SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (21274)6/16/2006 9:56:33 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) of 541777
 
Karen, I think you are still missing the point of the decision.

It's not about knocking; rather it's about the exclusionary rule.

The Court, apparently, agreed earlier that knocking was required; this decision did not address that issue. It only addressed the issue of enforcement if knocking did not occur.

That is, the evidence from the failure to knock can now be included; before it could not.

That means that the slippery slope here is what happens to evidence when the police in whatever way don't follow the rules. Let's say they "forget" to Mirandize a suspect. Ah, well, we don't challenge Miranda, we simply challenge the terms of enforcement.

But, of course, is there is no evidence loss when suspects are not Mirandized, guess what happens.

I think it's reasonably transparent from the CATO Institute piece, that this has been a long term goal of statist conservatives. Here's the precedent.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News