Just a "Minor Setback" for Fourth Amendment Rights

Contender, allow me to reiterate.

Knock-and-announce is part and parcel of serving a warrant. Without that, the entry into the home becomes an unlawful entry and any evidence seized becomes tainted, from that unlawful entry, and is suppressed.

At least since Weeks (1914) at the federal level and Mapp (1961) at the state level, that has been the law until now. In fact, Justice Breyer lists 41 major 4th amendment cases to document this. And what does the majority list? 4 cases, selectively reviewed and taken out of context. A context that Breyer put back in!

Medieval? You bet. Since the signing of the Magna Carta, knock and announce has been the law.

Read the darn thing yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. Hudson v. Michigan

It's a 51 page PDF file, but Breyers' dissent occupies the majority of the writing, starting on page 22 of the pdf. Scalia's opinion starts on page 3 and goes to page 18.

Oh, and just to get dig in... So much for Roberts and his holding to Stare Decisis! It was out the window in this opinion. In fact, it is the liberal side of the court that upholds precedent here.
 
I have read your point several times over and agree as I said before but that did not answer the question posted previously----

contender-6030 said:
So the work of the police in this situation should be null and void because they didn't knock on the door???
Click to expand...
 
Well, no more privacy in your home. Thats the way I see it.

Main Entry: inevitable discovery
Function: noun
: a doctrine in criminal law: evidence obtained by methods that are unconstitutional may be admissible if it would have been inevitably discovered without the unlawful methods .

Inevitable Discovery is BS. It is a trump card to cover up mistakes, and circumvent constitutional procedure. Its like, you screwed up, but, if we word it this way, its ok. This is not a minor setback, its a major jump back.

fruit of the poisonous tree
1 : a doctrine of evidence: evidence that is derived from or gathered during an illegal action (as an unlawful search) cannot be admitted into court
2 : evidence that is inadmissible under an evidentiary exclusionary rule because it was derived from or gathered during an illegal action


a doctrine in criminal law: evidence obtained by methods that are unconstitutional may be admissible if it would have been inevitably discovered without the unlawful methods .
Click to expand...

If the evidence would have been discovered anyway, why did you need the unlawful methods?
 
Antipitas,
Thank you for giving me what Rich here is apparently too upset to: a simple straightforward answer.
Yes, I see your point but there's something else about this ruling that troubles me even more: the precedent it sets. Acquisition of evidence by illegal means is no longer grounds for dismissal.
Chew on that for a while....:eek:
 
Anti-
Roberts and Stare Decisis:
I went to sleep last night shaking my head on that very issue. For all his intellectual weight; his articulate manner; and, yes, his repeated references to Stare.....is there any question at all how he would vote if a case is brought seeking to limit the Second? Looks like the Gun Grabbers now have a SCOTUS that they could only have dreamed to appoint. Only a Leftist Executive is required to complete the circle.

I think the whole issue ultimately turns on the use of the word "unreasonable" in the 4th. It used to be that "reasonable" meant that which serves a free citzenry; Today "reasonable" is all about that which serves the needs of The State.

Truly frihtening stuff.
Rich
 
I don't like the whole no-knock thing period. If i'm at home and the police yell WARRANT and knock I'll gladly let them in and show them to the right address if it's a mistake (which since I don't plan on breaking any laws it should be). Howver , if they bust in the door and aren't clearly marked POLICE or SHERIFF and they aren't yelling police they might catch a bullet. I can't believe any LEO would support this anyway it makes their job more dangerous than it already is! Why don't they just start printing out Constitution toilet paper because that's all it is to these people. I'm all for the criminals getting what's coming to them, but there has to be a line to protect the law abiders to. Not just lump everyone in together. I'm with Rich on this one.
 
For all that Scalia refers to himself as an originalist, he has just invented the Living 4th Amendment!

What was reasonable yesterday may or may not be reasonable today. In essence, Scalia's opinion could be redacted to the above.

Once again, Scalia has shown that he is a Fair Weather Originalist. An originalist when the decision is correct and a statist when the decision is incorrect.

This case is somewhat unusual, in that it has been argued twice. The first time, Sandra Day was on the bench. Shortly after the argument, Alito was confirmed and a new round of arguments was scheduled. I believe what we have seen today is a reversal of what the Court would have done, had O'Conner been the force behind the ruling. Read in that context, Scalia's majority opinion then becomes the dissenting opinion and Breyer's dissent becomes the majority rule.

One thing Alito seems to favor, is an expansion of police powers. So in he comes, with his mind pretty much made up, in this case. Scalia's dissent becomes the majority and Breyer's opinion, the dissent. I doubt if I am far from wrong, here.

Rich, I agree. I spent a fitful sleep last night. This court does not bode well for a positive 2A decision, should a case come their way.

I have more to say, but I'm due at work, shortly. Perhaps later this evening, if someone doesn't cover my thoughts in the meantime.

Contender, to answer your question; Yes. If the police cannot abide by the proper procedures and constraints the Constitution places upon them, anything they do should be null and void. Protection, and deference, should always go to the citizen.
 
contender6030 said:
So the work of the police in this situation should be null and void because they didn't knock on the door?
Click to expand...
Their work should be null and void because if it isn't, they'll have little motivation to knock on anyone's door ever again, and no-knocks of any flavor lead to innocent lives lost on both sides.

Police can gear up to minimize the impact of these increasingly agressive policies. What are lowly, upstanding private citizens supposed to do to prevent being killed by a raid on the wrong address? Claymores and perimeter defense may become the order of the day.

Wildcard said:
If the evidence would have been discovered anyway, why did you need the unlawful methods?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
The problem with the bill of rights and, although he did not admit it, the entire constitution, was laid out by Hamilton over 200 years ago. Basically, they are only "paper protections" and can easily be ignored or overridden when they are needed most.

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
---Henry Kissinger
Click to expand...
 
If I'm reading this correctly, the decision was based on a startling lack of understanding of the exclusionary rule.
Wasn't it designed to support the state in a very limited capacity, where they demonstrably *would* have acquired the same evidence legally, not just "could" have?

The specific case cited in the dissent went like this: Police searches a guy's house without a warrant. Police come back with a warrant the next day (the warrant had *zero* to do with the first search) and conduct a legal search and find evidence. The defense claimed that the legally obtained evidence should be tossed because it was tainted by the illegal search.
The ruling was that they had nothing to do with each other.
This decision shows how the exclusionary rule is (was?) supposed to work, not the confused bastardization Scalia dreamed up.

Now all they have to say is "Well, the fact that we didn't have a warrant shouldn't be cause for supressing the evidence since we still would have found it with a warrant". Or "his confession shouldn't be tossed just because we tortured him, he would've confessed anyway".
 
Just a short note.

GoSlash, what you are confusing is the exclusionary rule with the inevitable discovery rule.

More, perhaps later, if someone else doesn't clear this up. Mapp, anyone?
 
I read the decision:

if Im a prosecutor, I love it.

If Im a defense atty, I hate it

On a personal level, I think it is overreaching and poorly reasoned...but hard cases make bad law.

WildcontactthenaqcdlAlaska
 
Coming into this one late, and not having read the decision so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Essentially what Scalia said was that when police have a warrant, failing to knock and announce, while improper, is not enough of a violation to warrant the excusion of evidence obtained while executing the warrant?

If this is what the decision says (again I haven't read it) then I don't see how this runs afoul of what the 4th requires.

This issue primarily deals with the first part of the 4th, specifically the unreasonable search and seizure aspect. Since the police obtained a warrant the second need not be dealt with.

What the constitution mandates is that there be no unreasonable searches and seizures. What is "reasonable" has been determined by the courts as the framers likely intended by giving such a vague term.

As a result, while this case may or may not have overturned precedent, is has not run afoul of the requirments of the 4th amendment.

Furthermore from what I gathered, the opinion did state that knock and announce was the proper procedure and failure to do so was a violation of what regulations require.

However, this does not warrant the exclusion of any evidence found. The 4th requires that there is a warrant (there was) and that the search be reasonable. Well, entering the domicile a minute early really doesn't have anything to do with the actual "search".

I don't think that this violates the 4th.
 
Stage-
I think that you may be missing is the following:
This is not a case that SCOTUS was required to clear up in vew of an ambiguous Fourth. The concept has been, to use Roberts words in Confirmation Hearings, "Settlled Law" for at least a century.

No, this is not SCOTUS making a "bad ruling"; it is about them reversing dozens of rulings that other SCOTUS Courts have made for decades. Yes, Scalia provides lip sevice to Mapp and others, by focusing on excerpts from the opinions, while apparently ignoring the actual decisions themselves; but, in the end, this is as "activist" as any "left wing" Court could dare to be.

In my humble opinion, it sends a very clear message, regardless of whether that is the intent:
From Roe the the Second- Stare Decisis is now just a term of art. The door is wide open for NeoCons and Liberals alike to revisit questions for which they wish a different answer second time around....and they just may get it!
Rich
 
I must be missing something here??? The ruling states that the evidence collected in this case be admissable even though the police WITH A LEGAL SEARCH WARRANT did not knock on the door. The ruling does not give authorities the right to search without warrant, coorect? The ruling also does not state that the police have the right to go to ANOTHER criminal's door and pull the same thing but it WOULD make it easierfor the evidence to be made admissable even if they do not knock. So what does the law abiding citizen have to fear from this ruling other than the .01% chance that someday they come to the law abiding citizen's door with a warrant (and it happens to be the wrong door of course) and someone gets shot because the citizen feels threatened and pulls a gun. They have not repealed the requirement for a warrant and if they bust the wrong door down I'm sure the dept responsible for busting down said door would reimburse the owner for replacement. Like I said "I must be missing something" it seems to me some are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
So what does the law abiding citizen have to fear from this ruling
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing.

The "law abiding citizen" has never had real reason to fear the government that creates those laws. (No sarcasm here. I'm serious). The "Law Abiding Citizen" has nothing to fear from Full Firearms Regstration, for instance; nor from Doube Jeopardy; or warrantless wiretaps; or FBI Dossiers. The "Law Abiding Citizen" need fear nothing in Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Ceausescu's Romania or Papa Doc's Haiti.

Only those who "break the law" were punished in any of those regimes. The only problem for the "Law Abiding Citizen" was this: What was "legal" was a constantly moving target....that's called a "Police State".
Rich
 
Edited: Somehow, I missed FirstFreedom's post (#56), in which he put this into much better perspective than the small quip I gave. So I have deleted my post, in deference to that of FirstFreedom.
 
Antipitas,
Thanks for the correction. I meant 'inevitable discovery'.
This whole decision seems to revolve around a lack of understanding (if not an intentional misrepresentation) of this rule.
The policy was that evidence collected illegally was inadmissible, period. If they violate the 4th going in, everything that happens during that visit is tainted.
Now they're saying that it's negotiable depending on the severity of the infraction.

Now it comes around back to us: What do we do about it? It seems pretty clear that the blame for this decision falls squarely on the shoulders of the conservatives. Proof positive that 'we the people' have no friends in Washington.
Who do we vote for? Liberals or Neo-Cons?
 
Antipitas said:
United States v. Calandara, 414 U.S. 338 (1974),"The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim." On the contrary, "the prime purpose of the rule, if not the sole one, is to deter future unlawful police conduct," United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976)

So now there is no deterrance to unlawful conduct. Which in and of itself, renders all warrants to be (for all practicable purposes) no-knock warrants.
Click to expand...
Precisely.The SCOTUS has apparently decided that the exclusionary rule is too extreme of a punishment for unlawful police conduct. If Scalia is going to remove the only deterrence because it is too high a penalty, it would seem reasonable to replace it with some lesser penalty, preferably one borne by the wrong doers, and not by society as a whole.

But what do I care? I wasn't using my 4th Amendment rights anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top