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.

[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"

[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