Just a "Minor Setback" for Fourth Amendment Rights

Contender-
What it says is:
"...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."

But we have long since dropped those standards. Why should the traditionally required knock stand in this time of Perpetual War?

I assume you ask from a position of enlightenment, yes? You do know the history of Warrants as they led to the requirement to Knock, followed by No-Knocks, followed now by what may well be "Never Knock"?

:rolleyes:
Rich
 
Mannlicher said:
I would have thought the publisher of SWAT mag would have applauded the ruling. Good to see I would have been mistaken.
Click to expand...

Check out the sticky thread in the General Discussion forum regarding Rich's interview with Aaron Zelman. It'll give you an idea of what SWAT is about, and a glimpse about how our gracious host thinks on a few things...
 
The problem, as I may have metioned before, is the nebulous nature of the 4th amendments determination of reasonableness.

One mans reasonable is anothjer mans unreasonable.

The key then is drafting a statue that is constitionally acceptable state and federal and gives detailed guidelines. Compare Chapter 35 of the Alaska Code of criiminal Procedure (woefully nebulous) to NY CPL 690 (somewhat more detailed).


WildpolicelikeguidelinesAlaska
 
Clearly the appropriate response is for us to have stronger doors. Whether or not we have anything to hide. By the way, who said, "Live free or die?"
 
You do know the history of Warrants as they led to the requirement to Knock, followed by No-Knocks, followed now by what may well be "Never Knock"?
Click to expand...

Actually I think it went from Never Knock to Knock Sometimes to Knock to No Knock to Maybe Knock unless you NO Knock
:)
Lot of door busting going down in the 1920s

WildnotthatiamoldenoughtorememberAlaska
 
Wild-
How on earth does Nix v Williams possibly relate to the facts in this story, other than the knee jerk that the discovery was "inevitable"? Of course it wasn't inevitable....had they knocked, the perp would have flushed.

The Nix case had to do with a defendant on charges of child murder leading cops to the scene of the body, where an active search was already in progress. The Court held that the body would have been found with or without the improper confession, which is a pretty fair argument.

It would compare in the instant case under the following circumstances:
- Police execute a legal warrant and are searching the location and questioning the suspect.
- DEA coincidently busts in illegally and tackles the perp, discovering drugs in his pocket.

I would agree that the DEA find should be upheld because it was "inevitable" that the local cops would have found such contraband in the course of their Legal Warrant Service.

But those aren't the facts in this case are they?

Rich
 
The present case is clearly an offshoot of Nix (I bet its cited in the instant case) as it is a precedent in the inevitable discovery rule (which looks like Scalia was referring to)...my point in raising Nix is that this type of conduct on the part of the police (leaving aside the issue of whether it is right or wrong) is not a new thing (as referred to by a prior poster).

WildthatshowitrelatesAlaska
 
...is not a new thing
Click to expand...
Except that not every one of those cases get to the level of the Supreme Law of the Land, does it? Except that Nix was 7-2 and this was 5-4; so it's not like I don't have a bit of support from Constitutional scholars myself; you know? ;)
Rich
 
Except that Nix was 7-2 and this was 5-4; so it's not like I don't have a bit of support from Constitutional scholars myself; you know?
Click to expand...

Not having read this one I'll confine myself to say that I bet all it does is muddy the waters, leaving more uncertianty for cops, judges, DAs and CDAs.

These type of deels MUST be taken care of by statute..on the other hand, its sure as hell tough to staturoily give protection from police "rampages", neh?


WildmeandspiffatgiantburgersatmidnightAlaska

PS Rich when you get a minute call I have a product (holster) I want you to try out..since you are a hunter
 
WWW.cato.org of 15 June commented on this.

Re other aspects, and the "minor set back" to the Fourth Amendment, I suppose it depends on how one spells "set back". If The Fourth Amendment were a boat, such a "setback" might well suffice to sink it.
 
No Knocks are bad policy aimed at securing things that shouldn't be illegal to begin with.

No knocks are mainly to secure evidence that can be destroyed, which is in the overwhelming majority of cases drugs.

No knocks intensely increase the risk of a shootout.

Here's a scenario to consider. Let's say that you live at 2225 Johnson AVE , in a brick house and drive a white car. Two blocks over, there is 2225 Johnson BLVD, a brick house with a white car.

A warrant is obtained by a police detective from a judge and somewhere along the line somewhere along the line your house is mistaken for the correct house.

At 3AM you hear commotion outside, a bang on your door and some muffled shouting outside, so you ready your .223. As you're in the hallway investigating, the door comes crashing in and your see 3 figures rush you with guns. You immediately fire, killing two. If you escape being killed yourself, you will now go to prison for murdering police officers. If you are killed the police may have immunity.

It can and does happen.
 
+1 leadcounsel.

For a real-world (although less violent) example: My address is 1428 Knox Ct. 1 block to the east is Julian St. About once per week, I get mail for 1428 Julian, and the girl at that address gets my mail. The only similarities in the addresses are the house number and postal code. The names are entirely different, and the street is entirely different. Regardless, someone who is *not* under tremendous stress, working in broad daylight, with the address printed right there on multiple sheets of paper, can't get it right. I'm only surprised that more cops haven't been lit up by irate homeowners when they kick in the wrong door.
 
I'm only surprised that more cops haven't been lit up by irate homeowners when they kick in the wrong door.
Click to expand...

If you consider the number of search warrants executed each year (a number hard to discern I;m sure), I bet the number of wrong house busts is negligible, and the number of cop/innocent homeonwer firefights is even less.

Philosophically, isnt the price of mistakes a necessary evil of the complex balancing act between individual freedom and the right of the state to combat that which tears down the fabric of society. Do those of you who oppose No Knocks on the grounds of mistake (actual or potential) also oppose the death penalty which can also be imposed by mistake?

WilddiscussAlaska
 
WA, yes, I absolutely oppose capital punishment for exactly that reason. Innocent people are put to death for crimes they don't commit, and real criminals go free in their stead. A truly just society would never accept this.
 
Philosophically, isnt the price of mistakes a necessary evil of the complex balancing act between individual freedom and the right of the state to combat that which tears down the fabric of society. Do those of you who oppose No Knocks on the grounds of mistake (actual or potential) also oppose the death penalty which can also be imposed by mistake?
Click to expand...

Yes.

You raise an interesting point in your other post, though: I wonder what the rate of error in execution of warrants actually is?
 
Yeah, wild it's an "interesting point"....until one realizes that this "price" is paid for the successful seizure of 5 whole crack rocks! Hardly the stuff of Great G-Men movies, you know?
:rolleyes:
Rich
 
Yeah, wild it's an "interesting point"....until one realizes that this "price" is paid for the successful seizure of 5 whole crack rocks! Hardly the stuff of Great G-Men movies, you know?
Click to expand...

If it had been 500 pounds what would you say

WildiassumethesameAlaska
 
Good

I'm glad that the balance is coming back in favor of the good guys.

Due process and the protection against unreasonable search has already been accomplished by obtaining the warrant.

IMHO more criminals will be getting off scott-free and more victims will be getting justice than will people have their homes accidentally busted into by incorrect addresses. All in all, a net positive for me.

Guess what? You think the police will believe you when you tell them they have the wrong address? Nope - they're coming in. I'll bet they've heard that one a million times.

Getting the wrong address willl always be a problem.

Would you rather let 10 criminals off or accidentally bust in 1 wrong home? In the previous case, 10 people have their right to justice violated. In the latter, only 1.
 
The present case is clearly an offshoot of Nix (I bet its cited in the instant case) as it is a precedent in the inevitable discovery rule (which looks like Scalia was referring to)...my point in raising Nix is that this type of conduct on the part of the police (leaving aside the issue of whether it is right or wrong) is not a new thing (as referred to by a prior poster).
Click to expand...
So if a cop gets evidence he knows is good enough to secure a search warrant, why bother with the warrant? It's "inevitable" it'll be granted, and it's "inevitable" the items specified in the search warrant will be there in the morning, and it's "inevitable" that the items will still be there if knocking is required...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top