High court clashes over police search evidence

[Judi Lynn]

High court clashes over police search evidence
Justices spar over whether police must knock before home searches

Updated: 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices sparred Thursday over police searches in a case that could signal a change in direction for the court after the arrival of two new conservative members.

The court has been generally cohesive and congenial under new Chief Justice John Roberts and in the three and a half months since Samuel Alito became the new junior justice. Earlier this week, for example, the justices ruled in four cases and were 9-0 in each.

They appeared fractured, however, as they debated for the second time whether police can rush into a home without knocking and seize evidence for use at a trial.

The case may have a different outcome without retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of a Detroit man whose house was searched in 1998.
(snip/...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12856366/from/RSS/

[ixion]

1. funny how these so-called 'conservatives' are so very liberal

with our constitutional rights. :grr:

[NJ_Lib]

4. Since when does the means to obtaining evidence not...

...matter so long as the end result is the same? That's those pricks'argument? Holy God...

[pinerow]

2. Ahhh...the good old days when the police actually had to

have a little thing called a WARRANT...:wtf:

[NJ_Lib]

3. Here we go... We all knew this was coming,no...?

I'd like to see this headline: "Million protest High Court Over Loss of Rights" Will we ever see that?

[Daphne08]

5. This is one of the most frightening things I've ever read!

Where in God's name is my country?

[depakid]

6. Every time Alito swings a case

Let's NOT FORGET the list of those who sold us out.

[VegasWolf]

12. The DINO's had to keep their powder dry, remember!!! nt

[Karmakaze]

7. At least they had a warrant...

If Bush gets his way they will only need "reasonable suspicion" to kick in ANYONE'S doors.

[Speaker]

8. Ahhh, yes.

The drug war brings us so many wonderful new things.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. WP: Privacy Case May Rest on Alito Vote: Forced Entry by Police at Issue

Privacy Case May Rest on Alito Vote
Forced Entry by Police at Issue
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 19, 2006; Page A11

The Supreme Court heard a rare mid-May oral argument yesterday, on the authority of police to search private homes without knocking first -- in a major privacy-rights case likely to be decided by the vote of the court's newest member, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

At issue in Hudson v. Michigan , No. 04-1360, is the "knock and announce" rule rooted both in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and Anglo-American common law. The rule says that, in normal cases, police with a search warrant must knock and state their purpose, then wait a reasonable period for an answer, before forcing their way in.

Most federal and state courts that considered the question have said courts must exclude evidence seized by police who did not follow the rule. But in recent years, the Michigan Supreme Court has joined the minority that says no such "exclusionary rule" is required.

When the court first heard oral argument on Jan. 9, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench. But O'Connor stepped down before the court could issue its opinion.

The court then announced it would hear arguments again. It gave no reason, but since it could have issued a decision if there were still five votes for one side without O'Connor, the most probable explanation is that the court was divided 4 to 4 and needed Alito, a former prosecutor who built a strong pro-police record as a federal appeals judge, to break the tie....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051801926.html

[Demeter]

10. Scary Stuff

[Peter Frank]

11. K & R...

We've gotta keep a close eye on these yahoos, now more than ever. Once rights are lost, they are extremely difficult to get back.

[Bandit]

13. They have had the "No Knock Policy" since Reagan

It was put into effect over drugs and was upheld by the courts already.