How long is too long to answer the door? 3 seconds?

[drone]

Don't bother getting up to answer the door when the police arrive, they will just let themselves in:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/sc...rch/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500730.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=04-1360

If the guys saying they don't need warrants to tap phones ever go out drinking with the Jack Booted Thugs, I think we can pretty much kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

And yes, I do hate Freedom, but I don't know why.

[rory_20_uk]

Am I missing something?

The police went in. They found drugs. I am assuming that they had a warrant for the search.

Were you in favour that the suspect has enough time to get rid of the drugs, as else it's a violation of the druggies rights?

You a defence lawyer?

[drone]

The police went in. They found drugs. I am assuming that they had a warrant for the search.

Yes, they had a warrant.

Were you in favour that the suspect has enough time to get rid of the drugs, as else it's a violation of the druggies rights?

The problem lies in the violation of the "knock and announce" rule of the 4th amendment. The state of Michigan concedes that a violation of this rule took place, yet this ruling states that a violation of this rule does not require the evidence to be supressed. What's the point of the rule then?

You a defence lawyer?

Um, hell no. And I'm sure Pindar or EA could shred my legal arguments while consuming vast quantities of crack. However, with a federal government already bypassing the warrant process, this ruling does not bode well for personal freedoms.

[yesdachi]

There must be some “if you think they are destroying evidence” clause. Like the one “if you think they are endangering someone”. If not, there should be.

[drone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_and_announce

A knock and announce warrant, in the American law of criminal procedure, requires that the officer tasked with the responsibility of executing the warrant must knock on the door of the home to be entered for a search or arrest, and to announce their purpose. The general rule is that a warrant must have these requirements unless the officer requesting the warrant can demonstrate to the issuing judge that requiring such a procedure would endanger human life or safety, or would create a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed. An officer executing a knock and announce warrant may nonetheless enter the home without knocking or announcing if exigent circumstances are present at the time the warrant is executed.

If an officer in possession of such a warrant fails to knock and announce, and no exigent circumstance was present, then the prosecutor may be barred under the exclusionary rule from introducing evidence seized in the entry and search of the home. However, the evidence may still be admitted if it can be shown that it would have been discovered irrespective of whether the officer had followed the instructions in the warrant.

Under current case-law (2006), the knock and announce provision of a warrant (as well as most other provisions) is largely meaningless, since penalties for violating the requirements are either non-existent, or easily circumvented.

I'm assuming this is the warrant type issued (reading the findlaw doc hurts my head). If the officers felt there would be danger to the police or evidence, they should have gotten the judges permission for quick entry.

[solypsist]

the principle here is that the police just can't help themselves to personal property without notice. the reason "knock and wait" laws are present is because back in the day when cops could just kick down the door and go go go, there were too many instances where they had the wrong house and innocent people (usually) were shot and killed for doing nothing illegal.

[solypsist]

You're operating under the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. Just because someone told them something that allowed them to get a warrant doesn't mean the person on the other side of the door broke any law. And just waltzing into a private residence and stomping around isn't supposed to be kosher...

But alas, those days are long gone.

Am I missing something?

The police went in. They found drugs. I am assuming that they had a warrant for the search.

[Crazed Rabbit]

When I saw the title, I knew what this was about.

You're right drone, this is a stupid decision that further erodes the constitution.

Of course, we need to have cops be able to bust down doors and shoot anyone inside to win the war on drugs.

Crazed Rabbit

[KukriKhan]

If the officers felt there would be danger to the police or evidence, they should have gotten the judges permission for quick entry.

This has been available to law enforcement in the US since the 1950's.

Lazy warrant-writing, and lazy prosecution is now enshrined in the US body of law.

This, along with Kelo v. City of New London gives the formal kiss-off to any notion that "A man's home is his castle".

I can't wait for the CNN headline: "Justice Antonin Scalia's House Accidentally Targeted by DEA"

[English assassin]

And I'm sure Pindar or EA could shred my legal arguments while consuming vast quantities of crack

Here's a tip kids; never instruct a lawyer who does crack. Crack is cheap. If he's any good athis job he should be able to afford high grade charlie at least....

I don't find US judgements all that easy to understand, but I thought this was persuasive reasoning:

The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable

What interests me is the locus of the court to imply interests into one of your constitutional provisions and to say that a breach of the constitution that does not affect those interests can be condoned. In the UK we regularly challenge the exercise of state powers on the basis of "improper purpose", (and the lawyers generally make up the purposes ) which is a bit similar I suppose.

In this case the substantive outciome would have been the same in the UK as the US. Our evidence gathering is governed by codes of copnduct under the Police and Criminal evidence Act, backed up with a general power to exclude "unfair" evidence:

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it

So a breach of the code is a big so what unless it leads to unfairness. But of course a statutory code and a constitutional amendment are not exactly on an equal footing.

[rory_20_uk]

It is not a case of guilty until proven innocent, it is ascertaining whether guilty or innocent.

If your police require such laws as they are so incompetant they routinely kick down the wrong doors and shoot people I guess that waiting for the door to be opened is sadly required.

[English assassin]

If your police require such laws as they are so incompetant they routinely kick down the wrong doors and shoot people I guess that waiting for the door to be opened is sadly required.

Yeah, because the metropolitan police would NEVER kick down the wrong door and shoot someone...http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...796915,00.html

[rory_20_uk]

The main comment was that it was the wrong house and the wrong person. They shot the right person (the suspect - hopefully with just cause). A link other thant he Guardian can add some credance. When a paper can write that all the Endlish flags flying is a sign of racism I feel that they have moved that bit closer to being used as my toilet paper.

The police did what they were told. Whether the intelligence was faulty is not the fault of the front line officers.

[English assassin]

Hmm. Well, the police went to the address they intended to go to, fair enough, but they haven't found any evidence of any connection with terrorism. And its clear beyond doubt that the person shot was unarmed.

if this amounts to arresting and shooting the right person then you could say the Birmingham six and the Guildford four were the right people. After all, the police knew who they were. It was just the minor detail that they hadn't actually done anything illegal that the police got wrong.

Bottom line is I don't think the UK is on strong ground being critical of US police tactics in raiding houses.

[rory_20_uk]

That the laws are passed preventing entry unless let in in case the police gun down an elderly couple IMO points to a severe problem.

The intel was wrong, and that's probably something MI5 is discussing with somebody.

Woud you rather that the security services:

Ignored all warnings concerning chemical / biological weaponry. ignorance is bliss - and chances are most warnings are wrong anyway.
Acted on it, but knocked on the door to be let in. We're english - they'd not leave us on the porch!
Knocked down the door, but relied on good fortune that suspected terrorists wouldn't have any guns. After all guns are illegal...

Funny that when two bombs in London go off the security forces get a nut ripped off for not doing enough.

Then when they think they've got something they go in prepared for anything... And get the other one ripped off.

If they'd gone in (or in the future went in) and an officer got shot in the face they'd get blamed for not being armed / acting quickly enough.

I know that the Guardian can be very smug in both cases and sneer at the police. But then that is their job. Analyising and acting on often uncertain intelligence is the security forces.