The Police No Longer Have to Knock Before Busting Into Your House

Great, isn't it. It is one the other side makes all the time, about how out of touch Thomas and Scalia are. But suddenly it's wrong to put the same argument on the other side?

The reality is no, I don't think they are against law and order. I think they have a real disagreement about the issue and that is good. It is what makes things work. I am sure there was a healthy exchange of ideas.

Daisy, the teeth have not been pulled. So far as I konw, an officer can still be prosecuted for not following the law. What has happened is that the criminal will not benefit from an officer not following the law. That is a key benefit that I would think even you would agree with.

I can't see that any rights were lost in this. If there were any rights involved, they were lost long ago with the search warrant proviso. This hasn't changed anything, and for some reason, some people are overlooking this.

 

Not long ago I saw a picture of a friend of mine in a local newspaper. He was part of a Sheriff's Drug Raid---there this buddy of mine was---his back against the wall near the door of the suspected house---with a 12 gauge shotgun in his hands in the "fixed" position---meanin' that somebody on the inside of the house was fixin' to get "sprayed" with buckshot!!!! Three or four other deputies where there in same position--another deputy was handlin' the door battering ram!!!

I told my momma----"You know! Ole John's always wanted to do what he's doin' in that picture!!!" It was right up his ally!!!!!

Now---my deputy buddy???? On one hand---there he is with a shotgun in his hand fixin' to bust in----but on the other hand----John knows all he has to do is knock on my door---and he's more than welcome to come in for coffee or a cold drink!!!

 

Good !!

First off, I think there are statistics to show how many officers have been blown away by desperate criminals just because they had to knock first on the door to serve a warrant ? Never mind that they are given enough time to dispose of evidence, most times.

Another thing I'd like to see is a prohibition for officers of the law to be talking to media while a manhunt is going on. I think it is as stupid as the military telling media what they are doing and where they are in the fight against this or that, all for the sake of 'the public has the right to know'.

 

In New York, police can obtain special no-knock warrants.

 

maybe so

I was on the job for two years about 3 centuries ago. Back then, we had to have a warrant for almost everything, including staring at a person we think is a felon, and it is frustrating to get a warrant for whatever reason especially if the suspect is 'networked', and my country was third world corrupt, if you know what I mean.
Heck, one time we got a search warrant for a 'networked' guy, and by the time we served it, the guy has moved out of the apartment.

I don't know what the cops' frustrations or difficulties may be over here in the high tech New World, but I sure think they do, and no-need-to-knock could be a big help, for all we know.

 

Special no knock warrants

No knock warrants are allowed in almost every state if there is a proven risk to the police officers or the chance that the potential criminal could get rid of evidence.

Based on my history as a private investigtor I know what policemen are up against, and I can tell you that I am still not in favor of "no knock" entry without a warrant from a judge which is based on evidence of potential problems.

Sadly, many of the people who became police officers (not all, there are good ones), were the punks in high-school. They liked the power to control people and luckily the bad ones have a criminal record which prevents them from becoming police-officers. Thank goodness.

On the other hand, I know some officers that are at the top of my list with integrity and fairness. They actually CARE about the victims and even the criminals who they try to help. There IS good in this world, but there is also the abuse of power and that's what this is about. These kind of laws will be abused by those who abuse power, making those who do not look bad. It is very sad for those who do want to help.

 

Ken, I looked and looked but didn't see "knock and announce" rule in the Bill of Rights. Could it be that you're reading some words into the Constitution that aren't there? I know we all really hate it when the Supreme Court does that. Something kinda funny about being angry at the Supreme Court for not doing so. Have you read the decision?

I also agree with PL, though, that it will be interesting to read the dissents. Though I agree with the majority I can respect a well-written and historically/legally well-argued dissent.

 

I'm going to put a large sign in my yard, and another one on my front, side, and back doors. Maybe smaller ones on the side windows, as well.

RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER LIVES HERE. SEVERAL FIREARMS INSIDE. LARGE ATTACK DOG. DOOR IS UNLOCKED. COME ON IN.​

It should serve more than one purpose.

:type:

 

This ruling will do little to stop the criminal who wants to stop the police from barging in unannounced. All they have to do is purchase some one-eighth inch thick plate steel and secure the door so that it takes more than one or two hits to open. This will give them the same protection they have now. It will allow the police to stop some people from destroying evidence before the police actually serve the warrant.

This ruling will make it difficult for the person who is mistaken for a criminal, and perhaps will cause their death as they are shot while reaching for their gun to protect themselves from what they perceive to be a criminal robbing them. In fact because a startled person is more likely to reach for a gun, this ruling might actually make it more dangerous for the policeman. After all, if the police bang on my door and say they have a search warrant, I will quickly allow them entrance into my home. But, if all of a sudden someone breaks down my door, someone is very likely to get shot.

I guess it depends on how much freedom we are willing to give up.

 

Point well taken.


Terry, you also raise an excellent point. Am just starting to read the opinion (16 pages; Breyer's dissent is 27) and one of the concerns is that by knocking and announcing it may give the opportunity for someone who would be likely to harm them to prepare to do so, along with, as you said, stopping some people from destroying evidence.

 

From Kennedy's concurring opinion:

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 10:15 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle:flower:

 

Bush is doing everything he can to inject democracy into Iraq, while he's doing everything he can to remove it from the US.

 

What does a Supreme Court ruling on criminal procedure have to do with majority rule?

 

Ken, I'm with you brother. There is nothing I hate more than when the police don't give me time to flush evidence down the toilet or to grab my gun to shoot it out with them.

Just who do they think they are?

 

– “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
William Pitt in the House of Lords, 1763

And now, yet another right goes in the toilet. Before it's too late, we need to get these fools out of office.

 

Closed per previous warning. LE