4th Admendment Rights being thrown out the window

[manicmonday]

From Slate, the Supreme Court is overstepping it's bounds by making too broad of definition of "no-knock".

Sometime this spring, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the case of Hudson v. Michigan. At issue is whether or not police who used an illegal "no-knock" raid to enter a defendant's home can use the drugs they seized inside against the defendant at trial. To understand the importance of this case, some background is in order.

As the name indicates, a "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter a private residence without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. The tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly, this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.

These raids are often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of "wrong door" raids we read about in the news. In fact, there's a disturbingly long list of completely innocent people who've been killed in "wrong door" raids, including New York City worker Alberta Spruill, Boston minister Accelyne Williams, and a Mexican immigrant in Denver named Ismael Mena.

 

Read the whole article. Very interesting in my estimation. I'm all for getting the bad guys. But I'm all about leave me the hell alone unless you know I'm doing wrong. What they are doing is getting a judge who will sign any search warrant, lying that they didn't feel safe to knock and going before the same damn judge and getting it ok'd.

 

Builder, put the steak on the grill, I'm coming over.

[hugo]

The decision:

 

Affirmed.

 

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule does not require suppression of evidence found in a search. Pp. 2–13.

 

(a) Because Michigan has conceded that the entry here was a knock-and-announce violation, the only issue is whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for such a violation. Pp. 2–3.

 

(b) This Court has rejected “ndiscriminate application” of the exclusionary rule, United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 , holding it applicable only “where its deterrence benefits outweigh its ‘substantial social costs,’ ” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357 . Exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a “but-for” cause of obtaining the evidence. The illegal entry here was not the but-for cause, but even if it were, but-for causation can be too attenuated to justify exclusion. Attenuation can occur not only when the causal connection is remote, but also when suppression would not serve the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee violated. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Pp. 3–7.

 

© The social costs to be weighed against deterrence are considerable here. In addition to the grave adverse consequence that excluding relevant incriminating evidence always entails—the risk of releasing dangerous criminals—imposing such a massive remedy would generate a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule, and claims that any asserted justification for a no-knock entry had inadequate support. Another consequence would be police officers’ refraining from timely entry after knocking and announcing, producing preventable violence against the officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in others. Next to these social costs are the deterrence benefits. The value of deterrence depends on the strength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act. That incentive is minimal here, where ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve nothing but the prevention of evidence destruction and avoidance of life-threatening resistance, dangers which suspend the requirement when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they exist, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385 . Massive deterrence is hardly necessary. Contrary to Hudson’s argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline. Pp. 8–13.

 

Justice Scalia, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, concluded in Part IV that Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 , New York v. Harris, 495 U. S. 14 , and United States v. Ramirez, 523 U. S. 65 , confirm the conclusion that suppression is unwarranted in this case. Pp. 13–16.

 

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Roberts, C. J.,and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

 

 

about us help

[builder]

Australia's police force are just like any other.

 

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Queensland, where I live, was actually called the Police State, because the corruption went all the way to the Premier, the Police Commissioner, and the Drug squad.

 

It was a national disgrace, and typically, the kingpins got away with it, and several underlings took the heat.

 

In the larger picture, the "war on terror" has given police more power to do whatever they want, without recourse to any ammendment or law.

 

To secure our freedom, our own rights are being bypassed.

 

What is happening in the west right now, could rightly be called Jacobin proclivity.

 

Fear of the unknown is always with us, but handing over our basic rights to ensure our safety is not the path that we should follow.

[snafu]

This is for the safety of the police as well as the people inside. They can only break into houses that they have a warrant anyway. Bounty hunters have been allowed to do this for a long time now. If they bust into your house without a warrant you can sue them. What's the problem?

google up all the people dead because they did knock and gave the perpetrator time to cock and load. How many cops shot threw the door or even standing on the side of the door. Innocent people used as shields for perpetrators. on and on. This will be a lot safer for everyone in the long run.

What we need to be able to do is debench these stupid judges.

[manicmonday]

This is for the safety of the police as well as the people inside. They can only break into houses that they have a warrant anyway. Bounty hunters have been allowed to do this for a long time now. If they bust into your house without a warrant you can sue them. What's the problem?

google up all the people dead because they did knock and gave the perpetrator time to cock and load. How many cops shot threw the door or even standing on the side of the door. Innocent people used as shields for perpetrators. on and on. This will be a lot safer for everyone in the long run.

What we need to be able to do is debench these stupid judges.

 

The problem is the judges, totally agree. But when rubberstamp judges are giving out warrants like Halloween candy, I don't find the fact that they had a warrant very reassuring. And you don't see a problem with using the same courts that told them to break into your house to sue them for doing so? I realize protection of police, but what about the people who they are supposed to be serving? Our government was started so that it would be big people little government, not big government little people.

 

This goes against our constitution. It's not a pick and choose which ones we want to follow.

[builder]

Shortly after moving into my unit in Katherine, I was getting ready for work, had already been out to my car, and was sitting on the throne with the front door open.

 

It was about 6 am, and I heard people talking in my lounge room. I actually thought it was my labourer, but it turns out it was three detectives, and two uniformed cops.

 

One of the dicks flashed a warrant at me, and I pulled out my licence, showing them that I was not the person mentioned on the search warrant.

 

Turns out it was a past tenant. Didn't make any fucking difference.

 

The search took over half an hour, and I figure they were looking for drugs, because they tipped out my gravy powder, coffee, sugar, cake mix etc.

 

I was ropable, of course, and made a mockery of the situation, but when they started looking in my truck, I told the head dick that if he wanted to search the car, go get another fucking warrant, or follow me to work and search it there.

 

Snafu, you call yourself "The Proud". How would you feel if this kinda shit happened to you?

 

Out of the five cops who searched me and my place, the only one to actually acknowledge that they'd made a mistake, was the uniformed woman who questioned my girlfriend.

 

I understand the role of the Police. I wish they did too.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the week before this happened, two uniformed cops rocked up, as I was playing the nintendo. I let them search the place without a fucking warrant, and let them know the past tenant had moved on.

[Lethalfind]

Shortly after moving into my unit in Katherine, I was getting ready for work, had already been out to my car, and was sitting on the throne with the front door open.

 

It was about 6 am, and I heard people talking in my lounge room. I actually thought it was my labourer, but it turns out it was three detectives, and two uniformed cops.

 

One of the dicks flashed a warrant at me, and I pulled out my licence, showing them that I was not the person mentioned on the search warrant.

 

Turns out it was a past tenant. Didn't make any fucking difference.

 

The search took over half an hour, and I figure they were looking for drugs, because they tipped out my gravy powder, coffee, sugar, cake mix etc.

 

I was ropable, of course, and made a mockery of the situation, but when they started looking in my truck, I told the head dick that if he wanted to search the car, go get another fucking warrant, or follow me to work and search it there.

 

Snafu, you call yourself "The Proud". How would you feel if this kinda shit happened to you?

 

Out of the five cops who searched me and my place, the only one to actually acknowledge that they'd made a mistake, was the uniformed woman who questioned my girlfriend.

 

I understand the role of the Police. I wish they did too.

 

Fuckin bastards...that would piss me off to no end...I assume you had to clean up the place afterward? Call me a bitch but I would have made a holy shit storm stink about that with the local police.

[Gallytuck]

I used to respect the police but now I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

 

They're just a posh fraternity, with guns and feeling of being above the law. Cops look out for other cops regardless of what the situation might be.

 

I love seeing people getting pulled over for traffic violations in areas a couple of blocks away from neighborhoods where people get jumped for valuables. They make it pretty clear what their priorities are and our safety from criminals isn't really in there anywhere.

[ImWithStupid]

Actually, the way that I interpret this ruling and other rulings like it, is that the Supreme Court Judges are just allowing the police to better be able to decide at the time of the execution of the warrant (Dallas SWAT and Texas SWAT are great for getting the lingo down), are better able to decide if there are exigent circumstances to allow entry before the 15 to 20 second time frame of waiting to enter the residence.

 

I don't know if you all have done it but I sat there and waited 20 seconds with the idea in my head that a gun was pointed at me, and decided that was a long time to have to wait to react to the threat of being shot.

 

It just seems right to me that if the officers feel that their safety is being compromised or evidence is being destroyed, since they are actually there at the time of the warrant entry, they should be best to articulate if there is a reason to enter imediately. Not Monday morning quarterbacks.

[snafu]

Actually, the way that I interpret this ruling and other rulings like it, is that the Supreme Court Judges are just allowing the police to better be able to decide at the time of the execution of the warrant (Dallas SWAT and Texas SWAT are great for getting the lingo down), are better able to decide if there are exigent circumstances to allow entry before the 15 to 20 second time frame of waiting to enter the residence.

 

I don't know if you all have done it but I sat there and waited 20 seconds with the idea in my head that a gun was pointed at me, and decided that was a long time to have to wait to react to the threat of being shot.

 

It just seems right to me that if the officers feel that their safety is being compromised or evidence is being destroyed, since they are actually there at the time of the warrant entry, they should be best to articulate if there is a reason to enter imediately. Not Monday morning quarterbacks.

 

 

 

Good point. They already have the warrant. They shouldn't have to jeapordize there safety just to be polite. It's not like there kicking doors down to see who's in there.

 

I had a cop stick a gun in my face once before. It wasn't' warranted because there were three cop cars and six cops. They thought we broke into a shed when it was my friends shed and he had lost the key. It was a lady cop and another guy had to tell her to put the gun away. She then asked me how it felt to have a women pull a gun on me. I told her women, man or beast its' all the same.

So they do have overly zealous cops but this is entirely different.

[Gallytuck]

...She then asked me how it felt to have a women pull a gun on me.

 

Am I the only one who has issues with that? First you have an officer in the wrong aiming a gun at you, then she asks you what it felt like to have a woman be the one to aim it at you? Just a tad out-of-place, no?

[snafu]

Am I the only one who has issues with that? First you have an officer in the wrong aiming a gun at you, then she asks you what it felt like to have a woman be the one to aim it at you? Just a tad out-of-place, no?

 

That

[builder]

I'm all for shoulder cams on every cop on the beat. If they are going by the book, then they should have no problem having their every move recorded.

[ImWithStupid]

I'm all for shoulder cams on every cop on the beat. If they are going by the book, then they should have no problem having their every move recorded.

 

I think every employer should have the right to put audio/video/gps systems on all of their workers so they know exactly who does what and who does what wrong while on the job.

[builder]

I think every employer should have the right to put audio/video/gps systems on all of their workers so they know exactly who does what and who does what wrong while on the job.

 

Nope. Wrong. Only those in the employment of the public, and specifically those who claim to be working on the side of the law, need regulatory control.

[hugo]

I think every employer should have the right to put audio/video/gps systems on all of their workers so they know exactly who does what and who does what wrong while on the job.

 

They do. ,,,,,,

[ImWithStupid]

Nope. Wrong. Only those in the employment of the public, and specifically those who claim to be working on the side of the law, need regulatory control.

 

Why shouldn't an employer have the right to know what his employees are doing? He would only be looking out for his best interests. I think he should have that right while they are at work.

[builder]

Why shouldn't an employer have the right to know what his employees are doing? He would only be looking out for his best interests. I think he should have that right while they are at work.

 

Depends on what work they are doing, I suppose. And the industry in which they are employed. Doctors could not be filmed with patients.

 

Cops, on the other hand, could be benefitted themselves by having their actions recorded. It would save a shitload of time typing up reports.

[ImWithStupid]

Depends on what work they are doing, I suppose. And the industry in which they are employed. Doctors could not be filmed with patients.

 

Cops, on the other hand, could be benefitted themselves by having their actions recorded. It would save a shitload of time typing up reports.

 

I don't know if I agree with that. I have an e-mail of a hidden camera in an investigation on a doctor who has sex with his female patients while they are under anesthesia.

 

The cops would still have to write reports for the court case, they would just have something to review.

[builder]

I don't know if I agree with that. I have an e-mail of a hidden camera in an investigation on a doctor who has sex with his female patients while they are under anesthesia.

 

The cops would still have to write reports for the court case, they would just have something to review.

 

Doctor's have a legal obligation to maintain patient privacy, but in the case of suspected abuse of privelige, I'm okay with that.

 

The cops could take advantage of voice to print technology, and simply check through the text for errors. Saves heaps of time, in my book.

[ImWithStupid]

Doctor's have a legal obligation to maintain patient privacy, but in the case of suspected abuse of privelige, I'm okay with that.

 

The cops could take advantage of voice to print technology, and simply check through the text for errors. Saves heaps of time, in my book.

 

But, a doctor in a hospital is different. The hospital has access to the patient records anyway. Why can't they monitor him?

[builder]

But, a doctor in a hospital is different. The hospital has access to the patient records anyway. Why can't they monitor him?

 

Regardless of where a doctor works, he/she has obligations of patient privacy. The records that are available to gov hawks are prescription history only.

 

A doc working in a hospital would be the least likely to be abusing patient rights, due to all the other staff around her/him.

[Lethalfind]

Depends on what work they are doing, I suppose. And the industry in which they are employed. Doctors could not be filmed with patients.

 

Cops, on the other hand, could be benefitted themselves by having their actions recorded. It would save a shitload of time typing up reports.

 

I have heard a couple employers speaking about this matter. Its been said that they can place cameras (obviously NOT in the bathroom) to observe your employees but the employees must be made aware of the fact they are there.

 

I was speaking to a cop from a town near Orlando and she said their cars have tracking systems on them so if the cop does not respond they can be found AND where they drive throughout the day is logged so if there is a question about them being outside their jurisdiction or doing something they shouldn't then they know for sure.

 

Large trucking companies like JB Hunt employ a satelite system to observe their drivers to make sure they are driving the correct route. They can also shut down the truck remotely if it gets stolen.

 

I imagine that when a doctor is involved law enforcement has to get a special warrant to observe something like that, assuming the doctor isn't arrogant enough to be filming himself for his pleasure later.

[Lethalfind]

But, a doctor in a hospital is different. The hospital has access to the patient records anyway. Why can't they monitor him?

 

Do you honestly think for ONE MOMENT that a doctor would tolerate that? I can tell you probably not.

 

One thing your forgetting, if they filmed everything a doctor did, they would open themselves up to lawsuits when the doctor does something wrong. If the procedure is filmed but it was filmed for another reason, it would have to be surrendered in such a case.

 

Here in the states Federal law would prohibit something like that. I'm sure you've heard of HIPPA (Health Information Privacy and Portability Act). It not only says that patients information has to remain private but within an organization like a hospital, there are certain people who have no right to access patient information, different levels of clearance if you will. Human Resources making sure an employee is doing their job has no right to access private health information.

[snafu]

Were I work we have camera