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: Lane3 who wrote (21265)	6/16/2006 5:04:36 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542024

Can you give me an example of a scenario where they wouldn't have burst in last week but would now? I can try again but I hope that this isn't going to be difficult based on your conclusion that "saving fifteen seconds of evidence-destruction time" is a "good thing." I'm not talking about whether it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, I'm talking about how it changes things. The issue is whether the Exclusionary Rule would apply to evidence seized in an unannounced entry. Before, it did, now it doesn't. Thus, there is no reason for the police to knock before they come in (with a valid warrant, of course.) As you say, bursting in gives the police an advantage -- and it is, of course, their duty to take advantage of every advantage.