Is the knock-and-announce rule still valuable in modern times?

[Gokul43201]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/w...&en=84b4802158d1130d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, June 15 — Evidence found by police officers who enter a home to execute a search warrant without first following the requirement to "knock and announce" can be used at trial despite that constitutional violation, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The 5-to-4 decision left uncertain the value of the "knock-and-announce" rule, which dates to 13th-century England as protection against illegal entry by the police into private homes.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, said that people subject to an improper police entry remained free to go to court and bring a civil rights suit against the police.

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the ruling "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." He said the majority's reasoning boiled down to: "The requirement is fine, indeed, a serious matter, just don't enforce it."

Yet another Constitutional protection weakened.

Was that rule just dumb in the first place or is this the need of the times?

 

[Cyrus]

Well, they have a search warrant. Why do they need to knock and "inform" the persons inside that its time to scram out the back and hide the loot?

I don't think the knock and announce rule is a 'constitutional protection' after all, they have warrant to search your house if you agree to it or not.

 

[edward]

So now according to recent Supreme Court decisions, the police can enter and search my home unannounced. Then the local jurisdiction can take my property and sell it to a developer who will build a motel 6. GREAT

 

[edward]

Well, they have a search warrant. Why do they need to knock and "inform" the persons inside that its time to scram out the back and hide the loot?

I don't think the knock and announce rule is a 'constitutional protection' after all, they have warrant to search your house if you agree to it or not.

As for scramming out the back, the police should be smart enough to cover the back because even during an unannouced entry, some one can still scram out the back.

Breaking down doors unannounced, especially in the middle of the night is not a wise idea, it is going to result in a lot of unecessary gunfire.

Now if someone wanted to round up unarmed Jews or members of other ethnic groups, this tactic is historically proven to work.

 

[Pengwuino]

So you're saying this procedure is somehow a final step towards another Holocaust?

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, they have a search warrant. Why do they need to knock and "inform" the persons inside that its time to scram out the back and hide the loot?

I don't think the knock and announce rule is a 'constitutional protection' after all, they have warrant to search your house if you agree to it or not.

You are aware that there is (or has been, until two days ago, at least) such a thing as a "no-knock" warrant, that could be given for special circumstances?The Fourth Amendment :

Execution of Warrants--The manner of execution of warrants is generally governed by statute and rule, as to time of execution, method of entry, and the like. It was a rule at common law that before an officer could break and enter he must give notice of his office, authority, and purpose and must in effect be refused admittance, and until recently this has been a statutory requirement in the federal system and generally in the States. In Ker v. California, the Court considered the rule of announcement as a constitutional requirement, although a majority there found circumstances justifying entry without announcement. In Wilson v. Arkansas, the Court determined that the common law ''knock and announce'' rule is an element of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. The rule does not, however, require announcement under all circumstances. The presumption in favor of announcement yields under various circumstances, including those posing a threat of physical violence to officers, those in which a prisoner has escaped and taken refuge in his dwelling, and those in which officers have reason to believe that destruction of evidence is likely. Recent federal laws providing for the issuance of warrants authorizing in certain circumstances ''no-knock'' entries to execute warrants will no doubt present the Court with opportunities to explore the configurations of the rule of announcement.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html#1

 

[Cyrus]

As for scramming out the back, the police should be smart enough to cover the back because even during an unannouced entry, some one can still scram out the back.

Breaking down doors unannounced, especially in the middle of the night is not a wise idea, it is going to result in a lot of unecessary gunfire.

Now if someone wanted to round up unarmed Jews or members of other ethnic groups, this tactic is historically proven to work.

Well sure, I realize that the police cover the back door. I was just saying that to make a point. It really serves no purpose to knock on the door. If the police knock on the door of a drug lab, let's not assume that they will open the door welcoming the police in .

In any event, we cannot say what is or is not safer to any degree of authority.

Your last comment serves no benifit to the discussion, so I will respectfully ignore it.

 

[Cyrus]

To Gokul,

Well, the quote you have cited is not the fourth amendment, so I will source it from wikipedia below:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this, no where do I read about knocking. In fact, on reading your source, I clearly see:

The manner of execution of warrants is generally governed by statute and rule, as to time of execution, method of entry, and the like.

Therefore, this is a state issue, and NOT part of the amendment. And NOT a violation of the constituional rights. In fact, it states the police can enter via any method deemed acceptable by statue or rule.

 

[kyleb]

Announced entry is one of the standards that set civilized society apart from the kingdoms of old as well as dictatorships of today. Throwing one more in a countless number of drug dealers in jail isn't worth giving up the respect for individual rights which our forefathers have fought so hard to secure and maintain.

 

[edward]

So you're saying this procedure is somehow a final step towards another Holocaust?

No, but historically it was the first step in the original one.

BTW I am thinking that federal agents don't have to knock and announce anyway. I have seen a lot of local police departments who just are not qualified to make this kind of entry.

 

[Cyrus]

Announced entry is one of the standards that set civilized society apart from the kingdoms of old as well as dictatorships of today. Throwing one more in a countless number of drug dealers in jail isn't worth giving up the respect for individual rights which our forefathers have fought so hard to secure and maintain.

This is simply not the case. Who is giving up individual rights by not knocking? Your forefathers fought to secure and maintain that police knock on your door when they have a legal warrant? This is a highly emotional argument. Please put try to keep it more relevant to the discussion.

 

[kyleb]

To Gokul,

Well, the quote you have cited is not the fourth amendment, so I will source it from wikipedia below:



In this, no where do I read about knocking. In fact, on reading your source, I clearly read:



Therefore, this is a state issue, and NOT part of the amendment. And NOT a violation of the constituional rights.

You are overlooking the intent of the term "unreasonable." our founders held enough respect for their fellow man to understand that kicking down a persons door unanounced with only suspension of evidence simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

 

[edward]

Announced entry is one of the standards that set civilized society apart from the kingdoms of old as well as dictatorships of today. Throwing one more in a countless number of drug dealers in jail isn't worth giving up the respect for individual rights which our forefathers have fought so hard to secure and maintain.

I would imagine this is more about drug dealers flushing the evidence than anything. Hells bells a simple inflatable drain plug used by plumbers could resolve that. The plugs can be snaked in from down the street. They even have cameras that can be snaked in and look right up the potty.

Just turning of the water to the residence will only allow the bad guys to have one flush.

 

[Cyrus]

You are overlooking the intent of the term "unreasonable." our founders held enough respect for their fellow man to understand that kicking down a persons door unanounced with only suspension of evidence simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

Did they? Then why did they not explicitly state this in the constitution? The founders of the constituion used the wording they did for a very important reason. When they had to be specific, they were VERY specific.

When they were not as specific, they left it to the states to decide what is "unreasonable."

Finally, your argument is factually incorrect. We are not talking about "only suspicion of evidence", we are talking about a warrant.

 

[Pengwuino]

You are overlooking the intent of the term "unreasonable." our founders held enough respect for their fellow man to understand that kicking down a persons door unanounced with only suspension of evidence simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.

... the founding fathers had people tossed in jail simply for not supporting their cause... do you really think they would be appauled at the idea that someone with a warrant out for them is being unreasonably dehumanized by having a piece of wood broken?

 

[kyleb]

This is simply not the case. Who is giving up individual rights by not knocking?

If you happened to get your door kicked in unannounced would you think you gave anything up there or rather would you conclude that your right to be secure in your home was forcibly taken from you?

Your forefathers fought to secure and maintain that police knock on your door when they have a legal warrant? This is a highly emotional argument. Please put try to keep it more relevant to the discussion.

It is historical fact, and one quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[edward]

I wonder how the Supreme Court reconciles it's recent ruling with the one below?

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case titled Wilson V. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, stressed the importance of the knock and announce rule by holding for the first time that the rule is part of the reasonableness element of the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring2003TR/spring2003knockandannounce.htm

 

[Cyrus]

If you happened to get your door kicked in unannounced would you think you anything up there or rather would you conclude that your right to be secure in your home was forcibly taken from you?

It is historical fact, and one quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

When the police come into your house, they must present you with a warrant. So if they break down your door and handcuff you, you will still be shown a warrant. (As far as I am aware).

If it is a historical fact, I would be interested in reading the link.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you happened to get your door kicked in unannounced would you think you anything up there or rather would you conclude that your right to be secure in your home was forcibly taken from you?

Can you restate this phrase or fix it, I am a little confused about what your saying near the middle (edit). Specifically, "would you think you anything up there" is confusing me

 

[Cyrus]

I wonder how the Supreme Court reconciles it's recent ruling with the one below?


http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring2003TR/spring2003knockandannounce.htm

With all due respect art, if you are going to quote something, don't misquote it.

The court determined that the three-second wait before they pushed in the door was reasonable.

I suggest reading through the rest of your source. It clearly states that:

The answer to the question of what is reasonable time is more of an art form than a science. In a nutshell, what is reasonable depends on the particular and unique circumstances of each case. For example, when a warrant is executed in the middle of the night, the time may increase because it unlikely that the occupants would be readily available to respond to the knock.
Courts across the country have wrestled with the questions of what constitutes a reasonable time in specific cases and the decisions seem to range from a few seconds to a minute

 

[edward]

It is historical fact, and one quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

It is definitely historical fact: From the Tactical Responce link above.

The knock and announce rule requires that officers knock and announce their presence before they enter a dwelling while executing search warrants. The basis for the rule is found in the Fourth Amendment. It is not so well known that the knock and announce rule is something that predates the U.S. Constitution. It was actually part of English law well before the American Revolution in 1776.

 

[Cyrus]

Quite right; however, this was not the historical fact I was referring to. I was talking about his fathers fighting for ...I don't know whatever his point of that was...it was simply an emotional appeal.

Anyways, back to facts.

Again edward, it was part of ENGLISH law. This is not OUR law. It might have been customary at the time, but so what? This is NOT a law! I reapeat, that is NOT a law.

 

[kyleb]

Pengwuino, my mistake, I edited the post to set that straight.

Did they? Then why did they not explicitly state this in the constitution? The founders of the constituion used the wording they did for a very important reason. When they had to be specific, they were VERY specific.

When they were not as specific, they left it to the states to decide what is "unreasonable."

And they epected people to be reasonable enough to know better than to violate the security of a man's home, which is clearly explained in the ammendment.

Finally, your argument is factually incorrect. We are not talking about "only suspicion of evidence", we are talking about a warrant.

What is obviously incorrect here is your understanding of what constitutes grounds for a search warrant.

When the police come into your house, they must present you with a warrant. So if they break down your door and handcuff you, you will still be shown a warrant. (As far as I am aware).

And this was never taken issue with.

If it is a historical fact, I would be interested in reading the link.

Then you can try and dig one up.

 

[Cyrus]

And they epected people to be reasonable enough to know better than to violate the security of a man's home, which is clearly explained in the ammendment.

It is? Please point it out to me, here is the amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What is obviously incorrect here is your understanding of what constitutes grounds for a search warrant.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back the train up sir. No you are changing the subject to what constitutes grounds for a search warrant. This is NOT the topic being discussed. We are talking about unreasonable searches. The grounds for issuing a search warrant are COMPLETELY different

And this was never taken issue with.

This sure was taken issue with, because you stated:

If you happened to get your door kicked in unannounced would you think you anything up there or rather would you conclude that your right to be secure in your home was forcibly taken from you?

Again, I repeat for the last time, this is incorrect. They must have a warrant to enter your house.

Then you can try and dig one up.

No, if you want to make a claim with no link, I will consider it baseless speculation on your part, and ignore it.

 

[edward]

With all due respect art, if you are going to quote something, don't misquote it.

HEY fella I ask a question about how the current Supreme court would reconcile this decision with one made in 1995. How was that misquoted? It was cut directly from the lin

I suggest reading through the rest of your source. It clearly states that...

I suggest that you get off your "I am the superior being" high horse and realize that not everyone in this world is going to agree with you. Nor are they going to post in the manner that you wish.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well cyrus seems to be hitting all the points i can think of so ill let him take it from here.

 

[edward]

Anyways, back to facts.

Again edward, it was part of ENGLISH law. This is not OUR law. It might have been customary at the time, but so what? This is NOT a law! I reapeat, that is NOT a law.

You might want to read post 17 again. Sorry I am a being bit of an arse tonight arent I.

 

[loseyourname]

In the case, the Detroit police had a warrant to search for drugs in the home of Booker T. Hudson Jr. At his unlocked door, they announced their presence, but did not knock and waited only three to five seconds before entering, not the 15 to 20 seconds suggested by the Supreme Court's precedents.

Had the police observed a longer wait, they would have executed the search warrant and found the evidence anyway, Justice Scalia said. That made the connection between the improper entry and the discovery of the evidence "too attenuated" to justify the "massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt."

Justice Scalia said the knock-and-announce rule was designed to protect life, property and dignity by giving the homeowner time to respond to the knock and eliminating the need for the police to break down the door. But he said the rule has never protected "one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant."

Throughout his opinion, Justice Scalia made clear his view that the right at issue was a minimal, even trivial, one — "the right not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes," he said at one point — that could not hold its own when balanced against the "grave adverse consequences that exclusion of relevant incriminating evidence always entails."

It's hard not to agree with him here. The Court has every right to interpret what is meant by "reasonable" in the 4th amendment, given that it is never spelled out. If they can infer that corporations have the rights of individuals and that citizens have a right to privacy (neither of which is explicitly stated), they get to determine what constitutes a reasonable execution of a search warrant.

All that said, if you read the article, you'll see that isn't what they decided on. The opinion said nothing about breaking in unannounced now being in accordance with 4th amendment rights. Indeed, the police in this case did not even break in unannounced. They simply waited 5 seconds instead of the customary 20. When they received no answer, then they broke in. As the opinion states, this may very well still be considered unreasonable, and the plaintiff has every right to sue for a violation of his 4th amendment rights. That, however, is not what he was doing in this case. He was suing to have the evidence thrown out. Does anyone in here honestly believe evidence should be thrown out, and a convicted drug dealer set free, because the police waited 5 seconds instead of 20 to break his door down after telling him they were there and needed to come in?

I mean hey, since four justices agree with you, I suppose it isn't a completely off-the-wall belief to hold. Personally, I think that would be going a wee bit too far. We should be closing loophole technicalities that result in guily criminals being set free; we should not be creating new ones.

 

[kyleb]

It is? Please point it out to me, here is the amendment:

First line, you can't miss it unless you are trying too.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back the train up sir. No you are changing the subject to what constitutes grounds for a search warrant. This is NOT the topic being discussed. We are talking about unreasonable searches. The grounds for issuing a search warrant are COMPLETELY different

You apparently don't understand what constitutes grounds for a search warrant, but that doesn't change the fact that the issue is relevant to the discussion at hand.

This sure was taken issue with, because you stated:
Again, I repeat for the last time, this is incorrect. They must have a warrant to enter your house.

What I stated makes no claim to the contrary.

No, if you want to make a claim with no link, I will consider it baseless speculation on your part, and ignore it.

What you are ignoring is the simple fact that all our rights were fought for. The monarchs of old didn't just one day decide to be more benevolent and start treating people with dignity; our ancestors had to stand together and demand such respect. That goes for the reasonable procedure for search and seizure and before that even the right to own property at all, and a whole lot of other things you apparently take for granted as well. I'm not going to try to dig up a link to try explain all this to you though, hopefully you will find a history teacher some day who can help you though that one.

 

[Anttech]

Does anyone in here honestly believe evidence should be thrown out, and a convicted drug dealer set free, because the police waited 5 seconds instead of 20 to break his door down after telling him they were there and needed to come in?

Well technically yes, it should be thrown out if they broke the rules for engagement they can expect the court to disregard whatever they found whilest breaking these rules. It is missfortunate and the cops who did this should be fired, or at least repremanded. Untill the rules are changed they need to abide by them just like we do. I am against bending rules for cops, for me its a slippery slope, the law should be above all.

 

[russ_watters]

Anttech, loseyourname wasn't talking about technicalities, he was talking about what is reasonable, and I agree with him. Again, it is up to the USSC to interpret the law, so just saying that it shouldn't be violated because it is the law isn't good enough - you're ignoring the whole point of bringing it before the USSC. A USSC ruling is how rules get changed (thrown out, upheld, interpreted, clarified).

Again, the two points (the reasoning of the USSC) are:

-Whether they waited 5 or 20 seconds, the evidence they found is the same so the proof of guilt is the same.
-If the law was violated, the person has the right to seek a separate remedy for the damage to the house.

Please explain why it is reasonable to throw out the evidence.

I very much agree with loseyourname that 4th amendment protections should not provide loopholes for allowing guilty people to go free. That doesn't fit my definition of a "reasonable" remedy to a violation of privacy. If they kicked down your door when you would have opened it, fine - sue them for the cost of the door. But the ignominy of your broken door doesn't make that meth lab in your basement disappear.

I'd also like to restate the importance of the warrant here. It seems to me the USSC is making two separate tests from the word "reasonable" in the 4th amendment:

1. Is it reasonable to be conducting the search at all?
2. Is the search carried out with reasonable respect for privacy/property?

Violation of #1 would clearly result in tossing out the evidence. Violation of #2 is not germane to whether the evidence is valid/would have been discovered, so it does not require the evidence to be thrown out.

 

[Anttech]

Russ, re-read my post!

I answered the question that Looseyourname asked, you know the one I quoted.

Now to answer your Question.

Please explain why it is reasonable to throw out the evidence.

It may not be reasonable to throw out the evidence, but if they break the rules while collecting the evidence they can't expect to use the evidence. The point I clearly made was that the Law is above all INCLUDING the police. If the law says they need to wait 20s then they should (Does it actually say this?).

Again, it is up to the USSC to interpret the law, so just saying that it shouldn't be violated because it is the law isn't good enough - you're ignoring the whole point of bringing it before the USSC. A USSC ruling is how rules get changed (thrown out, upheld, interpreted, clarified).

Thanks I am aware of how Judical systems work, but your comment might be useful for someone who doesnt.

 

[Anttech]

Have you finnished editing now?

I very much agree with loseyourname that 4th amendment protections should not provide loopholes for allowing guilty people to go free. That doesn't fit my definition of a "reasonable" remedy to a violation of privacy. If they kicked down your door when you would have opened it, fine - sue them for the cost of the door. But the ignominy of your broken door doesn't make that meth lab in your basement disappear.

So you assume guilt before innoccence? Having a search warrent doesn't mean that the person who is about to be searched is guilty. Thus the Police need to go about the search as if the person is a law abiding citizen. IF there are laws dictating the collection of evidence the Police need to follow them, if they don't it would be reasonable (and technically correct) to throw the evidence found out of the court.

Within this scope, however if I understand correctly, there is no law that clearly explains how long the cops need to wait, so it is up to the judge to deside if the police carrying out the search where within the law or not.

 

[Gokul43201]

1. Cyrus, I was providing the case history involving interpretation of the 4th. It's usually not your interpretation (of the Constitution) or mine that decides what's the law, but the legal precedent on the matter( if such exists). Besides, the argument that you needn't knock because you have a warrant is baseless. Why then, would there only be a specific type of warrant that gives the cops the right to not have to knock?

2. Yes, it ticks me off when someone gets off on a technicality. I'm sure it pisses of most reasonable people including judges that have sat on various courts for hundreds of years now. Yet, it seems that they've decided more often than not, that throwing out the "knock and announce" requirement was more dangerous to society than setting free a rapist, murderer or drug-dealer. The law has a provision which allows the cops to obtain a "no-knock warrant". Also, I can imagine circumstances where it might be foolish to knock and where such knowledge may be had only when coming upon the the premises. I have no problem with the specific ruling of the SC on the Detroit case. What does make me uncomfortable is Scalia's generalization.

If you can come up with an alternative deterrent - one that doesn't void the evidence obtained - against misuse of police power, that would be something I'd like to support. For instance, some automatic punishment for the offending officers (I think a civil suit will not serve as sufficient deterrent).

But on the other hand, the "closing of loopholes" should not be accomplished by the throwing out of technicalities that were put in place for a specific purpose. Heck, since we don't like seeing the bad set free, maybe we should also throw out spousal privilege, doctor-patient confidentiality,...

 

[kyleb]

Best I can tell, this ruling actually sets precedent for issues like spousal privilege doctor-patient confidentiality as well since the exclusionary rule has effectively been overturned in this case. Those who feel such rights have been violated have the option to take their claim to civil court after the fact, but our police are no longer bound by our laws in their pursuit of evidence.