Knock knock...?

Which Constitutional rights are you concerned about, Joe? The Constitutional right to flush your ("you" in the broadest sense) drugs down the toilet? You do understand the police must still have a valid right to enter the premises? Please explain why, exactly, you think the drugs found by the police should not be admitted into evidence?

The issue is what is the appropriate remedy in the situations where the police fail to knock. You think all evidence found should be excluded -- which harms society, not the offending police officer. The goal of a criminal prosecution, in part, is to promote public order and safety by depriving a criminal of his freedom and liberty. All the application of the exclusionary rule does, in this instance, is provide the criminal with a technicality to use to get away with their criminal behavior. The fact that the defendant's pockets were jammed full of crack is completely unrelated to the fact that the cops failed to knock and announce -- the rocks are there whether they knock or don't knock.

"Slippery slope"? Not at all.

Tico(what ... do criminals need all the loopholes they can get get away with?)Maya

0 Replies

Is the requirement that the police knock and then wait 15 or so seconds really intended to allow the suspect time to wrap a towel around his or her naked body?

The police come to your house with a duly issued warrant to search your premises. The warrant would not have been granted if a judge did not think there was a legitimate reason to search the premises.

Now we know that the police are always trying to trample our rights, but do we really believe that of judges?

What is to be gained by a knock and 15 seconds of waiting?

If the police think they will be in physical danger if they announce themselves, they are not required to knock or wait. So the knock and wait rule has never been inviolate.

Every now and then the police obtain warrants to search the homes of innocent citizens. The police and the judges get it wrong. If we assume that this the case 10% of the time (a wildly exaggerated estimate), then 90% of the time, the police are searching the premises of a criminal.

So, if 1 in 10 people whose premise are searched by the police find themselves looking at a flatfoot while naked in the shower, does this embarrassment warrant (no pun intended) allowing the 9 in 10 real crooks time to flush the evidence down the toilet?

In any case, the SC did not rule that the police need not knock or wait 15 minutes, just that if they didn't, the evidence they obtained could not be thrown out of court. Of course, from a practical standpoint this means that police need not knock or wait. Big deal.

It would be foolish to argue that there has never been a rational reason to place restraints on police search and seizure. We know that there have been numerous times when the police have abused their powers, and that while the restraints placed upon them may have been too extreme, they were not irrational.

Thus this issue has to be examined in the context of what is more important, the interests of the community or the rights of the individual.

Valid arguments can be made for both, and so balance is key to any resolution of the conflict. There is a strong sense in America today that there is a marked imbalance and that the interests of the community do not receive anywhere near enough consideration.

Again this comes down to whether you are more comfortable with one in a hundred innocents being punished for crimes they didn't commit or 999 crooks going free because we cannot tolerate any injustice.

This ties us back to the ridiculous notion of "zero tolerance."

Just about everyone finds it very difficult to accept that an innocent man is punished for a crime he didn't commit. Thankfully, we react to such injustice in a very passionate manner. We should work very hard to maintain this trait in ourselves. However, our institutions cannot operate on the basis of emotional reactions. In any system of justice, somewhere along the line, innocent people will be punished for crimes they did not commit. If the innocent is you or me or members of our families we are, reasonably, likely to scream to the heavens over the injustice.

The real issue is whether or not our system of justice provides for the correction of errors. My take is that it does. It reduces the number of punished innocents from 1 in 10 to 1 in 100,000. It cannot operate with perfection though and so we must come to terms with an unfortunate calculus: How many punished innocents are acceptable to the goal of preserving communal security and safety?

If your answer is zero, you are, frankly, an ass.

Any other answer is subject to reasonable debate.

0 Replies

The exclusionary rule is time-tested. It is the only thing that prevents police from acting like Gestapo. There is no doubt that the police would immediately break into homes when they know that the most they will face is a slap on the wrist, and that any evidence found could be used.

Had the authorities properly waited at the door, Waco could have been avoided. The leader of the group said this and had cooperated with the police on prior occasions. Waco was particularly egregious because the expected evidence, illegal guns, could not have been consumed.

I wonder how content you on the right would be should the police have received their warrant by falsifying to the judge the probable cause, and then immediately broke down your doors while you and your spouse were in the marital position.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The exclusionary rule is time-tested. It is the only thing that prevents police from acting like Gestapo. There is no doubt that the police would immediately break into homes when they know that the most they will face is a slap on the wrist, and that any evidence found could be used.

Had the authorities properly waited at the door, Waco could have been avoided. The leader of the group said this and had cooperated with the police on prior occasions. Waco was particularly egregious because the expected evidence, illegal guns, could not have been consumed.

I wonder how content you on the right would be should the police have received their warrant by falsifying to the judge the probable cause, and then immediately broke down your doors while you and your spouse were in the marital position.

You fail to explain how waiting for 15 seconds make any significant difference to the person under search.

In that 15 seconds do you expect:

1) The cops' blood-thirsty killer urges to cool?
2) The suspect to answer the door with a beatific smile and a three word disarming greeting?
3) The ACLU to swoop down to the rescue?

What does the 15 seconds buy other than 15 more seconds for the bad guys to get ready.

The notion that Waco would not have occurred if the authorities waited 15 seconds before unleashing hell, is ridiculous.

If the police were not required to obtain search warrants it is quite likely that all sorts of abusive searchs would take place, but they are. Why does the suspect require a 15 second warning?

The people on the other side of the door are only very rarely the good guys (or at least the innocent). Do you not believe this to be true? Do you really think that a significant number of police searchs are, despite their being approved by a judge, abusive?

This debate involves the troubling notion by a fair number of people in this country that the police are the bad guys, and can't be trusted for 15 seconds.

Of course there are bad cops and they are all the more loathsome because they profess to uphold the law and protect us from criminal scum, but they are in now way the rule rather than the exception. Whereas the poor innocent sod who gets rousted by overzealous or corrupt cops, is the exception and not the rule.

I don't excuse police abuse of power. When it happens, we should come down particularly hard on the bad cops. I will not, however, assume that every law enforcement authority is a rabid dog waiting to tear the throat out of the public if only given a few more links of freedom on its chain.

This is the perverse nature of the Liberal mind-set: Criminals get every benefit of the doubt, while the police get none. There is something disturbingly twisted in this worldview, and all the more so when it is expressed by relatively privileged dilettantes who haven't the slightest idea of how ugly the world really can be, and who simply think it is cool to Fight The Power.

There is a point where defenders of the Law will cross over the line and join the Lawless, and we need to have controls in place that help to prevent this from happening with anything close to regularity, but the notion that any set of rules can prevent it from ever happening is absurd.

When next you are in trouble, who you gonna call: The Crips, The Mob, Vance the Meth Cooker, The Aryan Nation, some fanciful Robin Hood gang of Merry Murderers? No, you are going to call the police and if they wait 15 seconds before breaking down your door you will probably sue them for failing to protect you.

BTW your question to us "on the right," is so specious as to be laughable, and is a perfect example of how you and your friends approach this argument assuming that the police are falsifying warrant evidence and breaking in on innocent people (whether they are in a state of coitus, disrobement, defecation, or television watching). Of course innocent people burst in upon by police during intercourse are going to be mightily pissed, but what are the chances of that happening?

Law cannot be fashioned around the requirement that there are never mistakes. For the individuals who get caught up in the few mistakes it is terrible and they should be able to sue the authorities for damages - as they are, but we should not use their exceptional experiences to drive restrictions that do us, as a whole, no good what-so-ever.

0 Replies

I suggest that you do some reading on the subject, or speak to some criminal lawyers. You will soon find out that the police are very often wrong and duplicitous. Also, remember that the people on the other side of the doors are innocent until proven guilty.

The exclusionary rule has served this country well, but is hated by those who have little regard for the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I suggest that you do some reading on the subject, or speak to some criminal lawyers. You will soon find out that the police are very often wrong and duplicitous. Also, remember that the people on the other side of the doors are innocent until proven guilty.

The exclusionary rule has served this country well, but is hated by those who have little regard for the Bill of Rights.

So in other words, you are incapable of countering my arguments.

So be it.

0 Replies

I think I did. Keep in mind what the Bard said, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I suggest that you do some reading on the subject, or speak to some criminal lawyers. You will soon find out that the police are very often wrong and duplicitous. Also, remember that the people on the other side of the doors are innocent until proven guilty.

The exclusionary rule has served this country well, but is hated by those who have little regard for the Bill of Rights.

I'm a criminal lawyer, and my position is stated at the top of this page.

Yes, police are often wrong, and when they are it is fodder for the criminal defense lawyer.

The exclusionary rule is loved by those who believe criminals need all the protection they can get to continue to commit their crimes.

Advocate wrote:

I wonder how content you on the right would be should the police have received their warrant by falsifying to the judge the probable cause, and then immediately broke down your doors while you and your spouse were in the marital position.

Speaking for myself, I'd be quite content to sue the pants off of them.

0 Replies

Tico, the exclusionary rule is loved by those who believe that the police should act within the bounds of the law. History has shown that, without the rule, police felt no restraint in just breaking into people's homes and businesses, or beating confessions out of people.

Regarding suing police for misconduct, it is much easier said than done. And people who sue are often the subject of harassment.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Tico, the exclusionary rule is loved by those who believe that the police should act within the bounds of the law. History has shown that, without the rule, police felt no restraint in just breaking into people's homes and businesses, or beating confessions out of people.

If the police beat a confession out of someone, then certainly the exclusionary rule should apply, and properly so. Similarly, if the government does not have a valid warrant supported by probable cause, then the exlusionary rule should apply. But while those types of police misconduct are related to the evidence to be excluded, a violation of the "knock and announce" rule is not. While that rule protects several interests, it should not protect the interests of the criminal from having the government seize the evidence that is the subject of the warrant. If there is a violation of the "knock and announce" rule, there should be a penalty. As Justice Kennedy said in his concurring opinion: "It bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry." But it makes little sense that the penalty should be the suppression of the evidence obtained, since the violation has no causal link to the discovery of the evidence.

Quoting further from Kennedy's opinion:

Justice Kennedy wrote:

Today's decision does not address any demonstrated pattern of knock-and-announce violations. If a widespread pattern of violations were shown, and particularly if those violations were committed against persons who lacked the means or voice to mount an effective protest, there would be reason for grave concern. Even then, however, the Court would have to acknowledge that extending the remedy of exclusion to all the evidence seized following a knock-and-announce violation would mean revising the requirement of causation that limits our discretion in applying the exclusionary rule. That type of extension also would have significant practical implications, adding to the list of issues requiring resolution at the criminal trial questions such as whether police officers entered a home after waiting 10 seconds or 20.

This case is clearly a win for law enforcement, and a loss for criminals.

Advocate wrote:

Regarding suing police for misconduct, it is much easier said than done. And people who sue are often the subject of harassment.

Sure it's much easier said than done, but done it is, and very frequently ... and often by persons who have NOT truly been wronged by law enforcement, but have visions of getting rich by virtue of a §1983 lawsuit.

0 Replies

It is a slippery slope. I can see where, following your type of reasoning, the conservatives on the court would deny the application of the exclusionary rule to other types of police misconduct. After all, using your words: "[this would be] clearly a win for law enforcement, and a loss for criminals."

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

It is a slippery slope. I can see where, following your type of reasoning, the conservatives on the court would deny the application of the exclusionary rule to other types of police misconduct. After all, using your words: "[this would be] clearly a win for law enforcement, and a loss for criminals."

Can you provide an example? What other types of police misconduct might this decision extend to?

0 Replies

I think you can guess. I don't care to be the victim of your endless nit-picking and quibbling at this time.

0 Replies

The ability to sue doesn't unbeat one's ass.

Say that I'm sitting on the couch, cleaning my legally owned rifle. Cops bust in without knocking, see that I have a gun, shoot me dead because I was a 'threat.'

Cops don't announce themselves, burst in, I shoot a cop because I believe he is an intruder.

Cops get the wrong place, burst into the house without knocking, bust up the place, takes a long time to figure out they have the wrong place. In the meantime, a family's peace is shattered.

There are lots of ways that unannounced entry can lead to serious problems.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I think you can guess. I don't care to be the victim of your endless nit-picking and quibbling at this time.

I'm not going to guess, and you were the one to raise the issue.

I think it's safe to assume you cannot think of any examples.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The ability to sue doesn't unbeat one's ass.

Truer words were never spoken. I think you should seriously considering adding them to your signature.

Cyclops wrote:

Say that I'm sitting on the couch, cleaning my legally owned rifle. Cops bust in without knocking, see that I have a gun, shoot me dead because I was a 'threat.'

Cops don't announce themselves, burst in, I shoot a cop because I believe he is an intruder.

Cops get the wrong place, burst into the house without knocking, bust up the place, takes a long time to figure out they have the wrong place. In the meantime, a family's peace is shattered.

There are lots of ways that unannounced entry can lead to serious problems.

Cycloptichorn

Are you arguing with anyone in particular? You do realize I'm not arguing against the "knock and announce" rule, right?

The question is what to do in the event of a violation of said rule.

0 Replies

You happen to think wrong.

0 Replies

Quote:

The question is what to do in the event of a violation of said rule.

The answer given by the Court is "shrug" as long as some violation of the law was found. What's next?

Quote:

Can you provide an example? What other types of police misconduct might this decision extend to?

The Arresting Officer's Statement to the Court in the matter of Tico v. The State of Relaxed Policing.

Sure. My partner and I and the other six officers all forgot to remind the alleged perp of his Miranda rights. So when he confessed, I heard him clearly say "Of course, my car is in the driveway." I just wrote it down, your Honor. It's all in my notes his confession is.

There was a bail hearing just after midnight and his wife or somebody got Buzzie the Bondzman to buy his ticket, but that was when the judge asked him about a lawyer and he said he didn't have one. The judge got a little pissed at us but geeze it's not like the guy isn't a slimeball. So he got held over for four or five days.

We found the stolen stuff, it wasn't in the house, it was in his car in the driveway, in the prep's driveway behind this other car.

Oh, and yeah, the bags of the stolen property got put in the wrong car's trunk for about a week. But nobody messed with them, honest. They ended up in the same evidence bin as this other case I'm working so I knew them right away.

======
From the actual made up memory files of Joe Nation
The case of the missing burglar.

Here's what happened: The cops had been looking a burglar for about three weeks when a detective spotted what he said he thought was a suspicous car in a nice neighborhood. He followed from a distance until the car pulled into a driveway. The detective thought he was going to witness a burglary in progress until he saw a figure get out of the car, stride up to the front door and walk into the house.

He then made the leap in judgement that what he just saw was the burglar entering his own home. So he radioed the night desk to get a search warrant for the premises and send it out with back-up. They did.

The cops all burst into the house and arrested the sleeping homeowner, later charging him with resisting arrest and possession of stolen property.
The stolen property had been found in the car.

The only problem was the homeowner owned some of the property found in the car because the detective's first instincts were right and what he had originally witnessed was, in fact, a burglary in progress. At least, that is what was figured out three years later after two court trials.

The car had been stolen by someone whose fingerprints were all over the car and in places in the house. There was never any connection between the car and the homeowner other than the fact that his new videotape recorder was in the back seat.

Luckily for the homeowner the car thief/burglar got caught pushing a lawnmower down a street at 4am and his prints were matched with the missing burglar case.

Said the homeowner "Yes, I said my car was in the driveway, it was, in front of the stolen car. And No, I never lock my front door, well, I do now in case there are some passing patrol cars."

Joe(the thug was pissed because he had to hightail it when the cops arrived)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
The question is what to do in the event of a violation of said rule.
The answer given by the Court is "shrug" as long as some violation of the law was found. What's next?

No, that's not what the Court said at all.

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
Can you provide an example? What other types of police misconduct might this decision extend to?

The Arresting Officer's Statement to the Court in the matter of Tico v. The State of Relaxed Policing.

Sure. My partner and I and the other six officers all forgot to remind the alleged perp of his Miranda rights. So when he confessed, I heard him clearly say "Of course, my car is in the driveway." I just wrote it down, your Honor. It's all in my notes his confession is.

There was a bail hearing just after midnight and his wife or somebody got Buzzie the Bondzman to buy his ticket, but that was when the judge asked him about a lawyer and he said he didn't have one. The judge got a little pissed at us but geeze it's not like the guy isn't a slimeball. So he got held over for four or five days.

We found the stolen stuff, it wasn't in the house, it was in his car in the driveway, in the prep's driveway behind this other car.

Oh, and yeah, the bags of the stolen property got put in the wrong car's trunk for about a week. But nobody messed with them, honest. They ended up in the same evidence bin as this other case I'm working so I knew them right away.

======
From the actual made up memory files of Joe Nation
The case of the missing burglar.

Here's what happened: The cops had been looking a burglar for about three weeks when a detective spotted what he said he thought was a suspicous car in a nice neighborhood. He followed from a distance until the car pulled into a driveway. The detective thought he was going to witness a burglary in progress until he saw a figure get out of the car, stride up to the front door and walk into the house.

He then made the leap in judgement that what he just saw was the burglar entering his own home. So he radioed the night desk to get a search warrant for the premises and send it out with back-up. They did.

The cops all burst into the house and arrested the sleeping homeowner, later charging him with resisting arrest and possession of stolen property.
The stolen property had been found in the car.

The only problem was the homeowner owned some of the property found in the car because the detective's first instincts were right and what he had originally witnessed was, in fact, a burglary in progress. At least, that is what was figured out three years later after two court trials.

The car had been stolen by someone whose fingerprints were all over the car and in places in the house. There was never any connection between the car and the homeowner other than the fact that his new videotape recorder was in the back seat.

Luckily for the homeowner the car thief/burglar got caught pushing a lawnmower down a street at 4am and his prints were matched with the missing burglar case.

Said the homeowner "Yes, I said my car was in the driveway, it was, in front of the stolen car. And No, I never lock my front door, well, I do now in case there are some passing patrol cars."

Joe(the thug was pissed because he had to hightail it when the cops arrived)Nation

That obviously took some effort to type up, Joe, so I hope you don't think I'm being completely dismissive of your actual made-up case when I point out that nothing in your scenario deals with the "slippery slope" argument of not excluding evidence obtained with a valid search warrant when there is a violation of the "knock and announce" rule. In any event, your scenario raises a plethera of other avenues for defense counsel to exclude the evidence obtained. Now, if you've got issues with the ability of cops to obtain a search warrant to enter into the sanctity of your home or car based on nothing but probable cause enunciated to a magistrate, then your beef is with the framers of the Constitution, and a century or two of criminal jurisprudence, not the current Supreme Court and its ruling in Hudson v. Michigan.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Tico, the exclusionary rule is loved by those who believe that the police should act within the bounds of the law. History has shown that, without the rule, police felt no restraint in just breaking into people's homes and businesses, or beating confessions out of people.

Regarding suing police for misconduct, it is much easier said than done. And people who sue are often the subject of harassment.

I suggest you speak to some plaintiff attorneys who will tell you that they can and do make a good living out of suing the police.

In fact, it is quite easy to sue the police and your wrongheaded notion that it is not is consistent with your belief that the police, not the criminals are a danger to society.

Everyone on the other side of the door is, in the eyes of the law, innocent until proven guilty. This, of course, doesn't mean that they are all actually innocent. The vast majority of the folks on the other side of the door are guilty. But even if they are not, you still haven't answered my question: What is the 15 seconds intended to provide? The chance for 0.0001% of suspects to disengage from coitus and throw a towel around their bare asses?

Given that the police, even in their corrupt state of being, are more likely to be at the doors of the bad guys than the innocents, what is more likely to happen in the 15 seconds provided by a knock and wait?

1) Innocents will be able to leap from their marital beds and assume modest attire?

2) Scum bags will have time to grab their guns?

0 Replies

Knock knock...?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know