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?

Try again with the spelling and grammar. :tsk:

I'll but in by saying that I think your question is not relevant to the issue Wagner, not Wanger, has raised. These rules and 'technicalities' exist to protect the rights of those who are NOT expecting the cops to bust into their house with a warrant.

And there is no apostrophe in cops. :)

Look, I'm just trying to save your a$$ from getting roasted as in every other thread. That statement as is could be taken the wrong way by the person it was directed to or anyone reading it. Do you know him/her well enough that you can say that and know it'll be taken the way you meant it?

Clarification:

1)I would find highly unlikely that Wanger or anyone else in the group is a criminal.

2)I don’t like Bush but I think that the reaction of the ultra liberal’s about wire taps and related actions are over the top.

3)By asking the question, I was trying to make the point that most Americans don’t have anything to worry about.

4)Was I baiting, yes was I mean or insulting no.

5)What I really think is that most people know that I am generally anti modification and they don’t like that and go out of their way to make a issue out of nothing.

First things first: KNOCK IT OFF!!! :mad:

Second, I am always interested in Wagner's posts and I think we share quite a few opinions in common but this issue needs some clarification. The Supreme Court has not eliminated the requirement that a search warrant is required for a search of someone's home, reviewed and approved by a magistrate. I won't get into it but there are a bunch of exceptions to needing a search warrant that have been upheld throughout the years. Television is not the best way to learn about search and seizure law. Anyway, the issue is what is called "knock notice". Cops are required to knock and give notice of their presence before entry. The issue in this case was the amount of time they waited before entering if they waited at all. There is no magic number.

As you can imagine, there are many cases where if you are the cops you don't want the bad guys to have time to flush the dope, flee, or worst yet, arm themselves. I have been witness to many search warrants where it was a "soft knock" when it goes down like a visitor to your house. Knock, knock, door opens, cops go in and nothing gets broken. Then again, there have been some high risk warrants where the bad guys are known to be armed, have fortified the doors and windows, and make every effort to not let the cops in. Clearly, requiring the police to wait after knocking is neither smart nor safe. Prime example: A crack house had a security screen, reinforced door jambs, the windows were all reinforced with metal bars and plywood, and even the bathroom door had a security screen ON THE INTERIOR DOOR, and a big bucket of water to flush the dope in a hurry. Those kinds of places and people do not say understand a request to please open the door. What they got was a truck yanking out the security screen and a ram through the door. :thumbup:

Just remember that a search warrant is generally still required. Also, for added peace of mind, know that when a search warrant is to be served before 7:00 am and after 10:00 pm, a special endorsement is required based on good reasons for serving the warrant at those times.

Bingo. Two of my friends are Sheriffs Deputies and they do a similar approach to serve a warrant, tap on the door, yell Deputies we have a warrant and then give about two seconds for a response before banging the door down. In high test situation the SWAT would be used, if the person was such a threat to arm themselves. I recall an incident in Maryland where two deputies serving warrants were shot, one killed, by the individual. However, this was the only incident in MD I have heard of in the last decade that this has happened. To me, the threat does not justify the means. And contrary to poplular belief some search warrants issued are against persons that didn't do anything...not to mention the high chance of breaking in to a home the 'person' does not reside in.

I think we live in a world of compromises.

1) We are at war and theorists have evaded the world and kill innocent people.

2) As result the government has taken steps that impact our basic rights but these actions help protect us from theorists.

3) I am aware of cases where police have storm in the homes of sweet little old ladies and created damage and fear. These mistakes happened before and they will happen again.

I don't think we have too much to fear from theorists.

Terrorists are a different matter, and a group that should be destroyed.

So the Wangers of the world and myself can pretty much relax after 10:00PM? Except for Islamic theorists?

PS Are there any Fourth Amendment experts here? Where's the gentleman with that caustic Kevin Spacey avatar...(touchy subject, my wife has a thing for 'ole Kevin).

Not sure are you a theorists?

Wish I could spell better.

I think PersonaNonGrata is right to say that there is not very much to worry about here. Compared to the rights squandered in the Patriot Act, this is nothing.

At least there is still the requirement of a warrent, which means there is oversight. What scares me about some of the things in the Patriot Act is that it eliminates any oversight, meaning that such powers can easily be abused. And as we know from past American history and the Church Committee hearings during the 1970s, such powers have been abused many times in the past.

As long as there is oversight over law enforcement by a court of some sort, then I am ok with it. :)

Peace...your native tongue is I believe, officially considered the toughest language in the world to master, so all due respect in that your English is far better than my Icelandic.

There is a very subtle and very funny result in confusing a terrorist with a theorist, and calling a guy Wanger is actually very funny--it sounds a little like a British slang word...I have no idea how this could translate...I learned last week that a certain Japanese 4x4, I think it is the Pajero, had to have the name changed for export to Argentina, because in Argentine slang, a "pajero" is the same as a masturbator.

So any of you thinking of exporting a Pajero to Argentina, be prepared at customs.

Guess I could use your "Mod-erately Challenged" listing. Peace.

You have asked x54.4blue before if he was truly from Iceland, based on his flag selection, and he ignored the inquiry. Therefore, your peace offering may be accurate, or not. :whistle:

No I am not from Iceland, just thought the Flag looked nice.

English is my native tongue, still does not mean I can spell.

mitsubishi pajero = mitsubishi montero (for the philippines and some other asian countries, I don't know if that term applies to all.

Hahaha, great insight on the argentine slang. I'll keep that in mind.

Here I am.

I'm no expert, and I haven't read the opinion yet. From what I've heard, the warrant requirement is still alive and well, and Mr. NonGrata's take is spot on -- as usual.

Sounds like Hudson v. Michigan is merely an extension of the earlier line of "knock and announce" cases (beginning with Wilson v. Arkansas), the progeny of which contained several exceptions to that requirement. This appears to be the most recent in a long line of exceptions to The Exclusionary Rule -- which is also still alive and well.

But, I was absent that day, so...:D