Is No Knock Unreasonable?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

Does obtaining a legal search warrant satisfy the requirement for reasonable searches? Does a knock on the door make the search itself anymore reasonable?
 
Why am I not surprised?

Nonestly I had no idea anyway that they had to knock, I knew about the announce thing but not that. Luckily I have no experience like that with the police. I think a knock and announce is perfectly reasonable to expect.
 
It may be reasonable to expect, but is it Constitutionally required?

I find this an interesting case, because it challenges the status quo and forces a re-analysis in light of the Constitution. If a judge signs off on a search warrant, does that not establish, by itself, that a search is reasonable? What does a knock and wait add in the context of investitgating criminal conduct?
 
How often has an announcement of warrant lead to a suspect fleeing or evidence being destroyed?

I consider the knock a courtesy, one that probably hasn't inhibited law enforcement terribly much. Could there be an allowance for no-knock in certain instances? I don't doubt that there are different proscribed actions for different conditons in place already.

I feel that no-knock could be abused if it was allowed in every situation.
 
A_Wanderer said:

I consider the knock a courtesy, one that probably hasn't inhibited law enforcement terribly much. Could there be an allowance for no-knock in certain instances? I don't doubt that there are different proscribed actions for different conditons in place already.

I feel that no-knock could be abused if it was allowed in every situation.

:up:
 
A_Wanderer said:
How often has an announcement of warrant lead to a suspect fleeing or evidence being destroyed?

I consider the knock a courtesy, one that probably hasn't inhibited law enforcement terribly much. Could there be an allowance for no-knock in certain instances? I don't doubt that there are different proscribed actions for different conditons in place already.

I feel that no-knock could be abused if it was allowed in every situation.

I agree. With search warrants, most of them list specific items. They don't give the police the right to barge in and seize anything they want as evidence. I would even go beyond the politeness and argue that the knock is more for identification. Anyone has the right to demand a police officer show his or her badge. What if you were executing a search warrant at some yahoo's house and when you barged in, he thought you were thieves and open fired? I don't think it's always fair to assume that the people will know that it's the police and know what they've come looking for.

Arrest warrants, however, are different because often the knock/"it's the police, open up!" does give the suspect opportunity to flee.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I feel that no-knock could be abused if it was allowed in every situation.



A_W, you really need to trust the government more. they know what's best -- they need more power to keep us safe.

after all, this is why Roberts and Alito were put on the court.
 
A_Wanderer said:
How often has an announcement of warrant lead to a suspect fleeing or evidence being destroyed?

I consider the knock a courtesy, one that probably hasn't inhibited law enforcement terribly much. Could there be an allowance for no-knock in certain instances? I don't doubt that there are different proscribed actions for different conditons in place already.

I feel that no-knock could be abused if it was allowed in every situation.

You really have moved on to a second level of analysis, beyond what is constitutionally required to what we would really like (courtesy).

No-knock, as described in this case, is limited to situation where a judge authorized search warrant is issued.
 
nbcrusader said:


You really have moved on to a second level of analysis, beyond what is constitutionally required to what we would really like (courtesy).


Yeah, you're making a good point.

Where does the Constutition factor in here? - Say Phil committed some awful crime. Since he stays at my house a lot, police want to search my place for something they think he left at my house. Meanwhile, Phil hasn't confided to me about the crime he committed, so I have no reason to suspect anything in my place of residence has anything to do with a crime. The police have a search warrant to search my home for a specific thing. I'm at home and I just got out of the shower so I'm naked, looking for some clothes. The police just barge in without any indication or identification. Now if they'd identified themselves as police officers, I would've put a towel on and let them in to search for the item. I would be VERY VERY pissed off and feel VERY VERY violated. Now, I don't like thinking of these weird hypotheticals, but if we're talking Constitutional rights, I've got to believe that my rights are somehow being violated by a bunch of unidentified men barging into my home while I, as someone who is not involved in any crime, am standing there naked.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
I'm at home and I just got out of the shower so I'm naked, looking for some clothes. The police just barge in without any indication or identification.



or, what if you had been at home smoking pot.

or, what if you were 20 and were having a beer.
 
also, let's consider this as a reason for knocking:



[q]'He looked at me and shot. As soon as he had eye contact, he shot me'

· Brothers tell of moment officers raided their home
· Police apology two weeks after Forest Gate alert

Hugh Muir
Wednesday June 14, 2006
The Guardian

First he heard a scream. The next thing Mohammed Abdulkayar remembered was making eye contact in the darkness with the man who stood at the bottom of the stairs. At that instant, without warning and, he says, without provocation, the police officer fired a shot which tore through his chest and exited through his right shoulder. He slumped against the wall, bleeding and senseless.

Yesterday, three days after he was released without charge having been arrested and held for more than a week under the Terrorism Act, Mr Abdulkayar, 23, gave his account of the events which have devastated his family and plunged an already beleaguered Scotland Yard into even deeper crisis.

Speaking at an emotional news conference just half a mile from his now deserted family home in Forest Gate, east London, Mr Abdulkayar said: "I believe the only crime I have committed is being Asian and having a long length beard. He looked at me straight away and shot. As soon as I turned the steps and we both had eye contact he shot me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1796915,00.html

[/q]
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Yeah, you're making a good point.

Where does the Constutition factor in here? - Say Phil committed some awful crime. Since he stays at my house a lot, police want to search my place for something they think he left at my house. Meanwhile, Phil hasn't confided to me about the crime he committed, so I have no reason to suspect anything in my place of residence has anything to do with a crime. The police have a search warrant to search my home for a specific thing. I'm at home and I just got out of the shower so I'm naked, looking for some clothes. The police just barge in without any indication or identification. Now if they'd identified themselves as police officers, I would've put a towel on and let them in to search for the item. I would be VERY VERY pissed off and feel VERY VERY violated. Now, I don't like thinking of these weird hypotheticals, but if we're talking Constitutional rights, I've got to believe that my rights are somehow being violated by a bunch of unidentified men barging into my home while I, as someone who is not involved in any crime, am standing there naked.

Frankly, these are great examples of unintended consequences of Phil's hypothetical criminal behavior. In balancing the benefit to society of swift criminal investigation against personal emotional trauma or inconvenience, the benefit to society may win in that analysis. No one acts in a vacuum - a person's criminal acts will have an impact on others.

I would think that the use of no knock would be driven by the quick disposability of the evidence. Flushable drugs or computer files would drive the need for faster entry.

As for Irvine's examples, I'm not sure the evidence of illegal activity unassociated with a warrant is admissible. Or at least there are strong arguments to exclude the evidence.
 
And the anti-terror raid after the Madrid bombings in which the terrorists blew up the raiding special operations squad would be a good reason not to knock in those situations.
 
That's the balancing question that takes place in all Constitutional analysis. The government exists for the benefit to society. The Constitution exists for the rights of the individual.
 
I believe that anti-terrorism raids do sit outside the prosciptions of regular search warrant and do not involve knocking on the door and politely asking if the police can enter, they should be planned meticulously and executed effectively with full oversight. The raids in the UK seem like an intelligence failure more than anything else, incidently the brother was at the Al Gharuba march to protest the Jyllands-Posten cartoons which should have hit a few red flags.

Individuals do not have the right to blow up other people, the magnitude of a specific threat is a factor in response (somebody wanted for a hit and run is different than a chemical weapons bomber) - how the police respond to the threat and make arrests has to be done in a way that will prevent or minimise loss of life and not put people at undue risk including the police. If the action is unwarranted then the victim of the absuse can seek large compensation for what was done to them.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


In balancing the benefit to society of swift criminal investigation against personal emotional trauma or inconvenience, the benefit to society may win in that analysis. No one acts in a vacuum - a person's criminal acts will have an impact on others.


Then I hope they're ok with getting maced! Seriously, someone came in the house yesterday and I was home alone, just getting out of the shower. I had a spray bottle of tile cleaner in my hand. But, it was just Phil.

Having grown up in the shitty part of town during a period of gang war, if someone comes into my house with no warning or identification, I assume the worse.
 
Irvine511 said:
so what is our concern?

the rights of individuals, or notions of "benefits to society"?
The rights of individuals? Are you kidding?

Why support policies that fall in favor of criminals?
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
The rights of individuals? Are you kidding?

Why support policies that fall in favor of criminals?

I think Irvine is referencing policies that favor all individuals (applying to suspects, not convicts).

That is why a balancing test is used.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The rights of individuals? Are you kidding?

Why support policies that fall in favor of criminals?



the only reason you have any rights is becasue we have a system that protects the rights of everybody, even the guilty.
 
Back
Top Bottom