Police can enter your home without knocking

[rickortreat]

http://tinyurl.com/m2zad

This is a link to yahoo.  The Supreme Court ruled that police with a warrant are allowed to enter a home WITHOUT knocking.

Whaddya think about that kiddies?

[Reality]

Why should criminals be given 15 to 20 seconds to detroy evidense, go out the escape hatch, etc.

As to breaking into houses of innocents, I don't see how it makes it any "better" to give 15 seconds notice.  I'd be just as angry if they broke into my innocent house with a 15 second warning as opposed to straight in.  Well i guess there are some things that even a 15 second notice would help. B)

Look the system all in all is a joke, we know that.

[Joe Vancil]

I don't have a problem with this, because the police HAD A VALID SEARCH WARRANT!  As far as I'm concerned, the owner of the house doesn't have to be there at all for the police to execute a VALID SEARCH WARRANT.

The requirement of a valid search warrant is the person's protection under the Fourth Amendment.  

Knocking on the door is for the protection of the POLICEMEN from misunderstanding...not a Fourth Amendment guarantee.

 

[rickortreat]

How's this for a scenario, you are at home minding your own business and the policeman come bargin in.  You are in your bed with the lights out. Unnannounced you think you are being burglarized or attacked and you shoot and kill the police man in defence of your home and life!

I would suggest that when the judge authorizes the warrant the police can REQUEST permission to enter without knocking, provided that they have evidence to suggest that giving the owner advanced notice would endanger the police or the evidence they hope to acquire.

To leave it up to the police is a big, big mistake.  The homeowner has no idea that the people breaking and entering are on official business, and has a legitimate right to defend himself and his property.  A dead policeman killed in this manner would be a terrible shame, but a valid action for the property owner, who has no idea the police are there on official business exercising a warrant.

 

[WayOutWest]

Exactly Rick.

What if I'm sitting in on my couch cleaning my guns watching the World Series of Bass Fishing and some jerk off cop busts my door down and blows me away cause I'm holding a gun.  What if they start blowing away the kids running around freaking out?  No cops life is worth mine nor any of my families.  This is a stupid Taliban rule.

Police in this country have always been a joke, they always have to make every encounter a confrontation with a climax.  Some guy has a gun in his hand talking crazy?  Let the bastard nod off then go get him, but no, there must be gun play.  Overgrown hall monitor morons.

[westkoast]

Exactly Rick.

What if I'm sitting in on my couch cleaning my guns watching the World Series of Bass Fishing and some jerk off cop busts my door down and blows me away cause I'm holding a gun.  What if they start blowing away the kids running around freaking out?  No cops life is worth mine nor any of my families.  This is a stupid Taliban rule.

Police in this country have always been a joke, they always have to make every encounter a confrontation with a climax.  Some guy has a gun in his hand talking crazy?  Let the bastard nod off then go get him, but no, there must be gun play.  Overgrown hall monitor morons.

Well if you are watching Bass fishing and cleaning a shotgun chances are you are white, in that case they will be less likely to play rambo.

The real question is what if a person was black or hispanic, watching say Jose Luis or a show where all the men are fat and ugly yet the women are smoking hot (just for you W.O.W lol), and they bust in to see you holding a wallet?  Or a remote?  Or even a black flash light?  They have a bad enough time telling the difference between a bum holding a can and a gun.  Can you imagine if they already are assuming that the person is a criminal....you know regardless of the fact that the search warrant is to find evidence not a piece of paper saying you are guilty.

[rickortreat]

See, this is my problem with government, all these people on the SCOTUS should be more than capable of seeing this issue, at least as well as us, if not better.  

A society relies on people in positions of authority to think these things through completly and apply the principals in the Bill of Rights and the Consitution with consistency and precision.

Yet time after time, these people make ostensibly questionable decisions which set very bad precedents for how the exective branch is allowed to utilize its powers.  Now, there is certainly room for dissagreement in many instances, but the laws are generally written clearly, so that every citizen can understand their rights and responsibilities, and those who administer the law stay within the limits thus perscribed, and Congress writes laws in harmony with this framework.

Any time there is a variance, which alters the balance between the rights of citizens and the government, we are all affected.  It doesn't matter if the guy is a drug runner or the President of the United States. The law needs to apply to everyone the same. which is why the figure of justice has a blindfold on.  

Further, these kinds of rulings undermine our collective faith in the government.  The Consitution is a contract between the people we elect and have appointed on our behalf to run the government and WE THE PEOPLE.  When we get the shaft, the government is breaking the contract.  This is called TREASON, and is punishable by death.

It would be nice to see someone in government get prosecuted and punished every once in a while, just so the rest of them realize that they are working for US.  

[Joe Vancil]

But, guys, you see, you're arguing my point for me.  The reason that the police knock is for *THEM* to remain safe.  In the case that they're injured because *THEY* chose not to knock, well, in my opinion, that's on them.

Whether or not they knock has no relevance as to the admissibility of evidence seized in the execution of a valid warrant.

If you want to challenge the case based on something NOT covered in the warrant, but seized due to the plain sight exception, that's a different case.  In that case, I think knocking would be required.

However, in the case we've just heard, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision.

[westkoast]

I am not arguing for or against your point Joe.  Just saying that they have a hard time, at least here in California, determining what is or is not a weapon.  If they kick in the door with a warrant then they are going to assume that person is a criminal.  If they think a bum holding a wallet in an alley has a gun and deserves to be shot then if they are rushing into a home and don't know what to expect what keeps them from not being trigger happy?

[rickortreat]

I agree the evidence should not be surpressed on this basis.

However, the point is not whether evidence should be allowed or not, but the basis for entry into a private domicile.

5 dead cops who got that way entering a house without warning is not something the law should allow.  Either they get permission to enter this way, after justifying it in front  of a judge, or they should take their lumps.  

I can envision gun battles errupting inside people's homes as a result of this ruling.  I can envison innocent people being killed after a warrant obtained under falsified evidence leaving "We the People" liable for damages.  

This is not a police state, and the majority of the justices seem to forget that. There's no reason why there can't be due process for this type of a search, and there should be a higher standard of proof for obstaining such a warrant.  There should also be a third party involved to ensure that the police don't "create" evidence.

Perhaps denying prosectution would be an excessive penalty for the law, but to leave the decision this way without including comments along the lines I suggest leaves much to be desired.