|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Weakening of the Exclusionary rules.
#5754149 - 06/15/06 04:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Police Violations Should Not Suppress Evidence
June 15, 2006 2:37 p.m. EST
Richard Rittierodt - All Headline News Contributor
Washington DC (AHN) - According to the United States Supreme Court, police would no longer have to knock on the door before entering a home when executing a search warrant.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold a Michigan court's ruling that evidence seized under a valid search warrant should not be disqualified because an officer fails to knock on the door.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his dissent, "Today's opinion is thus doubly troubling. It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents. And it weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection."
However, Antonin Scalia had a different take on the case.
Scalia said, "excluding incriminating evidence would have various social costs, generating a flood of lawsuits claiming violations, causing police officers to refrain from making a timely entry and resulting in the possible destruction of evidence."
The ruling stems from a 1998 case where Booker Hudson wanted evidence taken from his place excluded from trial because seven Detroit officers failed to knock before entering.
The officers found cocaine and a loaded revolver in the search."
(From All Headline News)
|
76degrees
Apprentice

Registered: 06/08/06
Posts: 350
Loc: Middle Earth
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Weakening of the Exclusionary rules. [Re: Le_Canard]
#5810379 - 07/01/06 05:37 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Friggen great. Does this apply to all states or just Michigan?
-------------------- The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Weakening of the Exclusionary rules. [Re: 76degrees]
#5811313 - 07/02/06 12:23 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I imagine since it's a Supreme Court decision, it'll effect the entire country. Cops now have a blank check to abuse the system
|
Organic
Lloyd

Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 5,774
Loc: Overlook
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: Weakening of the Exclusionary rules. [Re: Le_Canard]
#5811708 - 07/02/06 05:17 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Weakening of the Exclusionary rules. [Re: Organic]
#5811871 - 07/02/06 08:45 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
in related news 6 police officers failed to knock before entering a house and they all received a 12 gauge slug to the head.
the man accused said " they busted down my door waiving guns what was i to think?"
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Weakening of the Exclusionary rules. [Re: makaveli8x8]
#5818981 - 07/04/06 06:51 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think it might be a good idea to buy stock in security door companies.
It's also pretty easy to rig up shotgun shells to go off when a door gets kicked in. I wouldn't blame people in the least.
It seems like a pretty legit self defence claim to me if you blew away some people dressed in dark outfits wearing masks and waving guns who just kicked your door in.
-FF
|
geokills
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙


Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 23,417
Loc: city of angels
Last seen: 10 hours, 31 minutes
|
Supreme Court Alters Knock & Announce Rule [Re: Le_Canard]
#5996990 - 08/25/06 06:14 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Author(s): Beverly Rice
Supreme Court Alters Knock and Announce Rule
"Police! Search warrant!"
The words that came from the other side of Booker Hudson's front door were more than just an unexpected surprise. They were also a test of America's Constitutional privacy rights. Hudson's evening at home with friends was interrupted by the police loudly announcing their presence. Seconds later, the door opened and in walked police officers who found Hudson amid 23 bags of cocaine and a gun.
At his trial, Hudson's lawyers successfully suppressed the evidence found that fateful night, on the grounds that it was obtained via an unreasonable search. The case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which overruled that decision, stating that disallowing the evidence was not an appropriate remedy for violating proper search procedure.
The Supreme Court agreed with Michigan's high court, and in a 5-4 decision ruled police do not have to knock to gain access to homes if they have a search warrant. Furthermore, evidence discovered in the search can be used in court.
The majority opinion on the Court said the cost of a criminal getting off on a technicality such as the police's failure to knock outweighed the benefit stemming from concern of a violation of privacy rights or the knock and announce rule.
Knock Down for Knock and Announce
The ruling was a blow to the knock and announce rule established by the Supreme Court in the 1960's. At that time, the Court imposed an exclusionary rule which made evidence obtained in an improper search inadmissible in a trial.
The knock and announce rule required police to knock first, announce themselves, and wait a reasonable time for someone to answer the door. In the Hudson case, police announced themselves without knocking and waited mere seconds before entering - not enough time for a person to get to the door and open it.
With the Court's new ruling, the only penalties police face for not adhering to knock and announce are administrative discipline or a lawsuit for damages to property. However, the evidence they obtained in the search is admissible in court.
Dissenting Voices
The four dissenting justices in the case believed the ruling destroys the practical value of knock and announce. By failing to enforce the exclusionary rule, the police have little incentive to comply with proper search protocol. Even Justice Kennedy, who voted yea, wrote a separate opinion, saying the exclusionary rule is settled and not in doubt; the issue is whether police failure to give proper warning, even with a warrant, merited an extension of the exclusionary rule.
Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates contend the Supreme Court's decision supports aggressive police tactics and erodes privacy rights of homeowners and businesses. In addition, administrative discipline and civil lawsuits are weak deterrents to force police to comply with the knock and announce rule.
Opponents also fear lax enforcement of knock and announce will lead to more mistaken raids on the wrong house. Such mistakes can turn deadly as frightened citizens return fire on police and police retaliate on innocent victims.
Conflicting Rulings
While the Supreme Court weakened privacy protection and the exclusionary rule in the Hudson case, earlier this year it championed privacy rights and the exclusionary rule in its decision on a Georgia Supreme Court matter.
In a 5-3 decision, justices upheld the Georgia high court's ruling that police need a search warrant to enter a couple's home, or permission from both partners to gain access. Without a warrant or mutual consent, the exclusionary rule would be enforced. The ruling affected other states whose courts had said police needed the consent of only one partner.
The Court's ruling did not affect police authority to enter a premises when there is probable cause to believe a person is in danger. Nor did it change the right of police to enter a home with the consent of one partner when the other is asleep or absent.
The Georgia case involved a child custody dispute between Janet and Scott Randolph. Mrs. Randolph called the police and when the officers arrived she told them where they could find her husband's stash of cocaine. Mr. Randolph returned while the police were there and did not consent to a search of the house.
The police began to collect evidence anyway but stopped on advice of the D.A. and obtained a search warrant. They returned with a warrant and collected more evidence which was used to charge Scott Randolph with drug possession. The Georgia court ruled the drugs could not be used as evidence because they were seized illegally.
In its decision, the Supreme Court found that consent of only one partner is inadequate because it is a generally accepted social expectation that each partner has a say in who can enter the couple's living space. Therefore, the warrantless search based on the consent of one party is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Contradiction or Consistency?
The Supreme Court's two rulings appear at first to be contradictory but on second glance, they are not. In the Hudson case, the police had a search warrant; they just failed to allow enough time for Hudson to answer the door. Given the amount of drugs found in the search, the Court determined it would be foolish to invoke the exclusionary rule simply because one step in knock and announce protocol was missed.
In the Georgia matter, the police came to the house because of a domestic dispute. They had no warrant to search for any contraband, nor did they have the consent of both Randolphs to enter the premises. Although the officers did stop to get a search warrant, this was after the fact. Perhaps it would have been wiser if they had handled the domestic dispute and returned later with a search warrant, as they had probable cause to get one issued since the wife told them drugs were in the house.
At the heart of this debate is an age-old question: Where do we draw the line between upholding a citizen's right to privacy and society's right to live without crime? While the Supreme Court continually tries to strike a balance and maintain the Constitution's Bill of Rights, only time will tell how an unannounced entrance will affect privacy rights in the United States.
--------------------
-------------------- ┼ ··∙ long live the shroomery ∙·· ┼ ...╬π╥ ╥π╬...
|
wiggles
Miffed a Milf


Registered: 11/09/05
Posts: 2,615
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supreme Court Alters Knock & Announce Rule [Re: geokills]
#5997123 - 08/25/06 06:56 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
We've been widdling away at the exclusionary rule for a long time. Look up the term "Terry stop." It means any officer has the right to frisk anyone, anywhere, to "check for weapons." However, if he happens to feel something else, it's considered "probable touch" and therefore you can be instantaneously guilty. All because some officer chooses to frisk you because he "had his suspiscions."
Its only going to get worse folks.
--------------------
  You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye. Hunter S. Thompson
|
djaxx06
Stranger
Registered: 07/04/06
Posts: 265
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supreme Court Alters Knock & Announce Rule [Re: wiggles]
#5997206 - 08/25/06 07:36 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i dont think that is correct...the terry search legally only be performed when an officer feels he is in a possible dangerous situation and cannot be done on an individual just walking down the street. however, a routine traffic stop can warrant a "terry search". this search is strictly for weapons and is intended to protect officers. Weapons are easy to search for, they are blunt and hard...such as a knife or gun. Any type of sack or drugs would not be confused as a weapon. According to the law, any suspicious drug paraphernalia suspected by an officer during a terry pat does not constitute further searches. In other words, technically, you don't even have to show them what it is. However, just because the law says this, doesn't mean the officers obey it. This can get you off. A good little website is erowid.org. they have a ton of information on the police and illegal searches and loop holes to get your charges dropped and to protect yourself from these types of situations...what to say, when to refuse searches without a warrant, etc. it is a very good site and also lists the actual court cases that establish these laws. Very helpful, check it out.
|
wiggles
Miffed a Milf


Registered: 11/09/05
Posts: 2,615
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supreme Court Alters Knock & Announce Rule [Re: djaxx06]
#5997232 - 08/25/06 07:47 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Trust me, it won't help you as much as you think. 2 of my teachers are district attorneys. The second an officer feels a bowl it still can be considered plain touch, and therefore its the same thing as plain sight. It's supposed to be only for weapons, just like the patriot act is just for terrorists
--------------------
  You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye. Hunter S. Thompson
|
djaxx06
Stranger
Registered: 07/04/06
Posts: 265
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supreme Court Alters Knock & Announce Rule [Re: wiggles]
#5998718 - 08/26/06 10:16 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
the answer to that is...dont keep you bowl in your pockets...common sense...one of my friends got pulled over 3 months ago...the officer stuck his hand in his pocket and pulled out the sac. he got an attorney, and the charges were dropped. 2 weeks ago, go got pulled over by a copper and had just smoked a blunt (tobacco filled of course). and he was tryin to question us about it...but we were very firm and unwaivering, let us go. but check out that sight. it has already saved me a trip to the slammer for a night.
|
CptnGarden
fuck this site
Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 11,945
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
|
Re: Weakening of the Exclusionary rules. [Re: makaveli8x8]
#5999277 - 08/26/06 04:12 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
makaveli8x8 said: in related news 6 police officers failed to knock before entering a house and they all received a 12 gauge slug to the head.
the man accused said " they busted down my door waiving guns what was i to think?"
|
|