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: Ilaine who wrote (21259)	6/16/2006 4:10:36 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542019

So, the scenario I anticipate is that police will now prefer to burst into houses in hopes of catching the inhabitants engaged in wrong-doing. I understand why the police would prefer to burst in. Less likely that evidence will be destroyed while they dither making nice at the front door. What I'm missing is why this decision makes bursting in any more likely. The decision wasn't about whether they could burst, it was only about what notice is required before the bursting. I can see a result where the cops burst in faster, thus saving fifteen seconds of evidence-destruction time (which would seem to be a good thing), but I'm missing how it is that they would burst in on more occasions as a result of this ruling. Can you give me an example of a scenario where they wouldn't have burst in last week but would now?