Latest Supreme Idiots Court Decision

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Clyde, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    These guys are taking pot shots at the constitution.....imagine me agreeing with the lib side of the court! I never thought the day would come.

    Top court upholds no-knock police search

    By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with
    Samuel Alito on board.
    click here

    The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.

    It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners, even unsympathetic homeowners like Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and cocaine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.

    The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, said that police blunders should not result in "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for defendants.

    Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

    "The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

    Supporters said the ruling will help police do their jobs.

    "People who are caught red-handed with evidence of guilt have one less weapon to get off," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

    The case provides the clearest sign yet of the court without Justice
    Sandra Day O'Connor.

    Hudson had lost his case in a Michigan appeals court. Justices agreed to hear his appeal last June, four days before O'Connor's surprise announcement that she was retiring.

    O'Connor was still on the bench in January when his case was first argued, and she seemed ready to vote with Hudson. "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" she asked.

    She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held this spring so that Alito could participate, apparently to break a 4-4 tie.

    Four justices, including Alito and Roberts, would have given prosecutors a more sweeping victory but did not have the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative.

    Ronald Allen, a Northwestern University Law professor, said the ruling "suggests those four would be happy to consider overturning" a 1961 Supreme Court opinion that said evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in trials. "It would be a significant change," he said.

    Kennedy joined in most of the ruling but wrote to explain that he did not support ending the knock requirement. "It bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry," he said.

    Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

    Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.

    Detroit police acknowledge violating the knock-and-announce rule when they called out their presence at Hudson's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds. Hudson was convicted of drug possession.

    "Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

    Four justices complained in the dissent that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

    "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice
    Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and Justices
    John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Breyer said that while police departments can be sued, there is no evidence of anyone collecting much money in such cases.

    The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.
  2. Valkman

    Valkman Knifemaker Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Yep, now they can do a no-knock, shoot you AND take your house under Eminent Domain! This is great! :(
  3. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

  4. magnus392

    magnus392 Field Marshall Mags Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Watch Dallas Swat..."Police, Open Up" As they rip the front of the house off...
  5. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    Saw that with the Cables, tearing it open.:eek:
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    What a quandary. The door is getting bashed, do you shoot the intruder, or get shot by the cops resisting arrest> I have a problem with that.:eek:
  7. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    What amazes me is that the court that was established soley to protect our constitution has been taken over by the enemy and we do nothing about it but bitch on a few obscure web-sites.
  8. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    I feel your pain SC...

    Found this elsewhere
  9. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    It would be any different with any of the others that was running ????
  10. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    yea, I actually think it would be. At least it wouldn't be disquised under a bunch of patriotic smoke.
  11. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

  12. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    The more I read about history and its propensity to repeat itself, I am beginning to believe the US is on its way to become the next France....and I am really not interested in sticking around to watch this ship sink.
  13. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    All you have to do is look at their voting record before you like one over the other.
    Any one of them would have gone to drastic measures after 911.
    I'm not protecting Bush or anyone; I just don’t believe there was one who wouldn’t have taken us down this road.
    It could have been worse? No Yes?
    Kerry would have signed a Gun ban again period. It might have been worse than the one we had before.
    Look at Al gore now; he’s a freaking nut job. And we are still paying him for being in office.
    I agree with Sea Cowboys for the most part.
  14. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I have to say that to a point I can see the argument for the no knock, though I figure any officer shot prior to an anouncement should be a freeby with no charges able to be filed and no excuse for shooting the homeowner over them. I men if you think about it how long dose it take for a dope dealing gang banger to flush the dope down the toilet and get rid of the evidence or a murder suspect to grab a gun and start shooting the cops if they knock and give them 20-30-40 seconds. The biggest problem I see is more in the liberal aplication of them. It realy to me is a question that dosnt have a good anwser since if they knock and give enouph time for a cooperative person to come to the door then its enouph time for others to dispose of evidence or prepare to kill the cops serving the warrant, and so the search serves no purpose and if they dont anounce then inocent folks get shot for defending themselves and or cops die at the hands of folks thinking its the bad guys without badges.

    As far as the GWB thing, theres no question we have lost more rights in his time in office than durring any other administration but I dont know that it can really be compared to any other time in our history either. The closest comparison I could see would be when pearl harbor was bombed after which anyone of Japaneese descent was rounded up and put in internment camps shortly followed by rationing, manditory blackouts in many areas and if I recall my history correctly curfues also enforced in many areas. Im not excuseing the BS of GWB and the rest of the administration (he may have a lot of power but he hasnt been able to do it all alone) has pulled in wipeing their back sides with the constitution, but since its now so unthinkable and would be political suicide to target one group by race or religion how much better has the population faired than the group targeted for the last major attack on the US on US soil? I realy dont think the Dems in office would have done any less damage and most likely would have done more and would have been just as quick to find a way to try to wrap the manure in a pretty package and convince us it smelled like roses.

    Just my thoughts on it since both situations are crappy with no viable option that resembles a good solution, on the GWB one the only descent option might have been if we had goten some third party person in office but there are just to few folks willing to vote outside the big 2 and those that are are split so many ways it makes little difference that it realy isnt what I would count as viable especialy in the last 2 elections.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary