knock...I don't have to knock.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/sc...rch/index.html

Yay, let the Bush Justices reign begin...

Apparently now if you are being served a search warrant, a knock is not necessary. Basically if the police feel like searching your place at 2 in the morning they can just bang your door down and come in...no knocking necessary.

Well, if this situation happens to me, I really hope I don't shoot the cop thinking someone is robbing me...or better yet..have my Pit Bull mangle the cop because he 'swat teamed' his way into my place.


Dumbest thing I have ever heard become legal!

And the winners are....
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/LAW/06/1....scalia.gi.jpg
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/LAW/06/1...t.alito.gi.jpg

That is a bit simplistic a response, Wagner. The full ruling indicated that the cops still needed to do things the usual way, including knock, but that if they did make some minor procedural mistake, that could not be used as the reason to throw out the whole case. We always moan about people "getting off on a technicality", well, the SCOTUS now said they agree.

I think that is the wrong place to look to clean up the technicallity issue.

Your suggestion, then?

Relieve the issues in court, don't remove the standards for the officers.

:iagree:

My reading of this is that police must have a warrant...and I am guessing the standard for getting a warrant is fairly stringent.

If this is not the case, sign me up for molotov cocktail duty.

Wanger,

Do you conduct illegal activities such that you think that the cop’s are coming to your home with a search warrant?

I'm assuming that you mean that as a joke and not seriously. A smiley or something would have helped. It's that kind of statement that can be taken the wrong way. Just my .02

Wanger is a big boy he can answer is own questions, I am so sick and tired of members editorial comments. The spelling and grammar is correct, the question is simple and not treating why do you need to interfere?