southsider2k5 Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.s...h.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Interesting point... so if a Police Officer enters your house without knocking and Identifying, do you have the right to shoot first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Bad ruling, bad law. And I wouldnt test the "shooting a police officer in self-defense". My guess is if you shoot the police officer, they are going to shoot you. And the only court case you are going to be seeing is in probate. Ah well, natural extension of "new" conservative theory. Privacy rights are trampled for the "good" of the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 When a warrant is issued, if it includes invasion of premises, then any entitlement to 4th amendment search rights the subject may have is released. That's the nature of a search warrant. Therefore, I agree with SCOTUS on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 06:40 PM) Bad ruling, bad law. And I wouldnt test the "shooting a police officer in self-defense". My guess is if you shoot the police officer, they are going to shoot you. And the only court case you are going to be seeing is in probate. Ah well, natural extension of "new" conservative theory. Privacy rights are trampled for the "good" of the whole. If the police are going to enter your house they are going in with guns drawn and ready to shoot. They are well trained and if some jackass decides he wants to take a shot at them, he's gonna die trying. I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. If the Police have a warrant to enter your house then they obviously have a legitimate cause and reason to search it. All the ID and knocking does is allow criminals time to flush drugs or hide other incriminating evidence. Nobody's rights are being trampled here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 If the police are going to enter your house they are going in with guns drawn and ready to shoot. They are well trained and if some jackass decides he wants to take a shot at them, he's gonna die trying. I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. If the Police have a warrant to enter your house then they obviously have a legitimate cause and reason to search it. All the ID and knocking does is allow criminals time to flush drugs or hide other incriminating evidence. Nobody's rights are being trampled here. I agree and isn't like police are going to bust down doors for misdemeanors. This is very good in cases like what Nuke said when you are dealing with violent offenders who would look to stash there stash or look to setup an escape or attempt to kill the officers like the case in Alabama that someone on here mentioned ( I think Barons was it) where the officers were gunned down because the killers knew that the officers were there if this precedent had been established these officers would still be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 02:39 AM) All the ID and knocking does is allow criminals time to flush drugs or hide other incriminating evidence. Nobody's rights are being trampled here. Right. I'd imagine that "cops who knock" get shot from time to time as well, upon entrance. This law will actually save lives in the end. Sounds good to me. QUOTE(minors @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 03:26 AM) or attempt to kill the officers like the case in Alabama that someone on here mentioned ( I think Barons was it) where the officers were gunned down because the killers knew that the officers were there if this precedent had been established these officers would still be alive. There you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Anyone who is involved in kicking in doors of a potentially hostile residence will tell you that the element of surprise is EVERYTHING. I've kicked in a few doors in places a lot more hostile than Alabama and if we thought there were bad guys with guns behind the door we went in with no warning and we went in violently and that is the way to save lives. If the entry force has the element of surprise then most often the house can be secured without a shot being fired. This saves lives on both sides. Those who see this is as a rights issue, which it's really not, simply don't know what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Something I will add to the discussion here, partially as a response to Balta's comment about shooting first. In this particular case, the police did in fact identify themselves, then entered and self-identified again during entry. So this isn't about barging in without identifying themselves - its about not having to knock... wait... then go in. Nuke and Johnson are right on this - it will save lives on both sides if the police are allowed to secure a premises to serve a warrant in the safest way possible (which in some cases is by surprise). And that doesn't include knocking. In case you were curious, last I knew, warrant service is the #2 killer of cops (behind traffic stops). Plus, as I pointed out, the warrant releases some protections of the fourth amendment in relation to the subject(s) of said warrant. That is the purpose of the warrant; due process was followed to obtain it, assuring it was a reasonable search. The police will still have to identify themselves - they now are simply allowed to do so during or just prior to entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I was just going to add that this case was actually very narrowly tailored. The police did identify themselves before entering, they just failed to "knock" while doing so. This I agree is just a procedural misstep, as if the police identified themselves, and then waited 15 minutes but failed to knock, would it really be worse than identifying, knocking, and breaking in within 30 seconds? The answer is no. All search and seizure comes down to the reasonableness requirement that is inherent in the 4th amendment. As long as the police are "reasonable", the search should be allowed. I do not think there is any reason to say that not knocking is patently unreasonable, but instead should be fact specific. I fell into the trap of trusting the media to correctly write up an article about a judicial decision. Many times ive said to other people dont believe how the media interprets a case, but I went and did it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I like this ruling. Nuke's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Wow, I was under the impression Cops had the right to do whatever they could to get your ass once they had a warrant. Stupid Cops movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts