Police don't have to knock, CNN article

[Elspode]

Gents...ladies...you're just worrying too much. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Just a few bucks to repair your door and patch the holes they tear into your walls, and perhaps some medical bills if you get shot in the chest...that's all.

Remember, by giving up your constitutional rights a little bit at a time, it is much less painful than having the Ultraconservative Fascists take over in a nasty coup. Plus, you'll be ever so much safer with each right that you give up. Remember...its for the children.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

When it comes to gun control, I feel protected enough that everyone else has one. The bad guys don't know that I dont. Even if I did, I wouldnt use it.

Absolutely the best reason for you not to have them.

This is worth a read.

[Ibby]

I personally believe in absolute gun control -- I think nobody, NOBODY should have them. In practice, however, that's stupid, for all the reasons you've mentioned time and time again. Therefore, I take the same stance on guns that I take on eating meat; I wish nobody owned or used guns, but since thats not going to happen, I can at least not use one myself.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I personally believe in absolute gun control -- I think nobody, NOBODY should have them...I wish nobody owned or used guns...

This is perhaps some new meaning of "beleive in" which which I am not familiar. It appears to be related to "wish for". :-)

So you'd be happy to return to the situation of medevial days where the physically smaller and weaker person was at the mercy of the larger and stronger.

[Ibby]

Well, okay, yeah, that has its flaws too, and you're right, more like wish for than believe in... What can I say? I'm an idealist.

I'll repost all of these here...

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason~

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder

TJ on Disarming Public
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-- Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The few times I've been through the "justice mill" (all being non-felony), I was reminded over and over, by lawyers and judges, that I should not apply reason or practical thinking. The law must be followed regardless of whether it makes sense in the particular instance. Their hue and cry is "We are a nation of laws".

OK, but in this instance, the Supremes are saying the law says one thing but practical considerations are more important, so the law comes second. WTF?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, but in this instance, the Supremes are saying the law says one thing but practical considerations are more important, so the law comes second. WTF?

No, the Supremes are *interpreting* the law..that being their job. That's how this issue became "law" in the first place; it is in fact based on precedent itself based on a common law principle.

Originally Posted by http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

In Wilson v. Arkansas,1 decided in 1995, a unanimous Supreme Court held for the first time that whether police "knock and announce" their presence before executing valid search warrants is part of the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the reasonableness of a search.

There's no written law that actually says police must knock and announce.

And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce


I'm quite impressed by the ability of folks to project their beliefs onto this with utter disregard for the facts of the case, the law and the decision.

[Griff]

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
~ William Pitt

[Griff]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce

True. Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has been gutted so we can expect no-knock next time.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

True. Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has been gutted so we can expect no-knock next time.

How long after knock and announce do the cops have to wait before entering before you think the exclusionary rule should not apply?

Only long enough to flush? Or do they need thirty days written notice?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
~ William Pitt

Very moving and poetic. And in the absence of a warrant, applicable.

But these cops had a warrant.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Very moving and poetic. And in the absence of a warrant, applicable.

But these cops had a warrant.

But with the anti-terrorism laws we may be moving to a period of warrentless searches.

If you look at how RICO laws have expanded beyond their original scope, it's not hard to see that we might be at the top of a slippery slope period for searches. After all, if warrantless searches can be justified to keep us safe from terrorists, doesn't that imply consent to allow warrentless searches from dangerous criminals? Couldn't the definition of 'terrorist' be applied to street gangs or a disgruntled citizen sitting on a large cache of weapons?

This probably sounds alarmist, but consider the votes in Congress on flag burning, the 'support the troops' amendment, etc. Congressmen are so intent on keeping their jobs they will ignore the Constitution and common sense to vote for what they think the public wants, short-sighted or not. If they think they are still getting a 'safety at any cost' vibe from the public, they might actually approve something like that.

The question is would the Supreme Court allow it?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The above clearly states the need for warrants. However, with the 'warrantless wiretap' issue, we are seeing a move towards public safety at any cost and the brushing aside of the judicial branch, even a FISA court that could review the situation two days later.

So, the question becomes, how long will it take for this policy to start sliding down the slippery slope from terrorism to anti-crime? And how long before 'disgruntled citizen' becomes 'terrorist suspect' or 'proto-terrorist'? After all, if McVeigh or Kaczynski had been prolific bloggers, isn't it possible that they might have been caught early if blogs, bulletin boards, and e-mails could have been searched and filtered, then reviewed by profilers?

Of course, this would leave out the 'oath and affirmation' portion of the Amendment, which was included to prevent this kind of circumstantial justification. Which would make judicial review difficult. However, if warrants are no longer required, there is no barrier between suspicion and action. This could result in a warrantless no-knock entry.

Are all of the pieces in place for this dystopian view? No. Are some of the pieces in place. Yes. Do we have a Congress whose majority respects the Constitution over any short-term political considerations? Probably not.

[Ibby]

My biggest problem is the whole 'who gets to say who is and isn't a terrorist' thing. Am I a terrorist if I... have an automatic weapon? If I... have the equipment to make poisons? If I... want Bush out of office?

Where do they draw the line? Who makes the descisions? If the courts are ignored... nobody. THAT's the problem, for me.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

This probably sounds alarmist...

Yes, it does..as does this whole thing.

What I'm seeing is a lot of artificial hysteria, then when someone points out the actual facts of the case it's followed by "well, it *could* happen next time" fog and FUD. Meanwhile the sheep who don't read carefully are primed to panic again for the next dose.

How the bloody hell can a headline "Police don't have to knock" be justified reporting a court case where the police knocked?

Originally Posted by CNN and AP

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock

That's a lie, displayed as a bolded subhead. The ruling (Read it here) does not say that. I just can't imagine where people get the idea that the mainstream press has a liberal bias.

Originally Posted by CNN and AP

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

That part is factual.

This is called "inevitable discovery"...the court refused to exclude the evidence of the drugs and a (presumably illegally posessed) gun just because the police didn't wait longer than three to five seconds before entering after knock and announce, and therefore their announcement was claimed to be defective.

There's "exigent circumstances" provisions in the rules for search and seziure...three of them in particular (see the link to the 1976 FBI paper on "knock and announce" I've posted here twice). Given the nature of the evidence in question I think convincing arguments could be made for two of the three.

But if folks are intent on screaming that this is Yet Another Sign Of The Impending Fascist Apocalypse, far be it from me to spoil their fun by continuing to try to draw attention to the facts.