I don't trust Alito as far as I can throw him, but...

[torquill]

I don't see quite what people are hollering about on this Supreme Court ruling, which states that law enforcement does not have to knock (i.e. announce its presence) before entering a building, so long as they have a valid search warrant.

Maybe it's because I have heard several LEOs rant about the fact that knocking and calling out "Police" is exactly the sort of cue some kooks need to grab a gun or otherwise ready themselves for invasion. In many cases, the worst that happens is that a suspect dives for a back door/window, but in a few situations, declaring increases the risk of injury to the officers significantly, and makes a suspect harder to apprehend. I hope that officers are still trained to knock in apparently low-risk situations, as it can be less inflammatory and easier on everyone involved than immediately kicking the door down, but if they feel there is a problem behind the door, go ahead and use the surprise factor.

The other problem is what the article mentions -- if police even call out their presence but neglect to physically knock, is that enough to discard the case on? To my mind, that could probably be solved by a clarification ("shall make a reasonable effort to announce and identify their presence to occupants" or some such), but there is the technicality issue.

Now, if the ruling stated that they didn't have to knock regardless of whether they had a warrant -- even when lacking the right to enter legally without permission -- then you would see me screaming about illegal searches. Same with allowing the use of evidence collected in violation of Fourth Amendment rights, though I am admittedly fuzzy on the extent of those rights beyond the need for a warrant issued by a judge. The opinion on evidence is one which the Alito court has suggested it wants to revisit, and I feel very strongly that it should stand as is.


Someone raised the question, however: since you are granted, at least in Florida and perhaps other states, the legal right to shoot anyone who breaks into your home, what of warrant-backed B/E?


the answer is pretty obvious, but it's an amusing clash of right-wing values.

Comments

[knaveofhearts.livejournal.com]

The answer isn't as obvious as you think, and if there is no effort made by LEOs to differentiate themselves from burglars except by breaking down the door and yelling "Police", then they will get shot at by those whose homes are being invaded.

If you have a warrant, treat me like I'm innocent -- because I am! -- and then you'll get what you need without further ado. Break into my home, however, and run the risk of being treated as a common thief.

[firestrike.livejournal.com]

Even in California, you have the right to shoot anyone kicking in your door. The critical phrase to remember is "I was in fear for my life." The major problem with that is that officers serving a warrant who take fire after kicking in the door are not likely to simply turn and peacefully leave the premises.

[caffiene-fiend.livejournal.com]

It's the libertarian vs. the republican. I smile. I agree with knave, though I think that they should do it like you see on COPS. As the LEO is kicking down the door he says "police, search warrant."

[firestrike.livejournal.com]

The potential for violence/flight/destruction of evidence is the reason for the issuance of no-knock warrants. Under Wilson v Arkansas, officers executing a warrant were permitted to enter without having to knock and announce if they established "the reasonableness of an unannounced entry", which meant convincing the judge that there was reason to break in without warning.

My issue with this ruling is that while it does not make the knock and announce rule invalid, it effectively removes any remedy for violations of the rule by ruling that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply. "You can't do it, but there's no real penalty if you do." While I understand their desire for caution when extending the impact of the exclusionary rule, I would have preferred that the court replace the exclusionary rule with another form of remedy.