Knock Knock
I usually don't write about SCOTUS cases but today's opinion in Hudson, got my attention. (For other coverage see here, here, and here). The case deals with a violation of the "knock and announce" rule with respect to police entries. The case got my attention because of Justice Kennedy's concurrence where he writes:
Gooooooooooooooooooo AMK!!! Similar to Lawrence, AMK continues to use sweeping flowery rhetoric to describe the sanctity of security at home. If an NSA case survives the state secrets privilege and makes its way through the courts, I'd be a tad bit worried if I was General Clement.
As to the basic right in question, privacy and security in the home are central to the Fourth Amendment ’s guarantees as explained in our decisions and as understood since the beginnings of the Republic. This common understanding ensures respect for the law and allegiance to our institutions, and it is an instrument for transmitting our Constitution to later generations undiminished in meaning and force. It bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry. Security must not be subject to erosion by indifference or contempt.
Gooooooooooooooooooo AMK!!! Similar to Lawrence, AMK continues to use sweeping flowery rhetoric to describe the sanctity of security at home. If an NSA case survives the state secrets privilege and makes its way through the courts, I'd be a tad bit worried if I was General Clement.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 9:14 AM
4 Comments:
There is already a huge hole in the Fourth Amendment's foundation! We basically don't have an exclusionary rule anymore and now cops can kick down your door without warning.
This case will lead to a number of people getting killed. If someone kicks down your door and the first thing you see is a drawn gun, I think most people would shoot if they had their own gun. And if you realize in time it's a cop and you don't shoot, the cops see you with a drawn gun and shoot you. So even if you realize it's a cop, it may make sense to shoot, although there is no way you'd be able to get a jury to find it was self-defense. At least you'd be alive (but perhaps in prison or on death row).
A good example of the dangers of cops kicking down doors with no knock is the recent case of the two young Muslim men in England. The cops were so jacked-up about kicking in the door (and window) unannounced that they shot one of the brothers in the chest as soon as they saw him. And now it turns out the brothers had nothing to do with terrorism! I heard the London police chief said he was sorry. I'm sure that makes up for getting shot in the chest and then beaten after being shot.
Money quote from Breyer's dissent:
"The majority's 'substantial social costs' argument is an argument against the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary principle itself. And it is an argument that this Court, until now, has consistently rejected."
Are we in the last days of the exclusionary rule? I'm afraid that if the Dems don't start winning some elections soon, we will all have to re-learn crim pro soon (among other things).
If the Democrats want to win some elections, they need to focus on issues that mainstream America cares about. Most average, law-abiding people don't care if the police have to knock before kicking down doors of suspected criminals.
Poster #4:
Post #3 wasn't saying anything about taking on "average, law-abiding Americans'" hysteria about crime and refusal to see criminals or those accused of crimes as human. The point was that it is urgent that Dems win some elections to stop the Republicans from appointing these rightwing extremists to the courts. The post was about the urgency of stoping the Republican onslaught of radical judicial appointments and not about how to win elections.
Post a Comment
<< Home