Reply #56: This is a spurious line of reasoning.

[Igel]

The police do not have the right to enter homes without warning in most situations.

The rule was they must knock, announce themselves, and wait a reasonable time. This rule was void under certain conditions--if a life was in danger, or they reasonably suspected the evidence would be destroyed. This is still the rule.

The case involved the police not knocking, and waiting only 3-5 seconds. They announced themselves, though. They entered. The defendant argued that the evidence obtained under the warrant must be excluded. Since that was most of the case, he's saying that since they failed to knock, he must be found not guilty.

So what did the decision say?

The crux of the matter is whether the proper penalty was excluding evidence obtained, under warrant, when the police failed to abide by all the provisions of the knock-and-announce rule. The ruling that it was too high, had the ruling been followed exactly the same evidence would have been found; it does not have to be excluded.

The knock-and-announce rule was not overturned; one possible penalty was. In fact, there was discussion as to how the rule should enforced. Is the threat of civil suit sufficient deterrence? Maybe. Are police department rules and policies, as required by the city or county commissions, sufficient? Maybe. Hence "better policing", which is the wrong term; 'increased professionalism' is a better term. Dispute all you want whether these are sufficient to protect civil liberties. SCOTUS thinks there must be some appropriate penalty. They just didn't say, because that wasn't the question. Failure to knock isn't ok, neither is not waiting long enough (although they also didn't define 'long enough'): the police still are to give suitable time to give the householder time to comply with the request, to avoid the possibility of injury or harm, or to maintain the householder's privacy and dignity.