Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21176)	6/16/2006 6:24:54 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541936

The police announced themselves but did not knock I wonder what's so special about a knock. I suppose in this case the announcement was vocal. Does a vocal call not count? A doorbell? What am I missing? I usually can't hear a knock on my door. I imagine that's the case in many homes. You have to use to doorbell.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21176)	6/16/2006 9:53:37 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541936

The knock rule seems to be an utterly imaginary part of the US Constitution - even the NYT can't explain why there is a right of privacy against a duly obtained and executed search warrant. It is simply "a venerable one, and a well-established part of Fourth Amendment law", hardly etched in stone on a sacred tablet. As I read the material so far, this decision is not about whether such laws are simply good laws or constitutional laws. Apparently, a unanimous vote of the court approved such in the past. This decision was about enforcement, whether evidence obtained in violation of that law is admissable in court. Scalia, read this way, says it's okay to have such laws, there are simply unenforceable. Genuinely odd.