View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: JohnM	6/15/2006 11:09:49 PM
	Read Replies (2) of 541429

One of the academic blogs, Crooked Timber, has this note on today's Supreme Court decision in Hudson versus Michigan on the no-knock police raid rules. Very disturbing. ------ Hudson v Michigan Posted by Kieran Healy As usual, Radley Balko is the man to consult on the Hudson vs Michigan case, which concerns the constitutionality of no-knock police raids. (Balko is even cited on p.10 of Breyer’s dissent.) Today’s decision basically says evidence obtained from no-knock raids is admissible in court. The broader implication, as Balko says, is that “there is now no effective penalty for police who conduct illegal no-knock raids.” By the by, Scalia, writing for the majority, is happy to set his originalism aside and argue that the growth of “public-interest law firms and lawyers who specialize in civil-rights grievances … [and] the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline … [and] the increasing use of various forms of citizen review can enhance police accountability” all mean that the fourth amendment can be reinterpreted. crookedtimber.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next