Supreme Court says Police don't have to knock

[Nellie Bly]

I don't know what to say. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html)

[jcarwash31]

Do they still have to say please?

[markalot]

Oh man, so once they get a valid warrant they can no longer warn the peopel they're coming.

Knock knock


just a second...


/flush


Come on in.

[Nellie Bly]

"Come In" ?

I was thinking more along the lines of "go away, we don't want any."

[DaHood]

Does that mean we cant make any more knock-knock jokes about the police?Of course you can...

Knock Knock

Who is it?

It's the police.

*laughter*
:D :D

[monkey neck]

So the jokes will just start with, "Who's there?" now.

[REMgirl]

Hello Fascism!

I posted this before, but where I used to live, the street was a North/South one, and lots of times people mistook our 26 South address for the 26 North address.

One day, when I was home with my kids, two police came to the door and knocked. They asked if "Jeff" was home. I told them there was no one here by that name. One of the cops opened my screen door and said he wanted to look around. I repeated that no one named Jeff lived there, but I said he could come in and look around. Frankly, I was intimidated by them. He walked all through my house and then left without as much as a thank you, sorry for the inconvenience...

Warrant or not, who knows if the cops have the right house? It's happened before and people have been injured or badly frightened.

I hate this. And I have nothing to hide. :(

[Nellie Bly]

I think that'll only result in them giving you whatever they've got.

I've always hated our front door. :D

[BigSugar]

as a lawyer, and a criminal defense attorney at that, i've never really understood the knock and announce requirements the Supremes put on the 4th Amendment. Granted, it's helped me several times......but the cops aren't just gonna knock and then go away if noone answers. a high pitched "whooooooo iiiiiiiisssssssssssss iiiiiiiiit??" ain't gonna matter to the guy with the battering ram. Giving people the time to answer the door peaceably and without door frame destruction is nice, but in the end, if you're hiding something, you're not gonna answer it anyway.

and Frost, they STILL have to have a search warrant supported by probable cause.......not exactly what i call "fascism". but i guess sometimes reality gets a little fuzzy to you when you wanna get all anarchist on us. ;)

[yoshomon]

Um, this doesn't change anything. Police have always followed the rule 'cops can do whatever the fuck they want'. Sometimes, very rarely, a cop will get fired or something, but basically, they can do whatever the fuck they want. The vast majority of cases never go to trial anyway... they just have people take plea deals and lock 'em up.

[yoshomon]

REMgirl, they don't need a warrant if you let them in. Even if you "don't have anything to hide", the best thing to do is to leave the door locked and ask if they have a warrant. If they don't, tell 'em to go away. Nothing you say can help you, but it could hurt you or someone you know. "Dry snitching" is when you give info to cops that helps their investigation but doesn't actually rat someone out for a crime.

Why would you voluntarily let an armed thug into your home?

Warrant or not, who knows if the cops have the right house? It's happened before and people have been injured or badly frightened.

They kill people after entering the wrong house.

[dannyboy]

Hypothetical question here:
Suppose you're one of those gun-toting itchy trigger fingers type that believes in self-defense. If the cops come barging into to your own home unannounced with guns drawn and you shoot them before they identify themselves, could you legally claim self-defense? It seems to me that knocking and identifying yourself as a police officer before entering would serve as a protection to the officer(s).

[BigSugar]

"Dry snitching" is.....

painful. it took three trips to the doctor and a variety of creams and ointments, but it's gone now......

ummm.......at least that's what my buddy who had it said.......yeah.......my buddy. that's it.

<scratch, scratch>

[Duemellon]

Hypothetical question here:
Suppose you're one of those gun-toting itchy trigger fingers type that believes in self-defense. If the cops come barging into to your own home unannounced with guns drawn and you shoot them before they identify themselves, could you legally claim self-defense? It seems to me that knocking and identifying yourself as a police officer before entering would serve as a protection to the officer(s).That's one of the arguments for knock & announce.

The amouont of hardcore violent "I'll die before you take me copper" types is much smaller than what we're focused to notice in the news. I can't see this tactic being used often for the officers' sake. Of course, there may be a learning period & a few incidents over a few years where everyone is reminded of why the knock & announce was actually safer.

[purple_octopus]

Hypothetical question here:
Suppose you're one of those gun-toting itchy trigger fingers type that believes in self-defense. If the cops come barging into to your own home unannounced with guns drawn and you shoot them before they identify themselves, could you legally claim self-defense? It seems to me that knocking and identifying yourself as a police officer before entering would serve as a protection to the officer(s).
This is a *really* good point, because I would definitely shoot first and ask questions later if there were an intruder in my home. I would feel threatened, and I wouldn't analyze the situation before doing anything about it. There has been a time or two when Shlep came home early from work when I wasn't expecting him. The gun was nearly in my hand as I said "Hey baby, is that you?" while he was walking up the stairs. Now Shlep says "Honey I'm home" if he gets home much earlier than expected.

I also almost shot an exterminator once because I had just moved into an apartment, and they had given me the wrong date for the exterminator. It was something like the first Tuesday of the month, and they told me it was the first Thursday. Otherwise, I would have been expecting him. They used some off name company (no terminex uniform or anything like that), and he didn't knock. I heard someone playing with the lock on my door, and by the time he got it opened, there I was, not even fully dressed, with a gun pointed at his head. If he would have taken one step into my place, he would have been dead. I scared the shit out of him. Poor guy, it wasn't his fault -- it was the apartment manager's. Although he should have knocked.

[dannyboy]

Well just because they dont knock doesnt mean they wouldnt identify themselves. They can just as easily yell "police" after they knock the door down. Besides, when was the last time you heard of a burglar using a battering ram to get into someones house??That's why I posed it as a hypothetical. ;)

[Shlep]

Um, this doesn't change anything. Police have always followed the rule 'cops can do whatever the fuck they want'. Sometimes, very rarely, a cop will get fired or something, but basically, they can do whatever the fuck they want. The vast majority of cases never go to trial anyway... they just have people take plea deals and lock 'em up.

Yeah yosh, you're right. Just as before, the po-pos can just waltz right into your house and bust you...once they've established probable cause, brought their case before a judge to have its veracity established, whereupon if the judge declares there's sufficient reason, signs off on a warrant.

A lot of what I hear about the absolute untouchability of cops who are at complete liberty to fecklessly abuse their authority without fear of consequence would seem to be coming from people whose forming of this opinion as in no way influenced by knowing any actual cops. I've been well-acquainted with quite a few, and the common lament they all seem to have is that the legal system is so heavily stacked in favor of the crimminals in order to prevent abuse as well as unjust arrest and such of innocent citizens (as it should be) that enforcing the law is monumentally difficult.

As far as being shocked and outraged by the ruling by SCOTUS that cops need not be required to execute a search warrant in the manner of people selling encyclopedias door-to-door: the cops have a flippin' warrant, they're coming in, period. That includes whether they knock or not.

I must also wonder if it possibility's even occurred to anyone at all that the police might actually exercise judgement and discretion when deciding the manner in which to enter a home for the purpose of executing a warrant, or if it's just a foregone conclusion that whether they're serving a warrant for failure to pay child support, selling dime bags of crappy weed, or a four-state aggravated assault and murder spree, they're going to ram the door open and run in tossing around teargas and flashbangs and drilling anything that moves.

[Duemellon]

I've been well-acquainted with quite a few, and the common lament they all seem to have is that the legal system is so heavily stacked in favor of the crimminals in order to prevent abuse as well as unjust arrest and such of innocent citizens (as it should be) that enforcing the law is monumentally difficult.... it's strange...
I hear the same from soldiers who say that the rules of combat when facing a foe as savage as the <insert enemy here> makes being civil, following the Geneva Conventions, & identification of friend, foes, & non-combatants extra difficult.

I hear the same from defense lawyers talking about how hard it is to ensure the prosecutors, police, & judges, do everything above the table, present evidence properly, & get an unfettered sample of the events happening around collection of testimony & evidence.

I just think there's a bunch of rules. How's about, from now on, we just say that everyone believes their lives & jobs are made more difficult by protocol. expectations, when balanced against their internal desires for the results. Heck, I feel the same when working the tech-desk phones! If only I could really say what I wanted to & record it how I wanted to, not only would my job be easier it'd be quicker & I'd be much more helpful.

We won't even get into the "common man/w a gun" myth regarding police or military, but suffice it to say the complaints they have, although vehement, are part of their job description to properly navigate. If they are unable to properly navigate the ins & outs to execute their duties in a fashion they find palatable, I suggest that career choice might not be suitable for them.

[Shlep]

We won't even get into the "common man/w a gun" myth regarding police or military, but suffice it to say the complaints they have, although vehement, are part of their job description to properly navigate. If they are unable to properly navigate the ins & outs to execute their duties in a fashion they find palatable, I suggest that career choice might not be suitable for them.

Of course; I doubt any reasonable person would disagree that if you're not cut out for the job you do, and it makes you bitter and angry and compels you to reject the professional ethics you agreed either implicitly or simply by virtue of accepting your job to abide and uphold, then you need to quit for your own good and that of those who would be harmed directly or indirectly by your wrongdoing.

I hope you weren't under the impression I felt otherwise.

[Duemellon]

I hope you weren't under the impression I felt otherwise.The point was more along the lines that everyone feels rules get in the way of doing the intent of their jobs.

I just wanted to also preempt anyone from saying their job shouldn't be so tough. I really REALLY think it should, because even with all these rules & protocols in the way, the wrong persons still get in trouble. If those protocols weren't in the way, how much more often would that be?

[PeterABnny]

I heard about that on NPR this morning. I wonder the extent or the frequency with which the police would burst into a home unannounced to execute a warrent. Yeah, they may have the option of busting in like that, but like high-speed auto pursuits which they also have the power to execute, how wise would it be for them to actually do so?

[Handy Smurf]

there I was, not even fully dressed, with a gun pointed at his head
Sounds like Charlton Heston's wet dream

[BigSugar]

Yea, that was REMgirl

bigsug must have been smokin dat 'ol Irish "peat"

oops. just assumed i guess. :) that's what being in week 1.5 of a server crash and recovery will to to one's brain.

but Frost was thinking it and Yosh was out digging up the guns to begin the revolution. LOL.

[REMgirl]

Yes, it was crazy little old Liberal me, REMgirl. I said the "F" word. :p

I think it's a dangerous idea to eliminate the callout and identification by police or SWAT teams. It adds a greater chance of someone being shot in a moment of panic. I've got a friend who keeps guns and he admitted that if someone burst into his house unannounced, he would shoot them on the spot. They wouldn't have a chance to show him a warrant. And he could be killed in retaliation.

If there's no real difference, as a lot of people have stated, then why change the law at all? Why run it all the way up to the Supremes to make this supposedly insignificant change? It stood for over ninety years, so why now? :confused:

I'm not saying we are on our way to a police state and pure fascism, but I am concerned when elements of the Constitution are chipped away. The Fourth amendment doesn't state that police have to announce their presence, but it's worked that way for decades.

[yoshomon]

A lot of what I hear about the absolute untouchability of cops who are at complete liberty to fecklessly abuse their authority without fear of consequence would seem to be coming from people whose forming of this opinion as in no way influenced by knowing any actual cops. I've been well-acquainted with quite a few, and the common lament they all seem to have is that the legal system is so heavily stacked in favor of the crimminals in order to prevent abuse as well as unjust arrest and such of innocent citizens (as it should be) that enforcing the law is monumentally difficult.

I would never voluntarily spend time with police, but I've had far too many experiences with them against my will. Between my own legal problems (charges dropped bitch!), personal experiences with cops on the street, doing cop watch and prisoner support in New Orleans and elsewhere, attending trials, and having friends in prisoin, I think I have a pretty good idea about how police operate and what they get away with.

If the legal system is so heavily stacked in favor of "criminals", why are over 2.2 million people behind bars*? Why does the US lock up more black men per population than South Africa did under apartheid*? Fuck the police.

*Based on Bureau of Justice and Census Bureau numbers. South African numbers from Marc Mauer's Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration

[Shlep]

I would never voluntarily spend time with police, but I've had far too many experiences with them against my will. Between my own legal problems (charges dropped bitch!), personal experiences with cops on the street, doing cop watch and prisoner support in New Orleans and elsewhere, attending trials, and having friends in prisoin, I think I have a pretty good idea about how police operate and what they get away with.

So your experiences with cops seem largely to have involved a) dealing with them as a result of your "legal problems" (which I can reasonably guess involved breaking the law) b) keeping an eye on the notoriously corrupt New Orleans PD (hardly a bellwether of how cops nationwide behave), c) attending trials (and how that affects your opinion of cops, I have no idea) and d) having friends in prison (where there are no cops, but rather corrections officers).

Well yosh, I can say I'm not surprised that your opinion of cops is as low as it is.

If the legal system is so heavily stacked in favor of "criminals", why are over 2.2 million people behind bars*? Why does the US lock up more black men per population than South Africa did under apartheid*? Fuck the police.


Gee yosh, I dunno. But whatever the reason is, I guess we can all rule out that people committing legal infractions has no bearing on the stats you're citing and just assume that crooked cops are entirely to blame.

[purple_octopus]

I won't say that all cops are bad (far from it), but I will say that there are some bad ones out there. And if that's all yosh has come into contact with, I'm not surprised he feels the way he does. If it weren't for all the good cops I've known, I'd probably hate them all at this point too.

[yoshomon]

Gee yosh, I dunno. But whatever the reason is, I guess we can all rule out that people committing legal infractions has no bearing on the stats you're citing and just assume that crooked cops are entirely to blame.

Compare crime rates to incarceration rates. It doesn't add up.

You said the legal system is "stacked" in favor of "criminals". I think even a brief glance at the reality of the judicial and prison system says otherwise, and I backed that up.

Good cop/bad cop makes absolutely no difference to me. All cops must obey the blue line of silence and defend other cops (unless media or public pressure gets too bad, then the department have to let one or two go). I know what the FOP does, and I know that cops can't pick or choose which side they're on, if they want to keep their job that is.

The "dangerous job" stuff is bullshit too, though I wish it were true. Being a pizza deliveryman is far more dangerous.

[juggles]

I heard this being discussed on NPR the other day, and they said that there were already exceptions made for cases where it was likely that the cops' safety was in danger or when evidence was likely to be destroyed. I think this is mentioned in the dessenting opinion. Not knocking and announcing in any other situation sounds an awful lot like an unreasonable search to me.

[Shlep]

Compare crime rates to incarceration rates. It doesn't add up.

You said the legal system is "stacked" in favor of "criminals". I think even a brief glance at the reality of the judicial and prison system says otherwise, and I backed that up.

No, you gave a single dry, sweeping statistical generalization (total number of people in lockup) and a perfunctory allusion to the idea that cops and the crimminal justice system must surely be racist and keeping the black man down by locking him up at rates apparently greater than in South Africa under apartheid. That establishes, validates, or backs up nothing except the claim that a) 2.2 million people are locked up and b) quite a lot of them are black. With regards to item "b," I feel compelled to point out that since crime-- especially violent crimes like aggravated assault, murder, rape, and strong-arm robberies-- are overwhelmingly intra-racial, meaning that black guys locked up for more serious offenses are likely cooling their heels in stir for a serious offense committed against a black person in a predominantly black community. I suppose you'd feel justice was better served if the doors were thrown open and they were sent back into the communities they came from where they could resume predation upon their fellow citizens.

Moreover, this doesn't even begin to refute the idea that the crimminal justice system is not stacked in favor of crimminals. Cops are held to a lengthy, labrynthine array of protocols and procedural rules when dealing with suspects, the flubbing of any could potentially spring the guy if he actually gets arrested. Crimminals know this, and if you think many of them don't manipulate the system in their favor, you're not acknowledging reality.

Good cop/bad cop makes absolutely no difference to me. All cops must obey the blue line of silence and defend other cops (unless media or public pressure gets too bad, then the department have to let one or two go). I know what the FOP does, and I know that cops can't pick or choose which side they're on, if they want to keep their job that is.

I can't disagree with this much, considering that law enforcement is one of those professions (such as teaching public school) where they are apt to close ranks and protect their own from people clearly aware of their ability to royally railroad and fuck one of them with a formal complaint. It is for this reason that advocates for law enforcement and cops themselves are primarily among the groups who championed the proflieration of dashboard cameras in their cruisers to record stops and arrests, as it precludes people from lodging bogus complaints of police abuse.

Though conversely, I suppose if some Earth First!-type agitator torched an auto carrier loaded with Hummers and you knew where he could be found, when the cops arrived, you'd draw them a map.

The "dangerous job" stuff is bullshit too, though I wish it were true. Being a pizza deliveryman is far more dangerous.

I delivered pizzas in college; working graveyards at a gas station with a mini-mart is more dangerous. But that's neither here nor there; you seriously seem to be under the impression that an accurate portrayal of a career in law enforcement can be had by watching reruns of The Andy Griffith Show.

[yoshomon]

But that's neither here nor there; you seriously seem to be under the impression that an accurate portrayal of a career in law enforcement can be had by watching reruns of The Andy Griffith Show.

No, I think they're armed thugs for the state who are overwhelmingly racist and stupid, though the occasional intelligent cop is even worse. I think they prey on poor people, particularly poor people of color, and that they are, by profession, class traitors. I think they are the frontline in the all-out-war that's been going on for the past 30 years against the working class that has led to a ridiculous spike in incarceration rates (in addition to lowered wages, both real and social) and that this war is a retaliation for the victories made by the working class in the 60's, particularly the civil rights movement (bourgeois blacks got socioeconomic mobility and access to political power while working class blacks got prison).

A text I've been reading put it like this: "Repression installs itself almost everywhere, prepositioned according to a strict correspondence between the organization of violence and the needs of the economy, to the point where the distinction between war and peace, between police operations and wars, is erased.

In the favelas of Brazil, the prisons of the United States, the suburbs of the great metropolises, the free zones of China, the oil contours of the Caspian, the West Bank and Gaza, the police war has become the social, demographic and geographic regulation of the management, reproduction and exploitation of the work force. The repression is permanent, not everywhere, but everywhere possible: "lightening" interventions, peace-keeping by force, police missions, humanitarian missions. It amounts to a global management: revenues on the verge of survival, a death threat for the masses of individuals thrown towards the cities by the destruction of agriculture, disposable after usage and massacred by paramilitary or parapolice."

I have no hard feelings towards the late Don Knotts. rip

[Shlep]

No, I think they're armed thugs for the state who are overwhelmingly racist and stupid, though the occasional intelligent cop is even worse. I think they prey on poor people, particularly poor people of color, and that they are, by profession, class traitors. I think they are the frontline in the all-out-war that's been going on for the past 30 years against the working class that has led to a ridiculous spike in incarceration rates (in addition to lowered wages, both real and social) and that this war is a retaliation for the victories made by the working class in the 60's, particularly the civil rights movement (bourgeois blacks got socioeconomic mobility and access to political power while working class blacks got prison).

I think all of the above is complete and utter paranoid pseudo-intellectual coffee-shop nonsense. Though you probably could have guessed that without me telling you.

And you can take a dump on cops in general all you want; for all you know, the guy who might otherwise have shanked you in the ribs and run off with your wallet while you lay dying is locked up where he needs to be because some guy who chose to enter a profession which involves being overworked and underpaid in order to do some of the genuine good in the world was on the job. Of course, the same hypothetical assailant could've been put away by one of the relative minority of dirty cops who busted him and decided to bend the living hell out of the rules in order to put the guy away, which would be particularly ironic. But your mind is made up, and we must obviously agree to disagree.

[BigSugar]

A text I've been reading put it like this: "Repression installs itself almost everywhere, prepositioned according to a strict correspondence between the organization of violence and the needs of the economy, to the point where the distinction between war and peace, between police operations and wars, is erased.

In the favelas of Brazil, the prisons of the United States, the suburbs of the great metropolises, the free zones of China, the oil contours of the Caspian, the West Bank and Gaza, the police war has become the social, demographic and geographic regulation of the management, reproduction and exploitation of the work force. The repression is permanent, not everywhere, but everywhere possible: "lightening" interventions, peace-keeping by force, police missions, humanitarian missions. It amounts to a global management: revenues on the verge of survival, a death threat for the masses of individuals thrown towards the cities by the destruction of agriculture, disposable after usage and massacred by paramilitary or parapolice."


the only thing missing from this is a hooka, black lights and a room full of morons snapping at the end.

and for the record, South Central LA is a tea-sipping, finger pointed skyward garden party compared to the favela's of Brazil. it's like comparing WWII to a routine traffic stop on the basis that a participant in both was carrying a gun. <snap, snap, snap>

[3rd Silo Record]

Moreover, this doesn't even begin to refute the idea that the crimminal justice system is not stacked in favor of crimminals. Cops are held to a lengthy, labrynthine array of protocols and procedural rules when dealing with suspects, the flubbing of any could potentially spring the guy if he actually gets arrested.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? The criminal justice system is stacked in favor of criminals *and* the innocent by design. The burden of proof must be on the State before someone can be imprisoned (except if you are locked away in Gitmo).

Now, as far as this whole knocking before coming in thing goes, I dunno. I don't carry a gun, so I'm not going to blow anyone away if the police get my address wrong. It seems like it's safer for the cops to announce, and then enter to avoid stuff like that -- but then they could lose evidence. Maybe bad guys should just stop being so....bad, and then we wouldn't have to discuss stuff like this. Then Sug would be out of work, so that's no good either. The world is complex. And hard. Like math. And being president.