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 (21274)	6/16/2006 5:37:13 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541858

According to Scalia's majority opinion, the police did announce themselves and then opened the unlocked door after a three or four second wait. The common law rule was that the police had to announce themselves and then wait for the inhabitants to open the door. I don't know about you, but everybody I've ever visited would not even know someone was at the door if you just yelled something outside the door, especially if they're in the back of the house or with the TV or stereo on or the water running. Your idea, that this will help keep evidence from being destroyed was already answered years ago, when an exception was carved out for cases where there was reasonable suspicion that evidence would be destroyed. >> The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 931–932 (1995) . Since 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act, this traditional protection has been part of federal statutory law, see 40 Stat. 229, and is currently codified at 18 U. S. C. §3109. We applied that statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958) , and again in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U. S. 585 (1968) . Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment . Tracing its origins in our English legal heritage, 514 U. S., at 931–936, we concluded that it was. We recognized that the new constitutional rule we had announced is not easily applied. Wilson and cases following it have noted the many situations in which it is not necessary to knock and announce. It is not necessary when “circumstances presen[t] a threat of physical violence,” or if there is “reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given,” id., at 936, or if knocking and announcing would be “futile,” Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394 (1997) . We require only that police “have a reasonable suspicion … under the particular circumstances” that one of these grounds for failing to knock and announce exists, and we have acknowledged that “[t]his showing is not high.” Ibid. law.cornell.edu So, it's still a violation of the Constitution to barge in without knocking or waiting for the inhabitant to open the door, but the remedy will be something other than excluding the evidence. If you can think of a remedy that will be sufficient to deter police violating the common law rule, let me know.

To: Lane3 who wrote (21274)	6/16/2006 9:56:33 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541858

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.