| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| US Supreme Court punches another hole in 4th Amendment |
| 2011-05-17 |
| The Supreme Court on Monday gave law enforcement officers new authority to enter a home without a warrant. The court ruled 8 to 1 that Kentucky police who smelled marijuana at an apartment door, knocked loudly and announced themselves, and then kicked in the door when they thought the drugs were being destroyed did nothing wrong. Justice Ginsberg was the sole dissenter, saying "The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases...In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant." The Supremes overturned a ruling by the Kentucky state supreme court which had said the police had created the emergency circumstances that they used to justify their failure to get a warrant to enter the apartment. |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #18 FR, OK comes across as very deliberate in the comments section, and totally agree MSM is more gossip than educational. A ruling by the SC sets precident. What concerns me is theory vs. reality. Its that crap movie Training Day become real, because if all law enforcement were good there would be no need of all the rules. I do not like losing the right to not answer my door for whatever reason. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-05-17 23:44 |
| #17 swIFF- IANAL, I have just been reading Kerr (at Volokh) for a while; he has thusfar been a careful writer. So what I got from that link was that the SC did NOT give law enforcement "new authority to enter w/o warrant..." rather, they fenced in the already-existing 'exigent circumstances' exception if they themselves created the exigency. I have learned (from a very thoughtful exchange with another one of the writers there) that MSM journalists have a very uneven record with explaining Court decisions. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2011-05-17 23:11 |
| #16 So what happens if someone knocks on the door and says, "Police. Open up." Except you do not know if they are really the police. If you have a door viewer, can you ask for ID and phone it in to see if it is fake or not? It can be a dangerous and sticky wicket. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2011-05-17 22:37 |
| #15 FR, perhaps you or somebody could help explain your good link. Police knock on door, say open or else...it is a violation if King opens the door or tells them to go off and the police enter anyways. But by not responding, the police had reasonable suspicion to enter. Did not comment on whether entry was lawful or not, just that behavior is ok with the 4th. Descrepency with the officers' report on how the door was knocked on will determine whether occupent was coerced or not. Does not make me feel better. I'm a realist, this stuff happens, but as official policy I have a concern. So its late at night, and I hear banging on my back door. I think some maniac is trying to get in so (*I'm in defense mode at this point but that is a worse situation) I don't hear the police yelling. Door gets kicked in and its the police. They do a sweep, say they are looking for a possible burgler. They find something illegal, like an incondescent lightbulb. I get charged because it is not unreasonable search because the officers were in persuit of a suspect, I created suspicion because I couldn't get out of bed quick enough, or my TV had a slasher flick on, or was not even at home to say yes or no. So it comes down to officer testimony vs. my presumed innocence testimony, but they found something illegal. How am I not testifying against myself? With the right knock phrase in court, I'm shitcanned. Look, I'm a realist, and I know there are good people chasing down bad people, but I am not comforted by this ruling. Without recorded audio it is word vs. word, men over law. In short, if a ball game and instant replay is triggered, refs can now call other violations while reviewing? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-05-17 22:26 |
| #14 In related news: Patriot Act provision allows for "delayed notification" when homes are secretly searched. The number of delayed-notice search warrants spiked nationally from nearly 700 in fiscal year 2007 to close to 2,000 in 2009. “While billed as an anti-terror tool, (a sneak-and-peek warrant) had no requirements on it that it precluded it from being used in standard criminal investigations.” |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-05-17 21:16 |
| #13 This case seems a lot more subtle than it appeared at first glance. Especially the fact that the case has been sent back to the Kentucky courts, b/c the facts weren't very clear during oral arguments. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2011-05-17 19:20 |
| #12 This case should have been simplified to a single issue. Often is the case in police pursuits in buildings, where the police are confronted by more than a single door, not knowing behind which door a suspect retreated. While the law permits them entry through other doors, 1) Unless the suspect is behind that door, or what is behind that door is under the control or use of the suspect prior to or in the course of the pursuit, and would serve as evidence against him, while being at risk of destruction otherwise, before a warrant could be obtained, it is inadmissible as evidence. 2) If an officer enters a wrong door and finds evidence related to a crime or crimes, he may confiscate that evidence, but it is inadmissible as evidence in a separate case from the suspect. Thus the failure of this Supreme Court decision can be better seen in the light of an extreme case: In pursuing a suspect, the police observe him fleeing into an apartment building. Then having cleared all corridors and storage areas, the police assume he has fled into 1 of 100 rooms. In that the suspect is regarded as a severe threat, the police decide to systematically enter each and every room. If the persons therein are innocent, they will be evacuated. However, in the course of this emergency, many people are detected as doing, or being in possession of, illegal things. With this SCOTUS ruling, they can all be arrested. Room 99 is rented by the suspect's mother, and he has full and free access to it, though he lives in apartment 100, where he has fled. So after breaking through 98 other doors, they break into his mother's apartment. Divining that there is evidence related to the investigation of the suspect, in the simplified version of the decision, it would be admissible. Finally, they break down door 100, arrest the suspect with admissible evidence against him. In the SCOTUS decision, though, 30 other people may be arrested as well, which is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment. In the simplified version, while the police may have confiscated duffel bags full of contraband, none of them may be charged. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-05-17 19:16 |
| #11 I keep thinking back to this, what a load of bullshit. The officers acted on a glorified (and understandable) hunch, when the original target was not found the evidence should have been dismissed - and was until el supreme. I have to ask (other than the officers' drug sniffing degrees and test scores) how would the officers have determined which apartment to search had there not been a distinctive oder? Which ones have nice cars out front? Certain music? Whether the door is locked? Race or accent of apartment dweller? My other observation is who pushed pot bust in obvious violation as, acting on a hunch, was a random search of a private residence, all the way to the big gov supreme? 8 to 1, despicable. Hey court, I was taught when I was growing up that the bad guys wear black so does that mean if I had a badge I could search anyone wearing black because they might have drugs on them? Charles I understand, Judge Dredd powers with diminishing acceptance standards. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-05-17 18:56 |
| #10 I am suddenly feeling very nervous about this country surviving long enough for me to reach retirement. |
| Posted by: Charles 2011-05-17 16:36 |
| #9 Selling pot can be a fairly serious crime. I did't realize smoking pot was a public safety emergency. |
| Posted by: Angimp Henbane6786 2011-05-17 16:09 |
| #8 I take it this does not apply to Islamic |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-05-17 15:44 |
| #7 Present the evidence they knocked and yelled police. Lucky nobody got shot, dig? What did they think would happen, think they would not try to destroy evidence? Where is the evidence of the drug sale or did they sting without video or audio? Why not wait for them to leave then bust them and have a warrent instead of storming the castle? I don't know who is who and maybe they were bad guys, but without these simple questions taken into consideration, its either shoddy or too aggressive law work. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-05-17 14:32 |
| #6 The ONLY reason officers should enter a home without a warrant or un-invited is IF and ONLY there is an IMMEDIATE threat to the inhabitants, and even then any evidence gathered without a warrant should be inadmissible. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-05-17 14:28 |
| #5 I was thinking about posting an article, too. This is not a hole, but an abyss. Carte blanche (pardon the French) to raid any home without a warrant. "We knocked, heard a toilet flushing so we broke the door" This is crazy. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2011-05-17 13:39 |
| #4 Last week, I thought the similar Indiana case would be resoundingly overturned by the US Supremes; shows you how in touch with current realities I am. I can't believe the only strict constitutionalist in the bunch is Ginsberg..... |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2011-05-17 13:14 |
| #3 This is how you fight a war on drug use. Too bad they didn't give the potheads the osama treatment. Save us the cost of a trial. /sarc. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-05-17 11:56 |
| #2 A couple college kids smoking a doobie created "Emergency Circumstances"? Wow. I don't know what to say. |
| Posted by: Angimp Henbane6786 2011-05-17 11:53 |
| #1 Supreme Tyranny. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-05-17 11:34 |