Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

no more knock knock.

Recommended Posts

what no thread on this? y'all are slacking.




Court Eases 'No Knock' Search Ban


Illegally Collected Evidence Allowed



By Charles Lane

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 16, 2006; Page A01



The Constitution does not require the government to forfeit evidence gathered through illegal "no knock" searches, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in a far-reaching ruling that could encourage police with search warrants to conduct more aggressive raids.


The 5 to 4 decision broke with the court's modern tradition of enforcing constitutional limitations on police investigations by keeping improperly obtained evidence out of court. The "exclusionary rule" has been imposed to protect a series of rights, such as the right to remain silent in police custody and the right against warrantless searches.



Key Cases Primer

Influential 2006 Supreme Court Decisions

As the U.S. Supreme Court wraps up its 2005-2006 session, rulings on several key cases are expected by June 30. Inside find case summaries, links to the court documents and Washington Post stories explaining the issues at play.




But the broadly worded majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., suggested that the nation has moved into a new era of improved policing in which such strong medicine may no longer be justified.


The ruling underscored the court's rightward shift since Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who seemed to disagree with Scalia about the case while she was on the court. And it once again focused attention on the pivotal role of Kennedy, a moderate conservative, who supplied a fifth vote to the majority while issuing a separate concurring opinion that disavowed a portion of Scalia's opinion and asserted that it did not portend any broader erosion of the exclusionary rule.


At issue in yesterday's case, Hudson v. Michigan , No. 04-1360, was the "knock and announce" rule, which has deep roots in Anglo American law. In 1995, the court made it part of what defines a "reasonable search" under the Fourth Amendment, without saying how it should be enforced.


But most federal and state lower courts to consider the matter have ruled that it should be enforced through an "exclusionary rule," along with the rest of the Fourth Amendment.


Before yesterday's decision, police executing a search warrant in most jurisdictions had to worry that they might lose a case if they did not first knock on the door, announce themselves and wait a reasonable time for a response before forcing their way in.


Now, unless state law says otherwise, the most they would face is administrative discipline or a lawsuit for damages.


Civil liberties groups and defense lawyers had argued to the court that those deterrents are far too weak to enforce the "knock and announce" rule, which, they argued, is often all that stands between an innocent citizen and an errant SWAT team.


That position was urged on the Supreme Court by attorneys for Booker T. Hudson Jr., a Michigan man convicted of drug possession after police found crack cocaine in his pockets during a 1998 no-knock raid that the state admitted was unlawful.


But Michigan's Supreme Court was one of the few lower courts to reject an exclusionary rule for "knock and announce" violations. Hudson's conviction was upheld, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Scalia's opinion focused on the guilty defendants who go free when otherwise valid evidence is thrown out of court. He concluded that that "social cost" is too high in relation to whatever additional privacy protection residents get from the "knock and announce" rule.


"Resort to the massive remedy of suppression of evidence of guilt is unjustified," Scalia wrote.


Scalia argued that the law enforcement landscape has changed dramatically since 1961, when the Supreme Court first imposed an exclusionary rule on the states to protect against warrantless searches. Today's police are more professional than those of 45 years ago, he observed, and there is "increasing evidence that police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously."


In this environment, Scalia argued, lawsuits and administrative proceedings are enough to ensure that police comply with the "knock and announce" rule.


That line of reasoning prompted a 30-page dissenting opinion from Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who disputed Scalia's upbeat view of modern policing and argued that lawsuits and police discipline have already proved inadequate to punish and deter "knock and announce" violations.


"Today's opinion," Breyer wrote in dissent, "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer.


Scalia's cost-benefit analysis could be invoked not only to deny a new exclusionary rule in this case, Breyer argued, but also to roll back the use of the exclusionary rule to enforce the Fourth Amendment in areas where it has long been recognized.


"The majority's 'substantial social costs' argument is an argument against the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary principle itself," Breyer wrote. "And it is an argument that this Court, until now, has consistently rejected."


Kennedy tried to diminish the apparent sweep of Scalia's opinion, indicating that "the continued operation of the exclusionary rule as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt."


There was strong circumstantial evidence that, if O'Connor had not been replaced by Alito, Breyer would have been speaking for the court.


In January, when the justices heard the case and cast tentative votes, Connor was still on the court. Her comments at argument suggested she favored Breyer's view.


But after she left the court Jan. 31, the court announced the case would be reargued -- a sign that it had reverted to a 4 to 4 tie without her vote.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh i was too depressed about this to reiterate it.

the united states 'as we now know it'

scalia might be the worst thing to happen to the supremes ever.


i mean, sure it's shitty when good evidence is tossed on technicalities and bad people go free


what about all the other far reaching implications?

i have been on my side of a front door, me and another person's force being the only thing that kept the cops from knocking the door down.

in a few years, they prolly won't even need a warrant.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah the 4th amendment seems to be gettings its fair share of trampling here lately. honestly i dont totally understand how the knocking thing relates to the 4th amendment, but knocking down your door seems pretty "unreasonable" to me.

i just wish scalia and company were more consistent. i dont see how he can really keep the originalist label if he keeps doing stuff like this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

..to enter your home i meant


i know about the drones and camera shit

it's all suckitude big time


scalia is all about politricks

funny how the so called activist judges tend to fall on what neo cons call liberal, but a judge like scalia anmd his bitch thomas can rewrite the whole shebang

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious? Fuck that. F-U-C-K T-H-A-T! I fucking despise our government.What is wrong with people? I have no idea why we can't impeach Bush...I mean we did it to Clinton, and that was over a blowjob. Whatever, Big Brother is coming...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious? Fuck that. F-U-C-K T-H-A-T! I fucking despise our government.What is wrong with people? I have no idea why we can't impeach Bush...I mean we did it to Clinton' date=' and that was over a blowjob. Whatever, Big Brother is coming...[/quote']



big brother is here.


see my "who are they" thread.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

here ya go



Supreme Court upholds California's searches of parolees



In a 6-to-3 ruling, the justices say that parolees must consent to searches without a warrant.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Parolees in California do not enjoy a constitutional right to be free from suspicionless searches by law-enforcement officials.


Instead, they can be searched at any time, even when officials have no reason to believe that they may be involved in wrongdoing.


In an important privacy ruling with major implications for individuals on parole, the US Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 Monday to uphold a California law that requires all state prisoners to agree as a condition of release that they consent to warrantless searches by law enforcement.


"Examining the totality of the circumstances pertaining to petitioner's status as a parolee ... we conclude that petitioner did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate," writes Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion.


The state, Justice Thomas writes, has substantial interests in supervising parolees because they are "more likely to commit future criminal offenses."


He adds: "That some states and the federal government require a level of individualized suspicion is of little relevance to our determination whether California's supervisory system is drawn to meet its needs and is reasonable, taking into account a parolee's substantially diminished expectation of privacy."


In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens writes that suspicionless searches are the kind of improper government action the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent.


"What the court sanctions today is an unprecedented curtailment of liberty," Justice Stevens writes in a dissent joined by Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer. "Combining faulty syllogism with circular reasoning, the court concludes that parolees have no more legitimate an expectation of privacy in their persons than do prisoners."


The decision stems from an incident on Sept. 6, 2002, in which a San Bruno, Calif., police officer happened upon Donald Samson. Mr. Samson was walking in a residential area with a friend and her 3-year-old son.


The officer, Alex Rohleder, knew Samson was on parole. He thought a warrant may have been issued for Samson's arrest. He conducted a pat-down search of Samson for weapons.


Officer Rohleder found no weapons and discovered from his dispatch officer that Samson was not wanted on any outstanding warrant. Nonetheless, the officer conducted a second, more thorough search. He found a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine inside a cigarette box in Samson's pocket. Rohleder then placed him under arrest for drug possession.


Samson's lawyer asked a judge to suppress the prosecutor's use of the drugs as evidence because they were the product of an illegal search. The judge disagreed. Samson was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison. The state appeals court upheld the conviction, and the California Supreme Court declined to take up the case.


In affirming the conviction, Thomas said that people released from prison on parole are subject to a long list of terms and conditions that restrict their freedom, including mandatory drug testing and rules that prohibit them from associating with felons or gang members. Parolees must also report to parole officers and request permission to travel more than 50 miles from home.


"The extent and reach of these conditions clearly demonstrate that parolees like petitioner have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone," Thomas writes.


Stevens says in his dissent that the high court's precedents had recognized a higher level of privacy protection for parolees than prison inmates. He says Monday's decision "runs roughshod" over those prior holdings.


"Once one acknowledges that parolees do have legitimate expectations of privacy beyond those of prisoners, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence does not permit the conclusion, reached by the court here for the first time, that a search supported by neither individualized suspicion nor 'special needs' is nonetheless 'reasonable,' " Stevens writes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

see the parolees thing doesnt really make me mad. im a purist in support of the bill of rights, but i believe that one forfeits those rights when they break the law. i dont believe inmates should have the right to vote. think about it. the government discriminates all the time. affirmative action is an example. the government deciding that certain classes of humans arent citizens is another example. think abortion.

anyone who reads my posts on here knows that im a gun nut. while i believe firearms ownership is a natural god given right that government isnt supposed to touch, the states have the right to regulate it if they choose or they can protect it in thier constitution. they also have the right to keep arms out of convicted felons hands for example. the bill of rights was only supposed to apply to the federal government,, until the more progressive supreme court judges warped the 14th amendment. the state bills of rights protected the same damn rights, without a centralized government power.


the problem i see with these rulings is, that there are too many damn federal laws. what happened to 3 federal crimes? what happened to jeffersons government that was bordering on "no government at all?" what happened to the fed government with hardly any police powers? the more local control the better. you always have more sway in local politics. and the option to move to another county/state. if the whole country is fucking up, then you dont have to many options in todays world.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
i believe that one forfeits those rights when they break the law. i dont believe inmates should have the right to vote.





. the government deciding that certain classes of humans arent citizens is another example. think abortion.



you are an idiot

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
you are an idiot


im an idiot? how am i an idiot? apparently your thinking about my abortion statement is a bit idiotic. the basis of the nationwide legalization of abortion as a natural right and that is supposedly protected by the constitution is based on the fact that the court has decided that certain humans are not humans. this is the same logic the court used to protect slavery and defend nationwide segregation. think about it. dont let your blatant leftist denial and lack of intellegence get the best of you.


what is idiotic about not letting a criminal vote? do you feel the same about guns? why not arm criminals in jail. after all its denying them equal protection under the law.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

abortion is another discussion in itself. everyone has an opinion about it.

guns are another thing, and voting another. no, criminials should not vote.

our govt already provides them with jobs in the mercenary businesses (blackwater, etc)

DHR, and the UN peacekeepers, we don't need them to be able to vote in the criminals.

my opinion on abortion: fine. just don't use it over and over and over again. once if you're raped, maybe. or if you have concerns about the babies health because mom is a crackhead, etc. guns? yes for guns. no for criminals. criminals have enough guns already. this is a fucking gun culture here. criminals in other countries have to get creative or get guns from us.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

hide dildos everywhere. especially the places you're really hiding things. it will deter them.




i need to flee the country, forrrillz.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

many humans would argue that 'not quite humans' are not quite humans... the eggs of a chicken, are 'eggs' until they hatch. Ever got a half developed embryo in your shit from the grocery? That's a 'fucked up egg'... I suppose it's a fucked up chicken too but it never really was...


Criminals shouldn't vote? But you acknowledge how fucking jacked up the legal system is and how easy it is to find yourself one of the 'LC7' but then ... you think voting rights should be forfeited?


Gun ownership is one thing but, ninjas out the joint gotta pay taxes and there was this tea party that is supposedly woven into the fabric of our nation, something about taxes and representation and foisting the blame on the innocent savages indigenous to the lands so recently claimed uncontested on a beach in MasterTwoTits...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now