics to subdue someone growing plants in their closet (or not, as there are numerous stories of police getting the wrong address) The whole problem is the growing militarization of civilian police forces. If you knock, you could arrest people without incident. But that would mean that there's no need for a SWAT team and all the funding that goes with it. Why not just grab someone once they leave the house? For example, the feds knew that David Koresh left his compound on a regular basis. Why then did they need to send jackbooted thugs and armored vehicles to his house?