Roberts, Alito majority tosses aside principle from 13th century Britain

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT editorial: Editorial
The Don't-Bother-to-Knock Rule
Published: June 16, 2006

The Supreme Court yesterday substantially diminished Americans' right to privacy in their own homes. The rule that police officers must "knock and announce" themselves before entering a private home is a venerable one, and a well-established part of Fourth Amendment law. But President Bush's two recent Supreme Court appointments have now provided the votes for a 5-4 decision eviscerating this rule.

This decision should offend anyone, liberal or conservative, who worries about the privacy rights of ordinary Americans.

***

... Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that even if police officers did not have to fear losing a case if they disobeyed the knock-and-announce rule, the subjects of improper searches could still bring civil lawsuits to challenge them. But as the dissenters rightly pointed out, there is little chance that such suits would keep the police in line. Justice Scalia was also far too dismissive of the important privacy rights at stake, which he essentially reduced to "the right not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes." Justice Stephen Breyer noted in dissent that even a century ago the court recognized that when the police barge into a house unannounced, it is an assault on "the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

If Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had stayed on the court, this case might well have come out the other way. For those who worry that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will take the court in a radically conservative direction, it is sobering how easily the majority tossed aside a principle that traces back to 13th-century Britain, and a legal doctrine that dates to 1914, to let the government invade people's homes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/opinion/16fri1.html?ex=1150689600&en=95695c4cba23e074&ei=5087%0A

[Selatius]

1. The only recourse now is Congress passing a law explicitly dealing with it

Otherwise, the SCOTUS ruling will be the fall-back point. However, Congress isn't exactly doing its job nowadays.

[bleever]

2. That's a real long time ago.

Kudos to the NYT for taking the time to point that out.

Next * will be "on the hunt" for Robin of Lockesly, promising to "smoke him out".

No wonder most Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

[Erika]

3. Big Bro government

Grow government powers. Diminish citizens rights. W gave the conservatives what they wanted.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. As someone pointed out earlier, what happens when this happens in

Florida, where they have that "I can shoot anyone who I think is a threat to me" law? Which of these will take precedence? hmmmmmmm?

[benEzra]

36. I think you misunderstand Florida's new law...

which is now similar to the one California has had for decades now. You can't shoot someone simply because you "feel threatened," but you CAN shoot someone who is illegally breaking into your home. The key word being "illegally." This would NOT apply to a police officer serving a legitimate warrant, in accordance with the terms of the warrant, because he/she would have full legal right to be there. Shooting him/her would be murder in any state in the nation, including Florida.

FWIW, preventing mistaken identity tragedies is why no-knock warrants USED to be restricted to special situations, before the court issued this idiotic ruling. From an FBI report on the way things USED to be:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE

The Supreme Court has determined that "every householder, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house."19 The knock and announce rule provides citizens with psychological security, knowing that one need not fear an unexpected intrusion. Privacy interests also are protected, avoiding unnecessary embarrassment, shock, or property damage resulting from an unannounced entry.

The rule serves to protect both the individual citizen and the police from the risk of harm and the potential for violence that may occur as a result of an unannounced entry.20 Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not "mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder."21 Innocent citizens also are protected from law enforcement officers who mistakenly might shoot armed occupants who merely are trying to defend themselves from who they preceive to be armed intruders.

The second paragraph is particularly apropos.

[kestrel91316]

5. The police can now essentially tap lightly on your door and then three

seconds later break it down.

I think we all know where this is headed: what they CAN do, will soon be their policy to do ALL THE TIME. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Search warrants of all kinds will now be announced by a breaking door.

[kath]

6. "search warrants"?!?! Don'cha know, that concept is SO obsolete. Just

like the Geneva Conventions...

[global1]

9. If 2500 Is A Number And The Constitution Is A Piece Of Paper.....

where do you think 'search warrants' will rate in *'s America?

[kestrel91316]

20. Well with the help of the NSA, the police will already "know" that you

are guilty of a crime, so they won't need to bother with all that legal fol-de-rol. They just break the door down, and when you dare to object, they shoot you dead and claim they thought you were pulling a gun on them.

Edited for clarity. Need coffee.

[tblue37]

25. "Badges? We don' need no stinkin' badges!" (eom)

[Warren Stupidity]

22. The ruling goes beyond even that.

Scalia's argument that a civil suit suffices to protect the individual's rights opens the door (pun intended) to allowing the police to ignore the rules entirely without fear that the evidence will be thrown out.

[nealmhughes]

7. "A man's home is his castle" is indeed well settled common law.

So is the presumption of freedom. Anyone claiming to have a right to enter a home for searching must produce a legal writ, and then then no damage should occur in entering, according to the common law. Likewise, noone should have to prove any right or identity, as all are presumed to be free and anyone having a claim on their liberty has to produce such proof.
The first real test of this was when English common law clashed with North American customary in the institution of chattel slavery. The only thing existing by then on status of "freedom" were regarding minors (and women, who were effectively minors under the common law) and those held in bondage for punishment for crime or apprenticed. The max term of indentureship was usually 7 years. Many slaves argued in the first generation of slavery in the colonial era that they had indeed served seven years, become a Christian, and therefore were free under the common law. Well, the statute law had to change that really quickly, and indeed they did, colony by colony.
Glad to know the Supremes are in such great company. I still wonder why they dumped Mary, though, I think Cindy and Diana did her wrong.

[upi402]

8. Of course. DINO's maybe should've filibustered all they could.

Are DINOs betraying our democracy too? Looks like it's pretty obvious now.

Where is the opposition to the corporatist rule? A minority of the former Democratic party are true heroes. The rest supplant and prevent resistance to corporate rule. Fuck it, where is Paul Wellstone... oh, maybe that's what they're afraid of.

[AndyTiedye]

12. It Wouldn't Have Mattered, They Would Have NukularOptiooned Us, But…

…we shoulda at least tried to filibuster.

It's always darkest before it turns completely black.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. It would have mattered.

The nukularoption was threat that they did not really want to use, and our Glorious Leaders never even tried to call their bluff, preferring to cave instead every single time. Had our (Opposition) Party stood and objected to these appointments we would at least have gone on the record as being IN OPPOSITION, even if in doing so we had gone down to defeat. The effort would have helped to reinforce the negative framing of the bullying mean spirited rule breaking rethuglican leaders, and since they got all of their guys in anyhow, the end result could not have been worse than what we got. We had nothing to lose by standing and fighting, and still our leaders refused to fight. Any wonder why the Democratic Party is viewed as weak and uncommitted to its own ideals?

[AndyTiedye]

27. They Clearly Had the Votes To Do It, and Frist WANTED to Do It

Our party is viewed as weak because it IS weak.
The Democratic party has no power at all in Washington. None. Nada.
The "nuclear option" would have made that official and evident to everyone.

I think it is evident to everyone by now anyway,
so we might as well have gone down fighting.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Well I agree.

Of course I am just speculating that they did not want to actually pull the trigger. We should have found out as we really had, as you and I both agree, nothing to lose.

[kevinbgoode]

10. Well...well.....CONservative "activist" judges. . .

The Right is all about reducing civil rights to being reserved for only wealthy Party members. But of course, they aren't fascists - just ask them. They are just real patriots trying to make everyone feel "safe." Except in our homes.

[upi402]

11. well at least the GAYS can't get married

:sarcasm:
Why aren't freeps figuring these fascists out? Oh yeah, the media brainwashes thoroughly, and repeats as needed.

[mmonk]

13. Thank goodness for the gang of 14

and the dems that are a part of it. I'm so glad they wouldn't filibuster.

[ArbustoBuster]

14. I look forward to the police using this new rule in 2007...

...when the Democratic majority in Congress has Bush dragged out of the White House at 3 AM to stand trial in his pajamas.

:sarcasm:

[Time for change]

15. It's very good to see that even our corporate media is becoming somewhat

incensed over what is going on today.

[elehhhhna]

16. Hey! It's a post-9/11/1200 a.d. world! Times change. Constitutions

crumble.

200 year old countries are still pups.

[mom cat]

17. Never forget the Alito traitors.... Never!

[enough]

18. "Well I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I care."

The inability of the citizenry to understand the issue here is even more frightening than the decision.

Somehow most Americans seem to be secure in the idea that they are in the IN crowd. They can't imagine that the police will ever be at their door. They feel SAFE in a police state.

[Joanne98]

19. We can thank the "Christians" for this.

[Solo_in_MD]

21. There are other threads here on DU that got this correct

It DID NOT abolish the knock requirement

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Made it mostly irrelevant.

The prohibition on illegal searches was enforced by the fact that the courts would toss the evidence. Now that enforcement is gone. With it goes effective prohibition. It is kind of like having a speed limit and a legal precedent saying that fines can't be collected.

[Odin2005]

24. The concept of "innocent untill proven guilty" is dead in the US.

Nowdays if you tried to defend Due Process you will be labeled "soft on crime."

People accused of rape are assumed guilty and are given less rights in order to "protect the victim."

When someone is aquitted people think it is because he/she had a good lawyer or the prosecutor was a moron, so the person stays guilty in the eyes of the public.

[Jed Dilligan]

26. Wow, good job posters

I was holding my breath, waiting for someone to come on saying we "just don't understand" how important this is for "officer safety." And it just didn't happen! Of course, it's taken me some time to type this, so I don't really know now...

[Warren Stupidity]

29. No, our trolls seem to be on assignment elsewhere.

Nothing here but clear thinking DUers.

[A Simple Game]

31. From what I heard on NPR earlier today,

police in high crime areas like to announce themselves and wait. Better than getting shot as a thief breaking and entering an apartment or house.

[Cha]

32. I guess they think it's

a sure bet that the police aren't going to be knocking down their doors without knocking first?

Karma has a way of kicking you in the teeth anyway.

[SmokingJacket]

33. Among other problems, we're going to see more dead cops.

I think this is bad for everyone.

[Rex]

34. Not a surprise, we all knew fascism took hold in 2000.

So here we sit, watching the Iron Fist tighten its grip on individual liberty. If you didn't know then you are part of the problem and not the solution.

I remember reading that the case involved a party that was so loud, you couldn't hear the police when they announced themselves. That's not the same as an assault team smashing down a door for political persecution.

[Wilms]

35. .