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 (21275)	6/16/2006 6:11:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541877

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. I thought that was the scenario in the SC case. I thought that they had a special warrant that allowed them to knock, announce, wait fifteen seconds, and then burst in. In which case all that's at issue is the redundant knock and the ten second difference. I didn't think they were talking about a standard warrant where there is no particular expectation of evidence being destroyed or the inhabitants shooting at the cops or any of those other exceptions. Are you telling me this was an ordinary case of cops getting a warrant for someone's emails in a fraud case, the kind of warrant where they wait for you to answer the door? If it is, the SC hearing the case seems pointless to me.

To: Ilaine who wrote (21275)	6/16/2006 6:12:57 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541877

I really appreciate your take on this, CB. Well done throughout. What needs to be considered is the result this decision will have on police actions in the future. For example, if 3-5 seconds is enough announcement, how about zero seconds? How about no warning at all? If the door is locked, should it be immediately broken down? What if it IS unlocked, but they break it down anyway and just crash right in? In my mind, the fault of this decision is primarily in the mindset of the majority justices. It assumes that once a warrant is issued, the police will always find the evidence they want, that is, that a guilty person is inside the house. The Constitution OTOH, is written under the assumption that people are innocent, and the Forth Amendment is there to prevent hobnailed thugs from crashing into normal people's homes.