Read the bestseller, “How to Stage a Successful Home Invasion” and learn how to yell “Police!” when you knock down your victim’s door. So many of them have read “What Cops Know”, they are all docile as lambs now.
As others have said, the case is about the application of the exclusionary rule in a narrow fact pattern:
- Cops have a valid warrant.
- Cops do not announce, or do not wait long enough after the announcement.
- Cops seize evidence.
- Defendant objects to admission of the evidence at trial.
The case says that if the cops had a valid warrant, the remedy is a suit under section 1983 (if the cops are state agents) or Bivens (if they are feds). So it’s not as if the Court legalized knockless searches (across the board–the Court has consistently recognized numerous exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule anyway). Moreover, the court didn’t recognize the Constitutional knock-and-announce rule until 1995. Before that, as far as anyone knew, what the police did in this case *was * legal.
And the rule doesn’t protect much anyway. It’s not as if you can pull a Rabbit and just say “No” when they ask if you are there. The knock gives you the opportunity to run to the door and save it from being damaged. Because as the Grateful Dead put it, “If you’ve got a warrant, I guess you’re gonna come in.”
And that’s a large part of Scalia’s logic in the case. The cops would have found the same evidence either way. And the defendant certainly can’t argue the opposite–if they’d only knocked, I could have destroyed the evidence before they entered. That’s just not going to work.
The Court is whittling away at the exclusionary rule. It has been for a while now. I’m not happy about that. But this case doesn’t really surprise me much.
Only reason I have a problem with this one is because of a recent incident here in town.
My hometown has been going nuts on meth - rightfully so, as most of the people doing it at the moment are assholes. They published this guideline of “how to know that meth might be in your neighborhood.”
Someone reported a good friend’s house as a possibly cookshop. They got a no-knock order (which I’m against as well) because of the “high possibility of violence.” Raided said friend’s house without knocking, scaring the shit out of him and his wife, and their daughter. Not only did they ram the door off it’s hinges and not pay for it, but they didn’t find anything because my friend is not a meth dealer. He fit a lot of the signs because he’s a small time wholesaler who sells stuff on eBay - there was constantly people coming over to his house to deliver stuff he’d bought and stuff - no doubt some of them were crackheads, but he wasn’t. Now he’s got a busted door, a freaked-out wife, and a child who screams in terror at the slightest noises.
The only reason that I can think of to be against things like this is - What if they’re wrong? Sure, it’s great to say that if the scumbag deserves it he deserves it, but what if they’re wrong? What if the person involved is completely innocent? Oh, too fucking bad for them? And trust me, cops are wrong quite often.
These things aren’t in place, necessarily, to protect the rights of the criminals - it’s to protect the rights of the people who aren’t guilty.
~Tasha
What makes you so certain that your argument has popular support here?
Actually, don’t answer, as there isn’t a factual way to predict the leanings of the Board on any specific subject matter. Just set up a poll, and see what happens. Start an IMHO thread or use one of the many tools available on the net.
Easy. Just set up a closed circuit camera around your house, put a few extra deadbolts on your door, and have your stash right by the toilet. Those who truly want to get away with it will, all we’ve done is given cops license to ruin peoples doors with no negative consequences.
Not really. I’m a guy that functions on an animal level when roused from a deep sleep. There’s a S&W .357, loaded with hollowpoints, right by my bed. Odds are very good that if anything comes crashing through my door, I will be on my feet, gun in hand, and possibly unloading on anything moving well before I’m even close to being fully awake.
I’d never intentionally fire on a police officer. Even if I were to get arrested on a bogus charge, my rational inclination would be to fight it in Court. When I am suddenly jarred awake in the middle of the night, with an instant megadose of adrenalin, rational is exactly that which I will not be. At such times, my brain is capable of short phrases…like “Oakie SMASH!” or “Fire BAD”. We’re talking about a period of seconds here. But in those seconds, if my reptillian subconcious senses a threat, I will act on it. Probably spectacularly, and possibly with lethal results for at least one of the parties involved. In a situation like that, once one shot is fired, all hell is going to erupt. On the cop side, they’ve just seen one of their own get his head blown off, so they’re probably gonna open fire. On my side, if I just shot somebody, and now his friends are shooting back, it’s on. Things are going to get confused, and likely more people will die before either side really understands what has happened.
Knock on my door, fine. I’ll be reading the warrant and planning my 42 USC 1983 action while you run the search. No problem. Come crashing in unannounced into the home of a well armed, skilled, veteran? People will die.
The former hinges upon what is, or is not, considered to be “reasonable”. Being “reasonable” is clearly a necessary element of a wise policy decision. Thus, I don’t see how the two concepts can be clearly separated in this case.
Given the wonders of modern chemistry in finding parts-per-billion traces of stuff, I’m not convinced that preventing somebody from flushing drugs down the toilet is a tenable justification for no-knock raids.
I’m sure you’re right.
BUt when I said “us” I was referring to voting citizens of the United States, not SDMB members. I have very little question that the SDMB, which is not representative of the country at large, would lean as you hint.
You know, this really pisses me off. Maybe it’s not that big a deal. Certainly the damaged door isn’t as important as the traumatized daughter. But for chrissakes, it would be so bloody easy for the local government to cut a cheque to repair the damages that its agents caused. Redressing psychological damages is tricky, but providing a refund for damages isn’t. And hell, if cops knew they’d be paying for damages caused if they didn’t find anything, maybe they’d be a little less indiscriminate in accepting anonymous tips and such, and have just a little more respect for the property of the people they’re supposedly serving and protecting.
Well, this just means that if I come to live in America, the intruder alarm will be very loud, and there will be indoor cameras viewable from the bedroom and strengthened inner doors and walls so that when they’re all nicely channelled and bunched up inside, I can flip the switch which sets off the claymores. Then I ring the police and tell them that some nutsos invaded my house. Then I ring the press.
And then you will go off to jail as unmanned booby trapping of your house is considered illegal and you will probably be charged with Manslaughter.
Of Course IANAL
Jim
Clearly they aren’t unmanned booby traps. He has to flip a switch to set off the claymores. Come on, pay attention!! 
Some people don’t want either a nanny state or a police state. They actually want government subordinate to individuals instead of the other way around. It’s a fairly clear statement of fact: some people don’t mistake political labels for substance. You know, like respecting basic conservative principles?
That wasn’t an appeal to popular support, Bricker, and shame on you for using such a transparent dodge.
No, if that’s what I meant to say, I would have said that. Priority means that citizens rights are more important than government rights. The government exists to serve the citizens, not the citizens to serve the government.
Bite me, you idiot.
There is nothing in the disucssion up to that point that has anything to do with popular opinion. What possible use is saying “some of us feel…” instead of simply stating the merits of the argument being advanced? It’s PRECISELY an appeal to popular support.
So shame on you.
In my experience it’s been a lot more like ‘You don’t wear a badge, so you’re automatically a scumbag. I might not have found anything, but that doesn’t mean you’re innocent, just good at hiding it.’
They get freaking gleeful at the idea that they can rip your shit apart and damage it or destroy it, and then have absolutely no responsibility for putting anything back together.
I had a cop practically jizz in his pants at the idea of tearing into my car as he described that he would cut open my seats. When I asked him who pays to put it back together, he said that would be my problem.
Bullshit. Little Nemo made no appeal or claim to your strawman ‘popular opinion’. He stated the blatantly obvious: this decision doesn’t enjoy unanimous agreement. Unless you’re now claiming it does, of course. Nice attempt at a diversion, though.
This isn’t worthy of you, Bricker. You usually argue your position cleanly. I don’t know (or much care) how or why you’ve decided to contort plain meanings into something that pleases you. If your tortured logic is what passes for conservatism now, no wonder there’s trouble in Toyland.
This isn’t a partisan political attack, btw, so don’t even bother trying to spin it into one. Unlike you, I have enough respect for the conservative principles to call bad decisions when I see 'em, no matter how they’re labeled.
Nonsense.
Explain to me what “some of us think” means, then. There’s a big difference between saying what you did – “This decision does not enjoy unanimous support” and “Some of us…”
The latter phrase means to include the speaker and his crowd of like-minded allies in against his target. It has absolutely no value – it is a blatant appeal to popularity. You tell me – if it isn’t then why say, “Some of us think…” What argument was being rebutted? No one, up to that point, had made any claim that the decision enjoyed unanimous support. If your theory is correct – the phrase was being used to show that this decision doesn’t enjoy unanimous agreement – why would he need to make that clear? Who claimed it DID?
Sorry. It was a blatant ad populum argument, and now you’re incensed that I called it as such. Waaah.
I don’t claim to be defending the merits of the decision with this train of discussion… I’m simply identifying and rebutting the argument ad populum that was speciously offered above. The defense of the decision itself I have already offered above. If you wish to rebut any of the points I made there, please hie yourself up to the relevant posts, read, and respond. Your attempt to characterize my entire argument as revolving around the “some of us” phrase is itself a pathetic strawman.
What a comtemptible bit of weaseling. You claim Little Nemo’s use of ‘us’ was an appeal to popular opinion. Your rigorous standard was supposedly much different when you used it…see post #49:
Your use of ‘us’ only modestly referred to the voting citizens of the United States.
Shit, and I thought the “It depends on your defintion of ‘is’” dodge was tawdry. The tactic is no better for a vowel shift and coming from the opposite political camp.