Hudson v Michigan

[KRC]

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. 

709527[/snapback]

 

As I mentioned previously, knock and announce was not required before this ruling and it is not required now. Knock and announce was not stated in the exclusionary rule and it still is not mentioned in the exclusionary rule now. Your response still does not answer my question.

 

 

 

They are saying that whether it is used or not has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence.

 

Which would be correct. The validity of the search depends on obtaining a warrant and obtaining it properly. Once the warrant is issued, it does not matter if the police politely knock on the door and ask permission to gather the evidence.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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]

 

Only when they make decisions he agrees with, which is the crux of the issue I have with his argument. The contested ruling now goes against the unanimous ruling 10 years ago...which means the court under Clinton was "right", while the one under Bush is "wrong".

 

The common law argument he quotes is the only really convincing one...and even then, it's not immune to having holes poked into it...for example, Louisiana law is based not on English common law but on Napoleonic law...so does that mean the "politeness" aspect of a reasonable search, such as it is stated in English common law, doesn't apply in Louisiana?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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 does Hudson v. Michigan. You're really arguing about to SCOTUS decisions that conflict with each other on their face, and picking the one you think is "right" over what you think is "wrong". Which is simply to say: you and I disagree on which SCOTUS decision we think is horseshit.

 

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]

 

No, it's not. As a point of criminal law, the manner in which a warrant is executed does not invalidate the validity of the warrant or evidence collected by it. It doesn't make legalized B&E by the police in the execution of a warrant right - were the police, in possession of a warrant, to break down my door right now and search the premises, I'd raise holy hell in civil court. But were they to find the evidence that the warrant was issued for...that evidence should be invalidated in court because they executed the warrant without knocking?

[Johnny Coli]

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.

709554[/snapback]

Yes and no. They're saying that the illegality of the k&a has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence obtained post-illegal entry, with respect to k&a.

From Scalia:

In other words, exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a “but-for” cause of obtaining evidence. Our cases show that but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression.

But, that seems unreasonably broad, as it isn't specific to k&a. One interpretation would be that evidence is independent of how it was obtained. That seems to open up a whole lot of problems with regards to evidence, and how it is obtained. That's why I'm arguing that this flies in the face of the Exclusionary Rule. In this broad interpretation, one could argue that no evidence could be suppressed.

 

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.

709554[/snapback]

The presence of a warrant was never in dispute. Also, show me any cop that will be deterred by departmental discipline and/or the possibility of having his/her department sued. My wife is a policeman's union lawyer. It's the union rep and her job to worry, not theirs.

 

 

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?

709554[/snapback]

I'm not concerned with Mr. Hudson going to (staying in) jail. I'm more concerned with how this could be applied.

[Johnny Coli]

As I mentioned previously, knock and announce was not required before this ruling and it is not required now. Knock and announce was not stated in the exclusionary rule and it still is not mentioned in the exclusionary rule now. Your response still does not answer my question.

Which would be correct. The validity of the search depends on obtaining a warrant and obtaining it properly. Once the warrant is issued, it does not matter if the police politely knock on the door and ask permission to gather the evidence.

709572[/snapback]

 

Sure I did.

From Wilson:

In this case, we hold that this common-law "knock and announce" principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment.

K&A is tied to the Fourth, that if deemed to be violated would most certainly be applicable to Exclusionary. This Court has taken it off the table completely. How is that not speaking to Exclusionary, if it can no longer be applied in a Fourth Amendment question?

[KRC]

Sure I did.

From Wilson:

K&A is tied to the Fourth, that if deemed to be violated would most certainly be applicable to Exclusionary.  This Court has taken it off the table completely.  How is that not speaking to Exclusionary, if it can no longer be applied in a Fourth Amendment question?

709609[/snapback]

 

Also from Wilson:

 

Nevertheless, the common-law principle was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances.

 

 

From Thomas, who wrote the opinion...

...we hold that in some circumstances an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment...

 

...This is not to say, of course, that every entry must be preceded by an announcement...

 

...The Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement...

[Taro T]

Yes and no.  They're saying that the illegality of the k&a has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence obtained post-illegal entry, with respect to k&a. 

From Scalia:

But, that seems unreasonably broad, as it isn't specific to k&a.  One interpretation would be that evidence is independent of how it was obtained.  That seems to open up a whole lot of problems with regards to evidence, and how it is obtained.  That's why I'm arguing that this flies in the face of the Exclusionary Rule.  In this broad interpretation, one could argue that no evidence could be suppressed. 

The presence of a warrant was never in dispute.  Also, show me any cop that will be deterred by departmental discipline and/or the possibility of having his/her department sued.  My wife is a policeman's union lawyer.  It's the union rep and her job to worry, not theirs.

I'm not concerned with Mr. Hudson going to (staying in) jail.  I'm more concerned with how this could be applied.

709589[/snapback]

But this case IS specific to k&a and SCOTUS is saying that HOW the police enter a residence AFTER a warrant was obtained should not cause all evidence obtained to be inadmissible.

 

I don't interpret this as providing police a blanket right to illegally perform a search and collect any evidence they want. They specifically listed other instances where evidence can't be tossed simply due to the manner in which it was collected and added this specific issue to that short list. This is strictly stating that evidence can't be tossed because the police only waited 1 minute to open a door when clearly decorum would have allowed 2 minutes.

 

Also, are you implying that there is NO personal responsibility for a police officer being a loose cannon and breaking down doors of people for fun (with or without a warrant)? AFAIK, if a police officer does something blatently out of line he or she can be held personally liable for their actions. I would expect that potential personal liability to limit the number of doors that are destroyed while serving warrants to people in most circumstances. And, yes I DO see the potential firestorm of community protest that abuse of this could raise as a deterrent to police abuse of this procedure. If the police start breaking down doors w/out notice as a SOP for "ordinary" criminals, then I will join you in the protests that will be deserved.

 

Breaking down the door of a suspected armed (and dangerous) drug dealer would be a reasonable action under certain circumstances IMHO. Breaking down the door of a guy who failed to pay back child support payments would not be. I don't see where this particular ruling will cause the latter to happen but I do see where it will keep evidence obtained from the former admissible and I see where it may save officer's lives.

[Alaska Darin]

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.

709533[/snapback]

My first thought was along the lines of yours, with the cops kicking down the wrong door (as has been known to happen) and some law-abiding gun owner "gripping and ripping" because he thinks someone is doing a hot break-in.

 

That being said, it's not something that's going to happen more than a couple of times, no matter what.

[Johnny Coli]

Also from Wilson:

From Thomas, who wrote the opinion...

709635[/snapback]

The flexibility of k&a doesn't mean it can never be applied. It suggests that is isn't always required.

 

Kennedy admits the ties to the Fourth in his different, yet concurring opinion for Hudson.

Two points should be underscored with respect to today’s decision. First, the knock-and-announce requirement protects rights and expectations linked to ancient principles in our constitutional order. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 934 (1995). The Court’s decision should not be interpreted as suggesting that violations of the requirement are trivial or beyond the law’s concern. Second, the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt. Today’s decision determines only that in the specific context of the knock-and-announce requirement, a violation is not sufficiently related to the later discovery of evidence to justify suppression.

As to the basic right in question, privacy and security in the home are central to the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees as explained in our decisions and as understood since the beginnings of the Republic. This common understanding ensures respect for the law and allegiance to our institutions, and it is an instrument for transmitting our Constitution to later generations undiminished in meaning and force. It bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry. Security must not be subject to erosion by indifference or contempt.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

He's not denying that k&a is a Fourth Amendment right. He's saying that in spite of the violation of k&a the evidence can not be suppressed. So, even though the Fourth was violoated in this case, it has no bearing on the legality of the evidence. To me, and to four of the other SCJs, that clearly smacks up against Exclusionary.

 

Breyer:

Reading our knock-and-announce cases, Part I–A, su-pra, in light of this foundational Fourth Amendment case law, Part I–B, supra, it is clear that the exclusionary rule should apply. For one thing, elementary logic leads to that conclusion. We have held that a court must “con-side[r]” whether officers complied with the knock-and-announce requirement “in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure.” Wilson, 514 U. S., at 934 (emphasis added); see Banks, 540 U. S., at 36. The Fourth Amend-ment insists that an unreasonable search or seizure is, constitutionally speaking, an illegal search or seizure.

 

(emphasis mine)

[KRC]

The flexibility of k&a doesn't mean it can never be applied. It suggests that is isn't always required.

 

Kennedy admits the ties to the Fourth in his different, yet concurring opinion for Hudson.

He's not denying that k&a is a Fourth Amendment right.  He's saying that in spite of the violation of k&a the evidence can not be suppressed.  So, even though the Fourth was violoated in this case, it has no bearing on the legality of the evidence.  To me, and to four of the other SCJs, that clearly smacks up against Exclusionary. 

 

Breyer:

709661[/snapback]

 

Did you read this part of your quoted section:

 

Second, the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt. Today’s decision determines only that in the specific context of the knock-and-announce requirement, a violation is not sufficiently related to the later discovery of evidence to justify suppression.

 

You make this out as a major attack on the Exclusionary, but then quote an opinion stating that this is so minor that it does not warrant suppressing the evidence.

[Johnny Coli]

But this case IS specific to k&a and SCOTUS is saying that HOW the police enter a residence AFTER a warrant was obtained should not cause all evidence obtained to be inadmissible.

709637[/snapback]

But, this ruling opens the door for a more broad interpretation of what can be considered an evidence-suppressing violation of the Fourth Amendment. All four of the dissenting judges and one of the concurring judges, Kennedy, agree that k&a is a Fourth Amendment right. How does violating a Fourth Amendment right not lead to suppression of the evidence as it falls under the Exclusion rule?

 

Also, are you implying that there is NO personal responsibility for a police officer being a loose cannon and breaking down doors of people for fun (with or without a warrant)?  AFAIK, if a police officer does something blatently out of line he or she can be held personally liable for their actions.  I would expect that potential personal liability to limit the number of doors that are destroyed while serving warrants to people in most circumstances.  And, yes I DO see the potential firestorm of community protest that abuse of this could raise as a deterrent to police abuse of this procedure.  If the police start breaking down doors w/out notice as a SOP for "ordinary" criminals, then I will join you in the protests that will be deserved.

709637[/snapback]

Of course I'm not saying that. But to base a legal opinion in the highest court in this nation on "the professionalism of our police" as it stands in this day and age seems a bit short-sighted.

 

 

Breaking down the door of a suspected armed (and dangerous) drug dealer would be a reasonable action under certain circumstances IMHO.  Breaking down the door of a guy who failed to pay back child support payments would not be.  I don't see where this particular ruling will cause the latter to happen but I do see where it will keep evidence obtained from the former admissible and I see where it may save officer's lives.

709637[/snapback]

But it would also make any evidence against the later admissable as well. Are you suggesting it would be OK for the police to break down any door unannounced, provided they got a warrant? Because according to this majority opinion, they just made it pretty damn easy for that to occur.

[Johnny Coli]

Did you read this part of your quoted section:

You make this out as a major attack on the Exclusionary, but then quote an opinion stating that this is so minor that it does not warrant suppressing the evidence.

709669[/snapback]

Yes, which makes his concurring opinion that much more perplexing in light of the preceding and following statements.

First, the knock-and-announce requirement protects rights and expectations linked to ancient principles in our constitutional order. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 934 (1995). The Court’s decision should not be interpreted as suggesting that violations of the requirement are trivial or beyond the law’s concern. Second, the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt. Today’s decision determines only that in the specific context of the knock-and-announce requirement, a violation is not sufficiently related to the later discovery of evidence to justify suppression.

As to the basic right in question, privacy and security in the home are central to the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees as explained in our decisions and as understood since the beginnings of the Republic.

 

So, k&a is a protection under our constitution, but it doesn't matter that it was violated? Even though he considers it a basic Fourth Amendment right, which by the way, if violated would fall under the Exclusionary rule with respect to unlawfully seized evidence.

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.

[Adam]

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]

I see it as not giving notice that you are looking for something- which allows more time to dispose of what is being looked for, or hide it. Abuse of the law can always be dealt with

[Chilly]

Yes, which makes his concurring opinion that much more perplexing in light of the  preceding and following statements.

So, k&a is a protection under our constitution, but it doesn't matter that it was violated?  Even though he considers it a basic Fourth Amendment right, which by the way, if violated would fall under the Exclusionary rule with respect to unlawfully seized evidence.

709683[/snapback]

 

Isn't this more or less a critique of the exclusionary rule?

 

From my understanding, SCOTUS is saying that with a warrant to search the home anyway, the person would have forfeitted their right to privacy no matter what while the search was being conducted. Requiring them to open the door or not open the door doesn't change the fact that the evidence would still have been found by the detectives in most cases (thus not related to discovery), and therefore should not be thrown out of the case.

 

 

They aren't saying that k&a isn't something that is important or constitutional, but rather that using the lack of a k&a as a means to an end to dismiss evidence shouldn't be allowed. Or, rather, that the lack of k&a is not sufficient enough to fall under the exclusionary rule, therefore creating an exception to the exclusionary rule.

 

Currently there are three exceptions to the rule, as explained on http://sc.essortment.com/exclusionaryrul_rmlx.htm

 

To me, its kind of (not exactly) like a combination of both the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine and Good Faith. The police officers will still be in violation of the law (and punished, I would assume) by not k&a based on the opinion, therefore they probably just forgot if they didn't, and we have other channels to deal with those police officers rather than throwing out evidence that they would have found during a search where the police officers did k&a. Whether they had a k&a or not, the evidence would have most likely been found.

 

Thats what I'm thinking they're saying anyway: punish the cop insteading of letting a guilty man walk free.

[Taro T]

But, this ruling opens the door for a more broad interpretation of what can be considered an evidence-suppressing violation of the Fourth Amendment.  All four of the dissenting judges and one of the concurring judges, Kennedy, agree that k&a is a Fourth Amendment right.  How does violating a Fourth Amendment right not lead to suppression of the evidence as it falls under the Exclusion rule?

709674[/snapback]

Because the evidence in question, barring situations where someone flushes evidence down a toilet or burns/shreds it in the 2 minutes or so difference that we are talking about, would have been found LEGALLY and would have been admissible whether the door was opened by the police or opened by the suspect. Why should the evidence which would be perfectly admissible if the police waited another 30 seconds (or some other arbitrary amount of time) to open the door be automatically discarded because the police didn't wait 30 more seconds to open the door? I don't see a reason not to admit the evidence.

 

If the police officer goes overboard, should he be punished? Absolutely. But I truly see these 2 items as being separate issues.

Of course I'm not saying that.  But to base a legal opinion in the highest court in this nation on "the professionalism of our police" as it stands in this day and age seems a bit short-sighted.

709674[/snapback]

As for the "professionalism of police", that was one of several factors cited in making this decision. It was not the only one and to say that it shouldn't be used as a supporting reason is a bit extreme IMHO.

But it would also make any evidence against the later admissable as well.  Are you suggesting it would be OK for the police to break down any door unannounced, provided they got a warrant?  Because according to this majority opinion, they just made it pretty damn easy for that to occur.

709674[/snapback]

The evidence in question would be admissible if the police had waited to open the door. I don't see where them doing something wrong (and deserving punishment for doing that, I might add) should automatically make the evidence invalid. It should be a separate issue and should be treated as such. I don't like the idea of giving people "get out of jail free cards", simply because a police officer was over zealous. ("Yes, he was robbing the orphanage blind for the last 17 years, but we got all the accounting records off his computer after the unlocked door was opened after only a 27 second waiting period. Sorry, all that evidence is non-admissible. Have a nice day.")