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 (21327)	6/17/2006 2:44:46 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541674

We're still talking past one another. The "knock" rule, which you wish to discuss and which seems to me largely irrelevant for the moment, is simply not on the table. Bang away, as it were, at the knock rule. It's the exclusionary rule that is the issue. If Scalia had argued, and the four supporting members of the cast had agreed, that the case was about the validity of the knock rule, then I might be cranking up my thought processes to address your issue. But they did not. They didn't address, he types again, the knock rule. Apparently, they have no problem with it, as you clearly do. And I haven't thought that much about it and am not interested, at least today in discussing it. What Scalia and gang decided rather was, in my view, that the knock rule was a terrific place to slip in a precedent against the exclusionary rule. Then when, down the road, a serious case, a Miranda case, appears, in which police forgot to Mirandize a suspect (and now much the wiser from this Hudson decision), Scalia's buddies will say something like, well, we now have a precedent. Police no longer "run amuck", citizens have recourse to civil cases, so let's just drop the exclusionsary rule here as well. An easy thing to foresee.