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 signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

 

Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or 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, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.

 

"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.

 

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 homeowner 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, supported Scalia's opinion.

 

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used at his trial. He was convicted of drug possession.

 

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 can now 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."

 

Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

 

And Scalia wrote that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.

 

In response, Breyer said there is no evidence of anyone collecting much money in such cases.

 

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.

AP via USA Today

 

Sigh.

I was going to post this. But I figured the debate would divulge into why police shouldnt be able to go in to prevent destruction of evidence. Usually these debates involve treating our 4th amendment right as a privilege and not a right. And that is the way the court has been treating it for a while now.

 

But hey, it is a privilege. :confused

I guess we should just throw out the Constitution, it's being made irrelevant by this government and the court.

 

"A 'Bill of Rights'? How quaint!" -AG Alberto Gonzalez

 

:plain

I can see the argument that the evidence would have been discovered anyways, but I don't see the problem with the police counting out 15 mississippi's before they let themselves in.

Yeah well, I don't forsee myself ever having evidence in my home needed in a criminal investigation.

 

My door is safe.

That's not how it's supposed to be though. Our system is set up to protect the accused at all costs. The "nothing to hide" argument has gotten too much play in my opinion recently and is unsubstantiated as far as American Law is concerned.

Warrants aren't given out like coupons in a Sunday paper and they have to have something behind them for one to be issued.

 

Why give a potential criminal time to bulls***, leave, or hide evidence by giving a 'courtesy' knock?

That's not how it's supposed to be though. Our system is set up to protect the accused at all costs. The "nothing to hide" argument has gotten too much play in my opinion recently and is unsubstantiated as far as American Law is concerned.

 

 

You make a good point about the "nothing to hide" argument but unfortunately the current system is also set up to not only protect the accussed at all costs, but also the convicted at all costs.

 

Its common practice for convicted felons (residential/vehicle) burglaries, fraud (credit card/forgery), to be given a slap on the wrist (a few months is jail) only to be released back into our communities where the resume their evil ways.

Warrants aren't given out like coupons in a Sunday paper and they have to have something behind them for one to be issued.

 

Why give a potential criminal time to bulls***, leave, or hide evidence by giving a 'courtesy' knock?

While warrants are very detailed in what they are looking for, they aren't that difficult to get a hold of. They're not handed out as easily as indictments are, but it isn't really as difficult as we'd believe if we just read the Constitution. Also, once an indictment is given (which if by grand jury is about as likely as the Royals not making the playoffs, and the other method [information] is just the prosecutor deciding they want to charge you) it's pretty much a lock that the search warrant will be given.

 

The law is allowed to barge in if they here someone leaving from where they are, that's a whole separate issue. Also the hiding one would hope wouldn't matter, since it's supposed to be assumed that the police are competent enough to search through a house and find what they're looking for (then again...). The reason something like this exists is for cases where they're at the wrong house, there are other people present that are not the accused, etc. We have to go out of our way to protect against when the police get it wrong because that's the way it's setup. You can't switch philosophies from amendment to amendment because it makes the whole things confusing. First amendment has always been held as holy by the populace, why can't #2-27?

That's not how it's supposed to be though. Our system is set up to protect the accused at all costs. The "nothing to hide" argument has gotten too much play in my opinion recently and is unsubstantiated as far as American Law is concerned.

 

You make a good point about the "nothing to hide" argument but unfortunately the current system is also set up to not only protect the accussed at all costs, but also the convicted at all costs.

 

Its common practice for convicted felons (residential/vehicle) burglaries, fraud (credit card/forgery), to be given a slap on the wrist (a few months is jail) only to be released back into our communities where the resume their evil ways.Well.....that's the judges fault. Not the system.

 

And to keep going on the fact that the system helps the accused and the convicted, well it's supposed to. The accused are entitled to appeal until the course of appeals have been exhausted. If the state messes up, then the accused/convicted is let go or that evidence isn't considered. We're supposed to be the farthest from a police state possible, but sadly that extreme (one of the few good extremes) isn't the case much anymore.

I don't understand how not knocking on the door violates the 4th ammendment.

 

Police at the wrong house? So you believe they are competent enough for when they search the house, but not enough to read street adresses correctly? Doesn't make much sense.

 

I don't know how you can be in favor of something that allows the accussed time to flush drugs down a toilet, swallow a balloon of heroin, or toss a gun out a window.

 

All keeping the law does is help and aid criminals.

I know about the wrong house thing for a specific reason, because they searched the wrong name and address and ended up having a search warrant for my house thinking my mom was a Colombian drug dealer (instead of a Cuban mom). They knocked, she called it in to the HQ, and they realized they were wrong. No one ever stepped foot in the house.

 

The reason these are in place are simple. What if the accused isn't home but his relatives are, and for whatever reason (shower for example) they can't answer the door in the span of two seconds? Ten to fifteen seconds is a reasonable time to assume someone would answer the door in a normal house. And since all of the state's limitations are defined in a scope deemed by the reasonable person, the standard here of ten to fifteen is what should be followed. At least, that's the way the Constitution has been read for a very long time.

 

The fear of someone flushing down drugs or hiding evidence is a legit one, but in the US courts that doesn't matter. If you notice, that issue wasn't even brought up in the article. Why? Because it's assumed that the fear exists, and the US system is setup in way where that's the risk you take in the name of making sure no innocent people ever go to jail. That isn't even the case in this matter, it's simply that the previous precedent was ignored not because of man's evolution but just because the court wanted to. And that is certainly not how America's laws work.

I guess we should just throw out the Constitution, it's being made irrelevant by this government and the court.

 

"A 'Bill of Rights'? How quaint!" -AG Alberto Gonzalez

 

:plain

 

 

Do you really think that police not knocking, announcing themselves, and waiting a few seconds constitutes an "unreasonable search"? When there's obviously significant evidence, which is required to obtain the warrant in the first place?

 

As long as the warrant has been legally and truthfully obtained, the constitutional issues involving it have been fulfilled.

 

And locality, state, or the federal government COULD restrict it further to make the knock/announce/wait thing legally required (if they did that, I'd like to see an exception rider that could be added to the warrant if there is a significant chance either evidence could be destroyed or someone at the location might be a violence risk).

I love some of the liberals in this thread are ranting about how we might as well throw out the constitution, this administration doesn't follow it, blah blah blah all because you disagree with this court ruling, yet your ilk are the same ones who would be first in line to restrict or abolish other amendments of the constitution, such as the 2nd.

 

I LOVE IT.

I love some of the liberals in this thread are ranting about how we might as well throw out the constitution, this administration doesn't follow it, blah blah blah all because you disagree with this court ruling, yet your ilk are the same ones who would be first in line to restrict or abolish other amendments of the constitution, such as the 2nd.

 

I LOVE IT.

 

I love how Juanky is now a liberal. Welcome to the club Juanky!

 

I also love how do exactly the same thing. You rant and rave about 2nd amendment violations but are totally ok with curtailing other civil liberties. So what does that make you?

I think it's much better that social liberals are concerned about the other 9 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, rather than focusing so much on the obsolete 2nd amendment, like some conservatives do.

I love some of the liberals in this thread are ranting about how we might as well throw out the constitution, this administration doesn't follow it, blah blah blah all because you disagree with this court ruling, yet your ilk are the same ones who would be first in line to restrict or abolish other amendments of the constitution, such as the 2nd.

 

I LOVE IT.

 

I love how Juanky is now a liberal. Welcome to the club Juanky!

 

I also love how do exactly the same thing. You rant and rave about 2nd amendment violations but are totally ok with curtailing other civil liberties. So what does that make you?

My post was obviously directed at FutureGM..

 

And where did I say I was okay with this? No where. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

I think it's much better that social liberals are concerned about the other 9 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, rather than focusing so much on the obsolete 2nd amendment, like some conservatives do.

 

Another thrilling hall-of-fame caliber post by FutureGM.

 

You're all the same, the liberal mindset is that the constitution must be upheld and applied... but only the parts you agree with. The parts of the constitution you disagree with are worthless, good for nothing, and it's perfectly OKAY to violate! Sorry, it doesn't work that way .

 

The fact you think the 2nd amendment is "obsolete" just shows how incredibly warped and so far detached reality you really are. Yes, protecting yourself and your family is now obsolete, all thanks to wonderful gun control laws which protect us from ourselves. Thanks Dianne, John, and Ted! Nobody needs the right to protect their family, but for GOD SAKES we better make the police knock on someones door when serving a warrant!

 

Thank you for proving my point.

I don't see you exactly up in arms over the civil liberty restrictions that have begun to appear the last 5 years.

 

You sir, proved my point that you care more about gun rights than anything else.

I love how Juanky is now a liberal. Welcome to the club Juanky!

Sorry, but I don't want in :hat

A lot of these sorts of protections exist because we used to know better than to put complete trust in a single official or a small group of officials. Judges are not incorruptible. A warrant may be difficult to obtain from an honest judge. But maybe there's a judge or two out there who are willing to issue warrants for political reasons or financial reasons. Who knows?

 

I'm not really a big conspiracy theorist, but America has a lot of these seemingly obstructionist protections because this country's foundations were put together largely based on suspicions and paranoia regarding big government.

 

The "knock knock" thing? Not a huge deal. But it is symbolic of the way in which many of our protections are being stripped away because we're now supposed to trust The Man to do the right thing. The whole "I have nothing to hide, so what do I care" arguement strikes me as a little naive. There's more corruption in our society than most of us would like to believe.

 

Conservatives, by the way, used to lead the charge against putting wholesale trust in our public officials, but somehow that point seems to have gotten lost. Now that the conservatives are in power, somehow this has gotten framed as one of those pansy liberal freedom type issues.

That's the biggest contradiction of the current Conservative control of government. Republicans/conservatives are generally supposed to be the most suspicious of government interference in people's lives. Yet, this administration and Congress have greatly expanded federal power in 6 years.

 

Then there's the fact that Republicans are supposed to want less government spending. Instead, this administration has 51% of the budget devoted to military spending, and has the largest federal budget in history. We're spending tons of money that is going to just add to the federal deficit, and most of it is going straight into the money pit that is the Iraq problem.

A lot of these sorts of protections exist because we used to know better than to put complete trust in a single official or a small group of officials. Judges are not incorruptible. A warrant may be difficult to obtain from an honest judge. But maybe there's a judge or two out there who are willing to issue warrants for political reasons or financial reasons. Who knows?

 

I'm not really a big conspiracy theorist, but America has a lot of these seemingly obstructionist protections because this country's foundations were put together largely based on suspicions and paranoia regarding big government.

 

The "knock knock" thing? Not a huge deal. But it is symbolic of the way in which many of our protections are being stripped away because we're now supposed to trust The Man to do the right thing. The whole "I have nothing to hide, so what do I care" arguement strikes me as a little naive. There's more corruption in our society than most of us would like to believe.

 

Conservatives, by the way, used to lead the charge against putting wholesale trust in our public officials, but somehow that point seems to have gotten lost. Now that the conservatives are in power, somehow this has gotten framed as one of those pansy liberal freedom type issues.

 

Well said. The biggest thing that shocks me is that it used to be about federalism. But that principle seems to be dying everyday at the expense of sheer loyalty to political affiliation.

 

The knock and announce rule has always been considered part of the reasonableness of a search. Justice Thomas in Wilson v Arkansas:

 

"Given the longstanding common law endorsement of the practice of announcement, we have little doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer's entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure."

 

There is something to be said about the dignity of one's home. A man and his castle. The government can come in, but they cant smash the door down and jump through the windows without any cause. But because people see this as a problem in a different world, they no longer see these as rights. The 4th amendment has almost been equated to welfare benefits if you ask me.

 

And the whole "they might destroy evidence stuff" doesnt pass muster because the court already made an exception for felony drug cases and cases where there is a reasonable chance evidence can be destroyed.

I guess we should just throw out the Constitution, it's being made irrelevant by this government and the court.

 

"A 'Bill of Rights'? How quaint!" -AG Alberto Gonzalez

 

:plain

 

 

 

(from Capitol Hill Blue 12/9/05)

 

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the (Patriot)act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

 

?I don?t give a goddamn,? Bush retorted. ?I?m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.?

 

?Mr. President,? one aide in the meeting said. ?There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.?

 

?Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,? Bush screamed back. ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper!?

 

I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"If this (the USA) were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush said. -- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/may99/052699a.htm

 

Governor Bush himself lashed out at GWBush.com at a televised press conference, calling the site's owner "a garbage man" and saying "There ought to be limits to freedom." The quote is widely reported and becomes a hot topic of discussion on the Internet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Looks like the Coke-snorting Chickenhawk is getting his wish...alongside giving the FCC more power to shoot you if Janet's tit pops out again...

 

So, Mr. Mollusk, I take it that Bush is a SOCIAL LIBERAL?

I've heard that "dictator" comment on TV before. It's pretty scary.

 

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

I've heard that "dictator" comment on TV before. It's pretty scary.

 

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

 

 

From the same article that talks about a "goddamned piece of paper"...

 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

I've heard that "dictator" comment on TV before. It's pretty scary.

 

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

 

 

From the same article that talks about a "goddamned piece of paper"...

 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

If you are one who takes every word in the Constitution literally (and with no outside interpretations/rights not explicity stated in the document, such as the right to privacy) and does not see it as a "living document" with the ability to evolve over the years through judges' interpretations and changing societal norms, then you have a right to be offended by this statement. Assumming you disagree with this quote I would assume you support the right to bear arms, among others (I honestly don't know your stance on this issue). I don't have a problem with this point of view - it's just that I get fed up when it's used selectively to support some issues (such as this) but in the same breath the same people go against other Constitutional amendments. I don't know if you're doing it here or if you are someone who favors strictly interpreting the Constitution.

 

Otherwise, if you see the Constitution as a basis for a government but do not think that 200+ years later every single word should be taken literally and instead view the Constitution as a living document, then Gonzales isn't that far off with his thoughts, though his wording is poor.