High Court Backs Police
No-Knock Searches
Thu Jun 15, 2006 15:41
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called the
failure to knock a "preliminary misstep."
The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law
enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure
warrants.
High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches
Forbes - 3 hours ago
... perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the
Constitution's knock-and-announce ... and waiting a short time
if they know that there is no punishment for it ...
GOOGLE: NO KNOCK >>
High Court Upholds 'No-Knock' Raids
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence
collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before
rushing into a home. Justice Samuel Alito broke a 4-4 tie in
siding with Detroit police, who called out their presence at a
man's door then went inside three to five seconds later," the
Associated Press reports. "The case had tested previous court
rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and
announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's
Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches."
Radley Balko, a Cato policy analyst and author of the upcoming
Cato White Paper "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Drug Raids
in America," says: "The Supreme Court's decision today in the
case of Hudson v. Michigan is regrettable. The rise of
paramilitary-type police units conducting 'no-knock' raids on
American citizens is a disturbing trend in domestic law
enforcement. Police excess, procedural errors, and reliance on
'confidential informants' of dubious character have caused
hundreds of violent raids to be waged on completely innocent
civilians. Dozens of nonviolent offenders, bystanders, and
innocents have been killed or injured as a result. Because the
courts have set the bar extremely high in allowing victims of
botched raids to sue police officers and their superiors, the
only real defense left against wholesale disregard for the rule
requiring police to 'knock and announce' before entering private
residences was to exclude evidence seized in illegal raids.
Today, the Supreme Court removed that defense.
"Because of today's decision we can expect to see an even more
pronounced increase in the use of illegal, military-style
no-knock raids. And we can expect to see more innocent civilians
wrongly targeted."
In "No SWAT," Balko writes that 'no-knock' 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. It's impossible
to estimate just how many wrong-door raids occur. Police and
prosecutors are notoriously inept at keeping track of their own
mistakes, and victims of botched raids are often too terrified
or fearful of retribution to come forward."
http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20060615
High Court Backs Police
No-Knock Searches
Thu Jun 15, 2006 15:41
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to knock a "preliminary misstep."
The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.
High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches
Forbes - 3 hours ago
... perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce ... and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it ...
GOOGLE: NO KNOCK >>
High Court Upholds 'No-Knock' Raids
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home. Justice Samuel Alito broke a 4-4 tie in siding with Detroit police, who called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three to five seconds later," the Associated Press reports. "The case had tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches."
Radley Balko, a Cato policy analyst and author of the upcoming Cato White Paper "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Drug Raids in America," says: "The Supreme Court's decision today in the case of Hudson v. Michigan is regrettable. The rise of paramilitary-type police units conducting 'no-knock' raids on American citizens is a disturbing trend in domestic law enforcement. Police excess, procedural errors, and reliance on 'confidential informants' of dubious character have caused hundreds of violent raids to be waged on completely innocent civilians. Dozens of nonviolent offenders, bystanders, and innocents have been killed or injured as a result. Because the courts have set the bar extremely high in allowing victims of botched raids to sue police officers and their superiors, the only real defense left against wholesale disregard for the rule requiring police to 'knock and announce' before entering private residences was to exclude evidence seized in illegal raids. Today, the Supreme Court removed that defense.
"Because of today's decision we can expect to see an even more pronounced increase in the use of illegal, military-style no-knock raids. And we can expect to see more innocent civilians wrongly targeted."
In "No SWAT," Balko writes that 'no-knock' 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. It's impossible to estimate just how many wrong-door raids occur. Police and prosecutors are notoriously inept at keeping track of their own mistakes, and victims of botched raids are often too terrified or fearful of retribution to come forward."
http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20060615
