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 (21299)	6/19/2006 12:45:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541522

Yes this case is about the exclusionary rule, I am, and was well aware of that. But its about whether not knocking is sufficient to require exclusion. From your earlier post - "Legislatures generally change the enforcement provisions of laws; I don't recall that judges can do that, save where judicial discretion is written into the law." There is no law here for the judges to change, this case is a judicial decision, modifying the requirements created by earlier judicial decisions. I asked "What was the law in question?" and Dale asked "Can you cite a state or federal statute that stipulates specific knock and announce rules?" and you never really provided an answer. You did says "The Supreme Court voted approval for "knock" laws without a dissent.", I don't think it did any such thing. It seems to me they where claiming earlier decisions where "good law", that doesn't mean there was any statue or specific direct constitutional provisions that the court was saying should not be enforced. I don't see this decision in any war limiting legislative discretion, or refusing to allow states to have their own laws requiring such evidence be tossed out. The point of the decision was that neither the 4th amendment nor any other provision of the US constitution requires that the evidence be thrown out in this case. I don't think this will lead to the exlusionary rule being dropped, and even if there is some vague possiblity of a slippery slope in that direction the issue can still be addressed on its own merits.