Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

Supreme courts splits on ideological lines to allow evidence seized in illegal searches to be used against suspects.

What is most galling to me about this decision is that the majority confirmed that the raid was illegal and that police ARE supposed to knock and announce but then went on to say that even if they don't, what they get out of the raid is still admissable in court. Essentially, on the one hand, the court reaffirmed that yes, constitutional protections against unreasonable searches are still in place but at the same time, the results of such searches still bring the pain.

In other words, cops are supposed to protect the constitutional rights but there is no penalty suffered if they don't. How is this decision going to do anything other than lead to an increase in no-knocks? I understand the argument that the decision breaks in favor of justice because people will be successfully prosecuted when they deserve it, but why can't the police follow the rules, or at least the ones laid down by the Constitution?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 18823

I just know that you didn't mean for this to be in IoD.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

What can possibly go wrong?

A triumph for Bush's judicial appointments.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

Are/were these raids with a search warrant? The article didn't say.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Den
Posts: 10984

Are you worried about unjust accusations?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

I'll ask the questions here.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

They are raids with a search warrant where the police have to knock and identify themselves (they aren't 'no-knock' warrants).

One of the concerns is what the legal situation would be if the police broke into your home unannounced and you shot them, not realising that they were police (this is already a problem in a sense, with 'no knock' warrants, but I think that they are governed by different regulations). previously, in order that the police weren't rewarded by improperly executing their warrants, the thought was that evidence collected by an improperly executed warranted search would be thrown out because the likelihood of that is all that would really encourage the police to execute the search properly. The concern amongst libertarians (who include republicans and democrats) is that there is no real sanction against improper execution of the warrant (in the sense of self-identification as police) and that this potentially creates a much more dangerous situation with respect to police and civilians getting shot in the confusion. I guess that the concern is mostly directed at the person whose property is being searched because of the presumption (and, often enough, the actual fact) of their innocence. They could react in a sensible way to their house being invaded by unannounced police and get shot as a result

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

It seems to me that the only risk involved is that of them entering the wrong dwelling, office, or whatever. In the case of entering the correct location where a search warrant has been granted and weapons might be present, announcing that they are police probably increases the chance of a violent confrontaion significantly. The fact is, that if a warrant has been issued, the officers have a right to enter the premises. Their indentifying themselves as police officers is more an act of courtesy than a necessity I think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: mediocre apartment
Posts: 2614

They grant warrants where the police don't have to announce themselves, specifically for times when it would be better for the police to break in quickly and unannounced (ie, hostage situations, weapons stockpiles, anything where speed and special tactics are necessary), but I think the burden of reason is greater.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
It seems to me that the only risk involved is that of them entering the wrong dwelling, office, or whatever. In the case of entering the correct location where a search warrant has been granted and weapons might be present, announcing that they are police probably increases the chance of a violent confrontaion significantly. The fact is, that if a warrant has been issued, the officers have a right to enter the premises. Their indentifying themselves as police officers is more an act of courtesy than a necessity I think.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git

If three armed police smash my door down unannounced, I am going to take steps as if my house was being invaded by dangerous robbers.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I was going to offer up the cats first.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

Liar.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 352

The way you could do it is still use the evidence (to avoid letting guilty men walk on technicalities) but fire the cops who execute warrents in the wrong way and bring them up on criminal charges of breaking an entering.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

Hiring and firing policemen and women isn't within the purveiw of the United States Supreme Court, surely?

Anyhow, the rules are broken to get evidence. Not being able to use the evidence is the logical penalty.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wool puller
Posts: 10256

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
Liar.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

I want a discarding sabot cat gun for use in such situations.

A terrified, 6 pound cat hitting you in the chest at 100+ mph as you charge through the door would a damned effective deterrent.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wool puller
Posts: 10256

All of Simon's smerts wuz in his hands.

Now he's only half as smert.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

quote:

---

Originally posted by fubar
All of Simon's smerts wuz in his hands.

Now he's only half as smert.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wool puller
Posts: 10256

Hey! I gave you preemptive dickel. You can't get bitchy with a dude that gives you dickel preemptively! Jeezus!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

I would submit that you are "bighter" now.

EDIT: The above sentence isn't there any more than Captain Hooks typo.

EDIT: Everything above the line below this one is an illusion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wool puller
Posts: 10256

Maybe the "R" is on "that" side of the keyboard.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

No, the "r" is sticky, and sometimes doesn't click. I'm a cheap old bastard who won't spring for a new keyboard.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged