QUOTE(Yogurt @ Oct 3 2005, 04:48 PM)
I don't excuse the police from following the law, but it should not prevent the administration of justice to the criminal. Perhaps some sort of charges might be warranted against the police, but it doesn't change the fact that the searched home had the drugs in it and they had a warrant to search it.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 3 2005, 04:51 PM)
Hudson va. Booker
Police have a warrant.
Drugs are obvious in the house.
Should the police be required to give a suspect a reasonable amount of time to hide the drugs?
No. The knock and announce rule I would think gives the suspect the opportunity to willingly allow the police to search, as opposed to forcing their way into the house. If the suspect wants to recover damages to his home, I'd agree with that (since they did not give him enough time to answer the door). But the fact remains that they had a warrant (i.e. the legal right to search) and there were indeed drugs there. Case is pretty open and shut unless there are lawyers involved.
QUOTE(jaellon @ Oct 3 2005, 05:55 PM)
Booker T Hudson v. State of Michigan
Wow, this one is a little bit more difficult. I guess we need to weigh the risks of either decision:
Suppressing the evidence: a known criminal goes free, and can continue committing his crime.
Allowing the evidence: the restraint against unreasonable search and seizure is relaxed.
I think the second one is the less risky given 1) a search warrant is still required, 2) the evidence of the crime is found (inevitable discovery), and 3) the relaxation only involves the officers not having knocked. The risk of the first one is that we still have a criminal in our midst.
So I would rule in favor of the State of Michigan
You guys are a lot more willing to sacrifice your security than I. Here is why the announce rule is in place from the FBI.
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." 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. Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not "mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder." 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.
So if someone breaks into your house today, you can be pretty darn sure that it is an intruder and not a police officer. This avoids confusion and can let you take the proper action. If the Supreme Court lets this pass, then they will always have to let it pass. Police will stop announcing themselves because they perceive it to be more dangerous to them to do so even though this is partially in place to protect them. This is the type of activism from the bench that conservatives are supposed to hate. Now there are exceptions to knock and announce, but they are not used in this case as far as I can see.