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: JohnM who wrote (21235)	6/16/2006 11:24:03 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541503

If I were running a Republican Congressional campaign in middle America, you could be damn sure I would get this on their radar: Republican Supreme Court judges will make sure drug dealers stay behind bars and cops can do their job. That's how they could spin it, and Joe Blow would probably he hard-pressed to disagree. We shall see. Seems to me this decision says that the court no longer "approves the law", and it's not even a codified law but rather the sum of a series of judicial decisions over a few decades. Can you cite a state or federal statute that stipulates specific knock and announce rules? I read the NYT piece again and I don't see it.

To: JohnM who wrote (21235)	6/16/2006 6:35:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541503

What was the law in question? I haven't seen any reference to any legislation requiring a knock, let alone reference to such legislation being struck down by the court. Earlier court decisions said a knock and a wait was required by the 4th amendment, this current decision says the 4th amendment makes no such requirement. I'm inclined to agree, but even if we assume the decision is wrong in that regard I don't see where you get a case of "We approve the law, just won't let it be enforced."