U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Michigan police re search and seizure without knocking and waiting first...
I call it news with an agenda and an attitude---a bad attitude and practice that displays liberal ideological bias, bordering on indoctrination. Which, of course is the intended purpose. Fair and balanced reporting and allowing the readers to decide is either not a concept they understand or not one to which they are willing to subscribe. Or both.
The article neglected to state clearly that the ruling was for Michigan and against Hudson. They also leave readers with the false impression that there is a "knock and announce protection" in the U.S. Constitution---which there is not. What happened was that a long-standing precedent, of miss-interpreting the Constitution to include something that is not in it, got struck down.
In my opinion, reasonable search and seizure does not mean the police have to give suspected criminals advance notice that would allow them to abscond or flush evidence before the police can get inside the door. It is absurd for anyone to advocate for a procedural requirement that hamstrings the police in the apprehension of criminals and obtaining evidence.
It's made all too clear in this article, that the AP is more than just passing unhappy with what they perceive to be the conservative tilt of the Court. A word of advice to them: Get over it!
Read it and see for yourself, below and here.
"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.
The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they 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 then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.
"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. But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.
The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench... She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion....
Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.
In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members..."