"No Knock" Supreme Court Ruling

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_Elijah_MorganWood, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. D_Elijah_MorganWood

    D_Elijah_MorganWood New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    6
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.

    What's happening to our civil liberties? A warrant merely authorizes a search for evidence and is hardly a conviction or even guilt. Where will the administrative paranoia stop?

    The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.

    Will this be the legacy of our current administration i.e. a not-so-slow erosion of our rights and freedoms? Wait until you see below how this happened!

    President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.

    I wonder how many Bush supporters realise that he's doing as he damn well pleases by appointing his henchmen and ruling with an iron fist. Now that we're on this road, where is it taking us...Neo-Fascism? It's not an extreme leap if you consider fairly recent history and our ever-eroding rights and freedoms.

    ...Scalia added that police might put their lives in danger if they were uncertain when and if entry was legally permissible.

    Then for fuck's sake, why don't we just impose Martial Law? What a great reason to violate the rights of possibly innocent people.

    The appeal involves Booker Hudson, a Detroit, Michigan, man whose case has wound its way through various courts for nearly seven years.
    Seven city police officers executed a search warrant in August 1998 on Hudson's home, finding crack cocaine on him and around the residence, as well as a gun.

    Although a stellar example, hardly all-encompassing. How many men with a gun and some crack do you suppose there are in Detroit or any major city? I'm sure this is reason enough to take precautions...let's serve warrants on everyone in this manner, no matter what the charge. Fuck rights and freedoms. Maybe next we'll have curfews and trials by Tribunal.

    The majority-conservative court has been generally supportive of police discretion since the 9/11 attacks, including disputes over home and car searches, suspect interrogations, and sobriety and border checkpoints. Several of the more liberal justices have disagreed sharply in many of those cases.

    And doesn't it give us a warm, fuzzy feeling? I'm so happy Bush has been in the White House so long that he knows what's best for us without asking. They left out wire tapping.

    Alito turned out to be the deciding vote in the Hudson case. He was not yet on the bench when the case was first argued in January. His predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor, heard the case and appeared to support the defendant.

    As stated above, fine work Dubya! Coincidence?

    But she retired before a decision was issued and, under court rules, her vote did not count. That left a 4-4 tie, prompting the court to rehear the arguments.

    Does this make anyone wonder just a little?

    Court case summaries are here:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1360
     
  2. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    I saw this earlier today. What part of "OPEN UP POLICE" is the hard part?

    Did I miss something there?

    As many times as police search the wrong house, I am very wary of this ruling.
     
  3. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Oddly it doesn't Sorcerer. I'm so used to this administration's abuses generally I've become quasi-desensitized.

    That's what's making me 'wonder' most. Thanks for your outrage..:wink: Glad you're pissed. We've every right to be.
     
  4. D_Elijah_MorganWood

    D_Elijah_MorganWood New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    6
    What part of "OPEN UP POLICE" is the hard part?

    And that sums it up. This is about more than rights and freedoms, it's about dignity as well.

    I'm outraged on a regular basis, I just don't vent it here. I saw this 2 hours ago before I'd had a drop of coffee and my jaw was on the floor.

    The timing of Sandra Day O'Connor's exit raises almost as many questions as this ruling and her uncouted vote.
     
  5. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    There used to be a time where if the Police fucked up the procedures, you walked (usually). Not fun, but hey--the police are charged with maintaining your rights even as you are charged/accused with criminal activity.

    Chip, chip, chip, chip, chip away at our constitutional protections.


    Sigh.
     
  6. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Me too, that's why it's IMPORTANT that we share our outrage when we can to keep each other from becomming complacent. If that happens, we're fucked for sure. We may be anyway, but I'd hate to give in without a fight.
     
  7. Ethyl

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,476
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Philadelphia (PA, US)
    I don't think there's anything to wonder about. Too bold a move and it won't be the last. Dubya's still around for another year-and-a-half. I'm afraid to see what will happen next.
     
  8. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    I hear that. I'll live it. And I'm rolling up my sleeves right next to you my love. I have to fight the fucking urge to change the channel every time the boy king makes a television appearance (most recently yesterday after his cameo in Iraq) since his verbiage and manner is so obviously that of an autocrat you can nearly script what he's about to say.

    But I don't. I force myself to pay attention. He recharges my batteries everytime he opens his uninformed mouth.

    This is serious shit. Our very existence is at stake.

    **do you suppose this thread's being monitored as we speak??:33:
     
  9. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well, Sorcie, not only that, but according to the US "Quilted Northern..." uh, 'scuse me, I mean Constitution... any police search is not legal unless they have a duly sworn warrant, particularly describing the article to be siezed and its location. A warrant that just says "stuff, inside his house" is not legal or binding. If they were looking for the gun, but not the drugs, the drugs are not admissible evidence. There's a similar case, where police mysteriously appeared at the door without a warrant, the husband refused entry, the wife said "come on in." They found his marijuana, and he was arrested and charged on the spot. I suspect that the wife planted the drugs and called the police. This particular couple had been having some marital problems. I think the courts decided that if one spouse agrees and one disagrees when police ask for entry, the one agreeing takes precedence... and my thoughts are the opposite. Hmm, now you got me wondering how it would work with two people who weren't married..... like my husband and me. Of course, we are both such radicals that neither of us would be likely to allow police in, even if they claimed they had a warrant.
     
  10. D_Elijah_MorganWood

    D_Elijah_MorganWood New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    6
    I admit feeling politially complacent for quite a while. It seems our current administration is determined to beat us into submission. The sad part is that 9/11 has been used as a catylist to further this agenda. When I reflect back to the Clinton-Era U.S.A. of the 90's, it all seems so innocent. We were far from perfect and our country was (and still is) in the dark ages in many respects.

    Bush has his arm up the ass of Conservatives and is (and has been) working them like a sock puppet. Ruthless stupidity is truly frightening. Sadly, Dubya will continue to ass-rape the rest of us for the next year and a half, hoping we won't be able to feel it anymore when he's finished.

    Most of my free energy is devoted to this:
    http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=68
    but it doesn't mean I don't get outraged. I'll start another thread about this another day.
     
  11. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    Judge: "It is my finding that the search of Mr. Pedophile's domicile is thrown out and all evidence seized during that search is also thrown out, which includes the videotaped rapes, pornographic pictures and magazines and the 5 year old girl found bound and gagged in his bedroom closet."

    D.A.: "But, your honor!"

    Judge: "Next time maybe the police will remember to say 'Pretty please' before entering with a warrant."
     
  12. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    Since when did one YES take precedence over ten NOs?!?!

    Wow.

    @ Sorceror -- that is a fucking great cause man. You put your energy where you feel it is best directed.

    @ Stronzo, Zora, and mercurialbliss -- this is the importance of the Presidential election that few understand. These judges are there for LIFE, appointed by the President with Congress' approval. Having ANY one party control all three branches of government is akin to a despotic regime as they can basically ram anything down on the masses they want to. And they have.

    Disgusting.
     
  13. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    That's what I thought but as I understand it, if, in the lawful investigation of one crime (or suspicion of a crime) evidence of further unrelated crime is uncovered it would be admissible. I've seen cases where this has applied, been appealed and reversed and VV, and some cases where the invistigating officer was deemed to have exceeded the scope of the original warrant and to have 'abandoned' the original evidence gathering for the original crime.

    But, for example while executing a legal warrant for illegal drugs or whatever, half a dozen dismembered bodies are found under the floorboards...whether or not drugs are found, are the bodies to be ignored? Or are captial crimes assessed in different terms?

    Routine traffic stops often turn up further crimes, and in those cases there is no warrant. It's a good argument but I don't think it always stands up. Of course if the initial search is illegal then aren't all chains of evidence leading therefrom generally deemed inadmissable. :tongue:
     
  14. D_Elijah_MorganWood

    D_Elijah_MorganWood New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    6
    @Lex: Here's one I saved (terrible cameraphone pic):
    [​IMG]

    And yes, what about the dead bodies under the floorboards (or captive Vietnamese prostitutes)? Yes...what about human rights violations and capital crimes?
     
  15. Mr. Snakey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    24,702
    Likes Received:
    25
    Drugs are illegal Who broke the law first?
     
  16. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
  17. D_Elijah_MorganWood

    D_Elijah_MorganWood New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    6
    We're not arguing about the legality of drugs or anything else someone is suspected of doing. Go back and read the thread.
     
  18. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    My good people, I think the thing to be afraid of here is the potential application. We all know that cops are not necessarily the smartest tools in the box, and we also know they are not accountable for knowing the law. They are not attourneys, they are *supposedly* public servants. The system that has been in place is that they must knock and announce their presence before entering a home, and they must present their warrant to the resident. If this system changes and they do not need to announce their presence or present their warrant, then let it be known that YOU PERSONALLY don't mind if the police enter YOUR home, at the time of their choosing, with or without a warrant, and search through your posessions.

    To my understanding, if something is in plain sight during the execution of a LEGAL search, then it is fair game to be confiscated and seized. However, the police are not free to actively search for items not mentioned in the warrant, which will answer the question of the girl in the closet. If they hear her moaning, then they have what is known as PROBABLE CAUSE to open the closet. HOWEVER, if they hear a noise, open the closet, find no girl but rather a cat comes screeching out, but they now find drugs or guns, those things are not admissable as they are not listed on the warrant and the probable cause used to open the closet door turned out to be false. This is our system, and you may agree with it or not, but to change it should take more than a particular case.

    When we make "exceptions" to our standard rules, they really aren't exceptions- they are precedents. You who are not upset have very little understanding of what is taking place, and I resent the fact that you are in a position to judge what happens to people other than yourself. I can only hope the police bust in on YOU- can you even imagine how easy it would be for a police department to be fully self-supporting on the fines alone it could raise by handing out minor violation tickets to ordinary citizens? Why, they wouldn't have to fight crime at all then...

    Is this getting through at all? Seat belt violation- $120. Having a FRONT license plate in the front window rather than affixed to the car- $116. Having a CRACK in the back taillight, although it is still there and working- $112. No drugs, I don't drink, I'm very polite- these are fines I've paid for minutia, because I'm too fucking poor to fix my car and I don't like being restrained to something that might catch fire. These are all fines I've been issues and paid in the last two years to support my local police- the ones who don't want to come to my house when I'm robbed, or even bother to dust for fingerprints, or ask my neighbors if they heard anything...
     
  19. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    LOL..yes of course up until here. I also hate 'trivial' laws and plenty of the non-trivial variety too, though I 100% disagree with you about seat belts. Sadly us not liking them won't (usually) elicit any sympathy with those enforcing them so long as they do it fairly and with some judgement.

    I hate it when I get stuck with a £100 fine for 2 mins on a double yellow line for example because my local authority has suddenly decided that particular spot was now too close to some seemingly arbitratry signpost or whatever. The sign was there but I took the chance, if I know something is 'illegal' or bears a penalty and still do it, I loose the right to whine about the cost. I still do of course..!!:tongue:
     
  20. findfirefox

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Bad Madam_z, where your seat belt, there are oh so many deaths that can be avoided by using your seat belt, where it properly over the shoulder. Life is not a move, cars catching fire and/or blowing up is very unlikely and almost never happens. If you do get into a wreck, without the seat belt you would be dead, so it would not matter if your car caught fire, if it does catch fire you have a better chance of survival with the seat belt because your still ALIVE. Thanks, WARE YOUR SEAT BELT AT ALL TIMES!

    Oh and on a side note, a law (Or whatever) is being proposed in either my county or state or something where any full paramedics (EMT-4) will be able to enter ANY residence or building if there is reasonable suspicion that someone in the building is hurt/being hurt or an event occurring in the house is proposing a risk to surrounding people. The paramedic can do this, on or off duty. It won't pass.

    (This post is off topic)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted