[Infowarrior] - High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches

[Richard Forno]

High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500
730_pf.html
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 15, 2006; 11:23 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a
warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a
huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the
departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants
generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the
Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police
acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a
man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have
executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun
and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors
by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench.
She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in
favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start
bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no
policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the
home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that
Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's
other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported
Scalia's opinion.

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the
improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a
get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90
years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the
Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote
for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and
waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of
the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "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."

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.
© 2006 The Associated Press