Court gets the 4th Amendment right

[Tigermike 3,035]

What do our resident lawyers and other "deep thinkers" think?

A warranted decision: Court gets the 4th Amendment right

10 hours, 38 minutes ago

IN A 5 to 4 decision last week, Bush's two appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court proved their merit.

The court ruled that prosecutors could use in court evidence obtained during a warranted police search in which police failed to legally announce their entry into a home. It is an important law enforcement victory, which does not encroach upon civil rights.

At issue was not whether police had to announce their presence before entering a home. They do. At issue was whether evidence obtained under a search warrant had to be thrown out if the police entered the home too hastily. The police in this case shouted their presence and entered the home a few seconds later. Though they had a warrant, a lower court found that they did not give the occupant enough time to answer the door.

The liberal wing of the court would have thrown out the evidence — cocaine and a firearm — because police knew the criminal was armed and therefore entered his home a bit too hastily for fear of being shot if they gave him more time. John Roberts and Samuel Alito sided with the majority in ruling that the police found the cocaine and firearm in the home not because they entered a few seconds too quickly, but because they had a warrant and the occupant could not have hidden his illegal stash even if the police gave him time to answer the door.

It was a brilliant decision that correctly balanced the interests of the state and the interests of the individual, and we are all safer for it.

link

[quietfan 233]

I didn't think one even had to be home when they executed a search warrant. (Note: I am neither a lawyer, nor play one on TV. ) Consider, for example, suspects on the run or already in custody for committing a crime: you usually read of police executing searches on that suspect's home and/or office regardless of who is or is not there to answer the door.

If the presence of an occupant is not a requirement to search, I don't see why speed of entry or identification was even an issue.

Of course, while identifying oneself as police runs the risk of getting shot at by an armed criminal, failiure to identify oneself also runs the risk of being shot as an unknown intruder.

* * * * * **

Regarding illegal searches in general and exculsion of evidence due to minor technicalities in the warrant process: I've always thought a reasonable compromise in those cases would be to allow the seized evidence to be used for prosecution (assuming there is at least the intent of proper procedure by the police), but then allow the suspect to file suit against the police dept and/or the individual officers for negligence or violation of the suspect's constitutional rights if there were illegalities in the search process. That, I think, would still be enough of a deterent to prevent intential abuses on the part of law enforcement officers, while still not releasing criminals because of a mispelled name or something on the warrant.

In the case of outrageously egregious violations of the 4th amendment, or clear abuse and blatent disregard for the 4th amendment, I'd say still throw out the evidence, however.