Hudson v Michigan

[Johnny Coli]

The SCOTUS made their ruling on Hudson v. Michigan yesterday (WaPo link). Here is a link to the three opinions…Scalia writes for the majority, Kennedy issues a second concurring opinion, and Breyer writes the dissent.

From the Wapo article:

The Constitution does not require the government to forfeit evidence gathered through illegal "no knock" searches, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in a far-reaching ruling that could encourage police with search warrants to conduct more aggressive raids.

 

[snip]

 

Before yesterday's decision, police executing a search warrant in most jurisdictions had to worry that they might lose a case if they did not first knock on the door, announce themselves and wait a reasonable time for a response before forcing their way in.

Now, unless state law says otherwise, the most they would face is administrative discipline or a lawsuit for damages.

 

Basically, the “knock and announce” rule requires police with a search warrant in hand to announce themselves and wait a reasonable amount of time prior to knocking down the door. Violations of this rule bump into the Fourth Amendment right against an illegal search and seizure, and could (up until yesterday, that is) result in an exclusion or suppression of evidence gathered at a premises.

 

In Scalia’s (and the SCOTUS majorities’) opinion, as long as the police have a warrant, no evidence should be suppressed, or excluded, whether or not the police violated the Fourth Amendment right. The violation of the civil right does not have bearing on the legality of the gathered evidence. Civil rights violations can be dealt with as an internal police matter (“internal discipline” is Scalia’s wording), or litigated separately as a civil rights suit. In other words, departmental oversight and possible civil rights reviews would be the only deterrent the police of 2006 would need, based on the fact that “development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline....” Today’s cop is hip to civil rights, and wouldn’t dream of stepping over them to get evidence. Riiiight….

 

Dissenters of this opinion (and I’ll raise my hand high in agreement with the dissent, as well) believe this is a direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule, which suppresses evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure. From Breyer’s dissenting opinion:

In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), a unanimous Court held that the Fourth Amendment normally requires law enforcement officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a dwelling. Today’s opinion holds that evidence seized from a home following a violation of this requirement need not be suppressed.  As a result, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-and-announce requirement. And the Court does so without significant support in precedent. At least I can find no such support in the many Fourth Amendment cases the Court has decided in the near century since it first set forth the exclusionary principle in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914). See Appendix, infra. Today’s opinion is thus doubly troubling. It represents a significant departure from the Court’s precedents. And it weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection.

 

So, there goes yet another civil right. It should be noted that this case was before SCOTUS while O’Connor was still on the bench, but was re-heard once Alito replaced her. It has been suggested that she would have tilted toward the dissenting opinion, making it the majority opinion, thus saving a pretty significant piece of the constitution. That was a quick one, Alito.

 

Nathan Newman at TPM Café brings up an interesting conservative paradox, in light of the Hudson v Michigan decision…the NRA-backed “Castle Doctrine”.

But recently, states like Florida have been passing NRA-backed "Castle Doctrine" bills that give homeowners the right to assume an unknown intruder is there to do bodily harm and can therefore be shot without any obligation by the homeowner to establish that the intruder is actually a danger.

 

From the NRA link:

The "Castle Doctrine" simply says that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him.

 

It also removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be.

 

Wild. So, this NRA-endorsed “self-defense” right (signed by Jeb Bush, no less) allows you to shoot anyone entering your home unannounced, and Hudson v Michigan (which destroys some of the Fourth Amendment, via Alito, via Jeb Bush’s brother) says that cops don’t have to bother announcing themselves before bashing in your door (provided they have a warrant, unless you're a WOT "suspect", wink-wink, then no warrant is necessary). What about the rest of us law-abiding citizens who will just get caught in the almost-certain cross-fire? Do we get to keep any rights?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The SCOTUS made their ruling on Hudson v. Michigan yesterday (WaPo link).  Here is a link to the three opinions…Scalia writes for the majority, Kennedy issues a second concurring opinion, and Breyer writes the dissent.

From the Wapo article:

 

Basically, the “knock and announce” rule requires police with a search warrant in hand to announce themselves and wait a reasonable amount of time prior to knocking down the door.  Violations of this rule bump into the Fourth Amendment right against an illegal search and seizure, and could (up until yesterday, that is) result in an exclusion or suppression of evidence gathered at a premises.

 

In Scalia’s (and the SCOTUS majorities’) opinion, as long as the police have a warrant, no evidence should be suppressed, or excluded, whether or not the police violated the Fourth Amendment right.  The violation of the civil right does not have bearing on the legality of the gathered evidence.  Civil rights violations can be dealt with as an internal police matter (“internal discipline” is Scalia’s wording), or litigated separately as a civil rights suit.  In other words, departmental oversight and possible civil rights reviews would be the only deterrent the police of 2006 would need, based on the fact that “development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline....”  Today’s cop is hip to civil rights, and wouldn’t dream of stepping over them to get evidence.  Riiiight….

 

Dissenters of this opinion (and I’ll raise my hand high in agreement with the dissent, as well) believe this is a direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule, which suppresses evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure.  From Breyer’s dissenting opinion:

So, there goes yet another civil right. It should be noted that this case was before SCOTUS while O’Connor was still on the bench, but was re-heard once Alito replaced her.  It has been suggested that she would have tilted toward the dissenting opinion, making it the majority opinion, thus saving a pretty significant piece of the constitution.  That was a quick one, Alito.

 

Nathan Newman at TPM Café brings up an interesting conservative paradox, in light of the Hudson v Michigan decision…the NRA-backed “Castle Doctrine”.

From the NRA link:

Wild.  So, this NRA-endorsed “self-defense” right (signed by Jeb Bush, no less) allows you to shoot anyone entering your home unannounced, and Hudson v Michigan (which destroys some of the Fourth Amendment, via Alito, via Jeb Bush’s brother) says that cops don’t have to bother announcing themselves before bashing in your door (provided they have a warrant, unless you're a WOT "suspect", wink-wink, then no warrant is necessary).  What about the rest of us law-abiding citizens who will just get caught in the almost-certain cross-fire?  Do we get to keep any rights?

709471[/snapback]

 

Actually...I'm not quite seeing the problem here. SCOTUS, according to everything you just posted, ruled on a point of procedure in executing warrants; which can basically be summed up as "be polite". There is no "politeness" requirement in the Fourth Amendment, it only protects against illegal search and seizure, and the legality of a search and seizure doesn't stem from the officers knocking and announcing themselves, but from two other little words notably absent from your post as well: "due process". And due process is satisfied, not by knocking and announcing the intent to execute the warrant, but by the issuance of the warrant in the first place.

 

And yes, I know Wilson v. Arkansas says otherwise - but I thought Wilson v. Arkansas was a horseshit decision to begin with.

[KRC]

Dissenters of this opinion (and I’ll raise my hand high in agreement with the dissent, as well) believe this is a direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule, which suppresses evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure. 

709471[/snapback]

 

Could you explain to me how this is a "direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule?" Here is the text from your link to help with your answer:

 

At common law, all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), however, the Supreme Court adopted the "exclusionary rule," under which evidence seized unlawfully is rendered inadmissible in court. The rule was made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

 

The exclusionary rule serves primarily to deter police officers from conducting unlawful searches and seizures. It has, however, a number of exceptions. In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897] (1984), the Supreme Court applied the "good faith" rule and held that evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant later found to be defective was still admissible. The evidence would still be excluded if an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis of the warrant, if the issuing magistrate abandons his neutrality, or if the warrant lacks sufficient particularity. It remains unclear whether the "good faith" exception applies to warrantless seizures. On January 8, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that grand juries may use illegally obtained evidence in questioning witnesses. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338.

 

The Supreme Court has held the rule does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a "private actor" (i.e., not a State employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant's testimony. Furthermore, a defendant has standing to object to the admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence only if such seizure violated his own Fourth Amendment rights; a defendant may not assert the rights of a third party.

 

Closely related to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, under which the government is prohibited from introducing any evidence that was obtained subsequent to and as a result of the illegal search.

 

BTW, according to Wilson v. Arkansas, "knock and announce" is not mandatory.

[Alaska Darin]

The SCOTUS made their ruling on Hudson v. Michigan yesterday (WaPo link).  Here is a link to the three opinions…Scalia writes for the majority, Kennedy issues a second concurring opinion, and Breyer writes the dissent.

From the Wapo article:

 

Basically, the “knock and announce” rule requires police with a search warrant in hand to announce themselves and wait a reasonable amount of time prior to knocking down the door.  Violations of this rule bump into the Fourth Amendment right against an illegal search and seizure, and could (up until yesterday, that is) result in an exclusion or suppression of evidence gathered at a premises.

 

In Scalia’s (and the SCOTUS majorities’) opinion, as long as the police have a warrant, no evidence should be suppressed, or excluded, whether or not the police violated the Fourth Amendment right.  The violation of the civil right does not have bearing on the legality of the gathered evidence.  Civil rights violations can be dealt with as an internal police matter (“internal discipline” is Scalia’s wording), or litigated separately as a civil rights suit.  In other words, departmental oversight and possible civil rights reviews would be the only deterrent the police of 2006 would need, based on the fact that “development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline....”  Today’s cop is hip to civil rights, and wouldn’t dream of stepping over them to get evidence.  Riiiight….

 

Dissenters of this opinion (and I’ll raise my hand high in agreement with the dissent, as well) believe this is a direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule, which suppresses evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure.  From Breyer’s dissenting opinion:

So, there goes yet another civil right. It should be noted that this case was before SCOTUS while O’Connor was still on the bench, but was re-heard once Alito replaced her.  It has been suggested that she would have tilted toward the dissenting opinion, making it the majority opinion, thus saving a pretty significant piece of the constitution.  That was a quick one, Alito.

 

Nathan Newman at TPM Café brings up an interesting conservative paradox, in light of the Hudson v Michigan decision…the NRA-backed “Castle Doctrine”.

From the NRA link:

Wild.  So, this NRA-endorsed “self-defense” right (signed by Jeb Bush, no less) allows you to shoot anyone entering your home unannounced, and Hudson v Michigan (which destroys some of the Fourth Amendment, via Alito, via Jeb Bush’s brother) says that cops don’t have to bother announcing themselves before bashing in your door (provided they have a warrant, unless you're a WOT "suspect", wink-wink, then no warrant is necessary).  What about the rest of us law-abiding citizens who will just get caught in the almost-certain cross-fire?  Do we get to keep any rights?

709471[/snapback]

The ruling is far more likely to protect police officers from harm than it is to "catch law-abiding citizens" in "certain cross-fire", there Chicken Little. Fear mongering, it's not just a tool of the far right you hate so much, huh?

[Taro T]

The SCOTUS made their ruling on Hudson v. Michigan yesterday (WaPo link).  Here is a link to the three opinions…Scalia writes for the majority, Kennedy issues a second concurring opinion, and Breyer writes the dissent.

From the Wapo article:

 

Basically, the “knock and announce” rule requires police with a search warrant in hand to announce themselves and wait a reasonable amount of time prior to knocking down the door.  Violations of this rule bump into the Fourth Amendment right against an illegal search and seizure, and could (up until yesterday, that is) result in an exclusion or suppression of evidence gathered at a premises.

 

In Scalia’s (and the SCOTUS majorities’) opinion, as long as the police have a warrant, no evidence should be suppressed, or excluded, whether or not the police violated the Fourth Amendment right.  The violation of the civil right does not have bearing on the legality of the gathered evidence.  Civil rights violations can be dealt with as an internal police matter (“internal discipline” is Scalia’s wording), or litigated separately as a civil rights suit.  In other words, departmental oversight and possible civil rights reviews would be the only deterrent the police of 2006 would need, based on the fact that “development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline....”  Today’s cop is hip to civil rights, and wouldn’t dream of stepping over them to get evidence.  Riiiight….

 

Dissenters of this opinion (and I’ll raise my hand high in agreement with the dissent, as well) believe this is a direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule, which suppresses evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure.  From Breyer’s dissenting opinion:

So, there goes yet another civil right. It should be noted that this case was before SCOTUS while O’Connor was still on the bench, but was re-heard once Alito replaced her.  It has been suggested that she would have tilted toward the dissenting opinion, making it the majority opinion, thus saving a pretty significant piece of the constitution.  That was a quick one, Alito.

 

Nathan Newman at TPM Café brings up an interesting conservative paradox, in light of the Hudson v Michigan decision…the NRA-backed “Castle Doctrine”.

From the NRA link:

Wild.  So, this NRA-endorsed “self-defense” right (signed by Jeb Bush, no less) allows you to shoot anyone entering your home unannounced, and Hudson v Michigan (which destroys some of the Fourth Amendment, via Alito, via Jeb Bush’s brother) says that cops don’t have to bother announcing themselves before bashing in your door (provided they have a warrant, unless you're a WOT "suspect", wink-wink, then no warrant is necessary).  What about the rest of us law-abiding citizens who will just get caught in the almost-certain cross-fire?  Do we get to keep any rights?

709471[/snapback]

If I understand you correctly, you are more concerned that a startled law abiding citizen will end up in a gun fight with police officers than a drug dealer (with ample time to set up) will end up in a gun fight with police officers? That is one warped way of expecting the world to function.

 

I only had time to read the 1st 15 pages of the decision, but nothing in there suggested anything about police having the right to enter a house without following "knock and announce" procedures WITHOUT a warrant. If they don't have a warrant, whether they followed k&a or not, any evidence would be suppressed because they didn't have a warrant and couldn't enter the house anyway.

[Johnny Coli]

Actually...I'm not quite seeing the problem here.  SCOTUS, according to everything you just posted, ruled on a point of procedure in executing warrants; which can basically be summed up as "be polite".  There is no "politeness" requirement in the Fourth Amendment, it only protects against illegal search and seizure, and the legality of a search and seizure doesn't stem from the officers knocking and announcing themselves, but from two other little words notably absent from your post as well: "due process".  And due process is satisfied, not by knocking and announcing the intent to execute the warrant, but by the issuance of the warrant in the first place. 

 

And yes, I know Wilson v. Arkansas says otherwise - but I thought Wilson v. Arkansas was a horseshit decision to begin with.

709487[/snapback]

 

Wilson, a unanimous decision by the court back in 1995, and explained in Breyer's dissent, directly speaks to the resonableness of the search, whether-or-not you think it's horse sh--.

We further concluded that there was “little doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure.” Id., at 934. And we held that the “common-law ‘knock and an-nounce’ principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment.”

 

So, in the eyes of the Court (up until yesterday), "politeness" as you put it, is relevent with respect to the Fourth Amendment.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Wilson, a unanimous decision by the court back in 1995, and explained in Breyer's dissent, directly speaks to the resonableness of the search, whether-or-not you think it's horse sh--.

So, in the eyes of the Court (up until yesterday), "politeness" as you put it, is relevent with respect to the Fourth Amendment.

709506[/snapback]

 

So court justices, especially the Supremes in your opinion, are infallible? Kinda like the Pope? Do you pray to them every night or just when the ACLU tells you to?

[Johnny Coli]

Could you explain to me how this is a "direct assault on the Exclusionary Rule?" Here is the text from your link to help with your answer:

BTW, according to Wilson v. Arkansas, "knock and announce" is not mandatory.

709501[/snapback]

Because it speaks directly to the lawfullness of a search and seizure. The court had previously held that "knock and announce" was relevent to lawful entry, as per the Fourth Amendment and English Common law. How could the court taking this off the table not affect the Exclusionary rule, which states that evidence gathered from an unlawful search and seizure is inadmissible?

 

The Court kicked it back to the states to determine under which circumstances Wilson could be ignored. When or when it is applicable isn't an issue in this instance. They are saying that whether it is used or not has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence.

[Wacka]

So your right to flush the coke down the toilet before the cops come in with a warrant is being violated?

[Johnny Coli]

The ruling is far more likely to protect police officers from harm  than it is to "catch law-abiding citizens" in "certain cross-fire", there Chicken Little.  Fear mongering, it's not just a tool of the far right you hate so much, huh? 

709502[/snapback]

Just pointing out the bizzarre nature of the two, that's all. Seemed like a weird bit of an aside when looking at both sets of laws.

[Johnny Coli]

If I understand you correctly, you are more concerned that a startled law abiding citizen will end up in a gun fight with police officers than a drug dealer (with ample time to set up) will end up in a gun fight with police officers?  That is one warped way of expecting the world to function.

709504[/snapback]

See previous reply to Darin.

[Johnny Coli]

So court justices, especially the Supremes in your opinion, are infallible? Kinda like the Pope? Do you pray to them every night or just when the ACLU tells you to?

709525[/snapback]

You're going to have to further clarify the insult in there, G. I'm not getting what you're driving at.

[Chilly]

I'd think they'd still announce themselves as police officers, not to do so would be putting themselves in jeopardy. However, they don't have to do it before the knock down the door now, but rather can choose to do it afterwards.

[Johnny Coli]

So your right to flush the coke down the toilet before the cops come in with a warrant is being violated?

709530[/snapback]

Another spot-on analysis, Wacka. Your ability to render the complexities of an issue down to it's most basic point is a gift, man.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

You're going to have to further clarify the insult in there, G.  I'm not getting what you're driving at.

709541[/snapback]

 

I'll type slowly...

 

You cite court decisions that you agree with as if they were handed down by God to Moses on stone tablets. However you're not giving this court decision you're attacking the same deference, and if I can play armchair political analyst I'd say it's because you, the ACLU, and other liberals now view this Supreme Court as 'conservative'.

 

I think it's fair to say, and you're welcome to disagree of course, that if this decision had come about 5 years ago that you'd probably wouldn't have looked at it twice. But since this is the new "Alito- Roberts" Supreme Court, almost every 5-4 decision will now have you liberals screaming "the jackbooted facists are out to get us!!".

 

Myself, I always thought that letting guilty criminals go free because some judge rules that the cops didn't knock or forgot to cite Miranda rights was a huge steaming pile of bull sh--, and if this decision limits a judges ability to let the guilty go free on a technicality then it sounds pretty good to me.

[Chilly]

I'll type slowly...

 

You cite court decisions that you agree with as if they were handed down by God to Moses on stone tablets. However you're not giving this court decision you're attacking the same deference, and if I can play armchair political analyst I'd say it's because you, the ACLU, and other liberals now view this Supreme Court as 'conservative'.

 

I think it's fair to say, and you're welcome to disagree of course, that if this decision had come about 5 years ago that you'd probably wouldn't have looked at it twice. But since this is the new "Alito- Roberts" Supreme Court, almost every 5-4 decision will now have you liberals screaming "the jackbooted facists are out to get us!!".

 

Myself, I always thought that letting guilty criminals go free because some judge rules that the cops didn't knock or forgot to cite Miranda rights was a huge steaming pile of bull sh--, and if this decision limits a judges ability to let the guilty go free on a technicality then it sounds pretty good to me.

709546[/snapback]

 

Yeah, its the Judge's fault. Judges bad!

[Taro T]

Because it speaks directly to the lawfullness of a search and seizure.  The court had previously held that "knock and announce" was relevent to lawful entry, as per the Fourth Amendment and English Common law.  How could the court taking this off the table not affect the Exclusionary rule, which states that evidence gathered from an unlawful search and seizure is inadmissible? 

 

The Court kicked it back to the states to determine under which circumstances Wilson could be ignored.  When or when it is applicable isn't an issue in this instance.  They are saying that whether it is used or not has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence.

709527[/snapback]

But there already are exceptions where k&a isn't required. This is simply stating that you can't throw out evidence because a k&a wasn't given to some arbitrary standard.

 

It doesn't effect any of the conditions necessary to obtain a search warrant. It doesn't preclude civil cases against the police for breaking down the door of the house of someone that turns out to be innocent. (Heck, I didn't see anything prohibiting a criminal with a lot of chutzpah from filing a suit either.) If the cops do break down someone's door, I have to believe there are some pretty talented lawyers out there that will get the victim some serious $'s for his trauma, his girlfriend's trauma, his dog's trauma, his goldfish's trauma, and, oh yes, the door frame's trauma. Few police officers will want to go through the public scrutiny (and potential liability) for doing this in a haphazard manner.

 

If warrants weren't still required, I would probably side more closely with your argument. I simply am not seeing at this time where this particular decision is a horrid thing.

 

In this particular case, the officers DID knock and announce their presence. It's just a matter of them ONLY waiting 5 seconds to open an UNLOCKED door. The bad guy had crack on his person and a gun in the chair he was sitting in. If the police had waited a longer time (and I don't know what would be considered a "reasonable period of time" to wait for the guy to open the door), it is very likely he would have had the gun in his hand and the crack down the toilet. Is that a better or a safer outcome for all involved parties?

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Yeah, its the Judge's fault.  Judges bad!

709553[/snapback]

 

 

Nah I don't think judges are bad, I just don't think that putting on a black robe gives them godlike wisdom either.

[Chilly]

Nah I don't think judges are bad, I just don't think that putting on a black robe gives them godlike wisdom either.

709558[/snapback]

 

Fair enough.

[Johnny Coli]

I'll type slowly...

 

You cite court decisions that you agree with as if they were handed down by God to Moses on stone tablets. However you're not giving this court decision you're attacking the same deference, and if I can play armchair political analyst I'd say it's because you, the ACLU, and other liberals now view this Supreme Court as 'conservative'.

709546[/snapback]

It's not just my opinion, it a pretty estalished fact that the Court has moved to the right. There's a reason Bush selected these two additions to the court. He's perfectly right to do that as the President, just as it's my right to disagree with his choices, as I'm sure many from the right would disagree with any president who sat two "liberal" judges. This particular ruling is not one I agree with, so I posted my disagreement with it. I'm sure if the Court was attacking the Second Amendment, there would be multiple posters stabbing at their keyboards attacking that decision.

 

 

I think it's fair to say, and you're welcome to disagree of course, that if this decision had come about 5 years ago that you'd probably wouldn't have looked at it twice. But since this is the new "Alito- Roberts" Supreme Court, almost every 5-4 decision will now have you liberals screaming "the jackbooted facists are out to get us!!".

709546[/snapback]

I don't think the "jack-booted fascists are coming to get us." But I'm pretty opposed to removing any right, however insignificant it may seem right now, that would make it easier for someone in the future. Sure, it may never happen, but why take the chance?

 

 

Myself, I always thought that letting guilty criminals go free because some judge rules that the cops didn't knock or forgot to cite Miranda rights was a huge steaming pile of bull sh--, and if this decision limits a judges ability to let the guilty go free on a technicality then it sounds pretty good to me.

709546[/snapback]

The "technicalities" are there to protect innocent people, not criminals. I don't see a problem with establishing a set of rules that explicitly provide for that protection. Do some go free, absolutely. But the majority of the guilty end up in prison, as I'm sure a few innocent people do as well.