Come and knock on my door - well, not really. (Hope it's no dupe.)

[Deja Q]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2006-06-15-scotus-knocking_x.htm

WASHINGTON — Drugs or other evidence seized at a home can be used in a trial even if police failed to knock and announce their presence, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a major shift in its rulings on illegal searches by police.

The 5-4 decision in a Detroit drug case undercuts a nearly century-old rule that says evidence found during an unlawful search cannot be used. The decision also offers a sign that the court might be more apt to strengthen the hand of police with Justice Samuel Alito in the place of retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor, who was on the court when the case was first argued, had worried about "the sanctity of the home."

Alito sided fully with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, which emphasized that tossing out evidence acquired in violation of the knock-and-announce rule — but with a valid warrant — could mean "releasing dangerous criminals."

In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer called the decision "doubly troubling."

"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents," he wrote, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection."



Article has more.

[Igel]

1. It's a massive dupe,

there were maybe 4 or 5 posts yesterday, and at least one today, I think.

But this is the article that reports the SCOTUS opinion most clearly, so you get a gold star from me.

I read the various posts yesterday, read the discussions and comments, and had no idea what the opinion actually was even about. Finally just read the damned opinion on their website. *That* was a load of fun.