Knock Knock -- Who's There? Who Cares? - JREF Forum

Events Calendar

$1 Million Paranormal Challenge

The Amaz!ng Meeting

James Randi Educational Foundation

Mark Forums Read

Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply

15th June 2006, 04:57 PM	#1
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Knock Knock -- Who's There? Who Cares? SCOTUS allows 'no-knock' entry by police to serve warrants. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/...olice_searches Well, at least the provisions of needing those warrants are still intact, for now.

15th June 2006, 06:59 PM	#2
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,765	Another step on the way to the right-wing police state.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

15th June 2006, 07:05 PM	#3
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by webfusion Knock Knock -- Who's There? Who Cares?. Who Cares who?

15th June 2006, 07:09 PM	#4
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,859	Originally Posted by Pardalis Who Cares who? Who cares if SCOTUS did not actually approve no-knock warrants.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

15th June 2006, 09:56 PM	#5
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Cylinder is technically correct --- most decisions of the Supreme Court of the US are actually regarding appeals cases, and the high court 9-member panel either overturns or affirms already-existing lower court rulings. In this instance, Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360, Mr Hudson was the defendant and had lost in a Michigan appeals court. SCOTUS says now that they uphold that court case, which had determined the no-knock entry wasn't really a problem in the gathering of evidence by the police. "The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

15th June 2006, 10:13 PM	#6
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,697	Quote: He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit. Humm, they should call this the lawyer support act of 2006. Or maybe the 'leave no innocent homeowner alive' act. Otherwise this is one of those weird things I'm not smart enough to understand. So here we overturn a law that serves a some good purposes - 1: Protects police from being shot at by innocent people defending their property. (sorry about that) 2: Protects innocent people from being killed by police who barge unannounced into their homes with a warrant. (oops sorry about that) 3: If the police make a mistake (not that they ever do this ) and approach the wrong house, it costs all of us a LOT less money than a lawsuit if they knock first. I'm a little curious now...if someone barges into my house and I shoot them... and it turns out to be the police invading my house... am I guilty or not?

15th June 2006, 10:36 PM	#7
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Kopji Humm, they should call this the lawyer support act of 2006. Or maybe the 'leave no innocent homeowner alive' act. Otherwise this is one of those weird things I'm not smart enough to understand. So here we overturn a law that serves a some good purposes - 1: Protects police from being shot at by innocent people defending their property. (sorry about that) 2: Protects innocent people from being killed by police who barge unannounced into their homes with a warrant. (oops sorry about that) 3: If the police make a mistake (not that they ever do this ) and approach the wrong house, it costs all of us a LOT less money than a lawsuit if they knock first. I'm a little curious now...if someone barges into my house and I shoot them... and it turns out to be the police invading my house... am I guilty or not? That would depend on whether the jury believed you knew it was the police or believed you thought it was some criminals.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

15th June 2006, 11:37 PM	#8
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Kopji So here we overturn a law that serves a some good purposes - What law is that? Originally Posted by Kerberos That would depend on whether the jury believed you knew it was the police or believed you thought it was some criminals. What if you knew they were police, but didn't believe they had a valid warrant?

15th June 2006, 11:48 PM	#9
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	I think this is an ok decision. Evidence is still evidence. However, I think that the police that enter without knocking should be punished in some fashion, as they are still breaking-and-entering.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

15th June 2006, 11:52 PM	#10
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay What if you knew they were police, but didn't believe they had a valid warrant? Then they would (and IMO should) shot you at dawn.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

15th June 2006, 11:59 PM	#11
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I think this is an ok decision. Evidence is still evidence. However, I think that the police that enter without knocking should be punished in some fashion, as they are still breaking-and-entering. I can just imagine that, The police burst in to rescue the girl kidnapped by the psycho/pedophile and then proceed to arrest and handcuff the criminal and themselves, while waiting for another patrol to pick everybody up.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

16th June 2006, 03:28 AM	#12
Mike B. Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by Kerberos I can just imagine that, The police burst in to rescue the girl kidnapped by the psycho/pedophile and then proceed to arrest and handcuff the criminal and themselves, while waiting for another patrol to pick everybody up. OK it took a awhile, but here is the funny joke.
Mike B. Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,186

16th June 2006, 03:34 AM	#13
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Originally Posted by Kerberos That would depend on whether the jury believed you knew it was the police or believed you thought it was some criminals. Eh? If you knew it was the police, why would you shoot? Unless you were emulating Clyde Barrow? So wouldn't EVERYONE claim they thought it was criminals?
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

16th June 2006, 03:42 AM	#14
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by Zep Eh? If you knew it was the police, why would you shoot? Unless you were emulating Clyde Barrow? So wouldn't EVERYONE claim they thought it was criminals? yes, and criminals claim that they are innocent, the question is- will a jury believe that the shooter honestly believed that they where defending themselves from illegal home invasion? Part of that will depend on how soon after the police kicked the door in they identified themselves as police.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

16th June 2006, 03:45 AM	#15
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Originally Posted by Zep Eh? If you knew it was the police, why would you shoot? Unless you were emulating Clyde Barrow? So wouldn't EVERYONE claim they thought it was criminals? And the police will assume everyone is thinking along those lines, and take them out first?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

16th June 2006, 05:56 AM	#16
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Well, at least no-one will be left in any doubt. Everyone just shoot first and ask questions later.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

16th June 2006, 06:32 AM	#17
DaChew Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,043	Having watched a number of episodes of Cops, it appears to me the that old standard was: knockknockknockPOLICEboom! Essentially, the cops would knock on the door three times, yell "police" and then immediately hit the door with a ram. All of this taking about 3 seconds to accomplish. Now the standard will be: POLICEboom! I doubt the 1 second this new standard shaves off is really going to have any sort of impact on the rights of the accused.
DaChew Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,043	__________________ I'm not as smart as I think I am. Most people aren't. Except me. Because I know I'm not.

16th June 2006, 07:05 AM	#18
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,669	Originally Posted by brodski yes, and criminals claim that they are innocent, the question is- will a jury believe that the shooter honestly believed that they where defending themselves from illegal home invasion? Part of that will depend on how soon after the police kicked the door in they identified themselves as police. Even if they say they are police, citizens have are able to demand further proof (such as a look at the badges or IDs). I don't know how this changes that... things could get complicated.

16th June 2006, 07:50 AM	#19
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by rocketdodger Even if they say they are police, citizens have are able to demand further proof (such as a look at the badges or IDs). I don't know how this changes that... things could get complicated. Presumably the no knock thing is to allow the police the element of surprise. Once an officer has identified himself, the home owner would not (I think) be justified in shooting, they could demand to see warrant cards etc (or the US equivalent) if ID etc was not forthcoming then shooting may start as the homeowner may have a reasonable belief that these people where only impersonating the police.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

16th June 2006, 07:51 AM	#20
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by DaChew Having watched a number of episodes of Cops, it appears to me the that old standard was: knockknockknockPOLICEboom! Essentially, the cops would knock on the door three times, yell "police" and then immediately hit the door with a ram. All of this taking about 3 seconds to accomplish. Now the standard will be: POLICEboom! I doubt the 1 second this new standard shaves off is really going to have any sort of impact on the rights of the accused. would it not be "boom POLICE" rather than "POLICE boom" ?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

16th June 2006, 11:08 AM	#21
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,669	Originally Posted by brodski Presumably the no knock thing is to allow the police the element of surprise. Once an officer has identified himself, the home owner would not (I think) be justified in shooting, they could demand to see warrant cards etc (or the US equivalent) if ID etc was not forthcoming then shooting may start as the homeowner may have a reasonable belief that these people where only impersonating the police. Yeah that is what I kinda thought except you can easily imagine some kind of hollywood scenario where the cops bust in, the guy holds a gun on them demanding ID, they hold a gun on him demanding he drops his weapon, and neither of them will back down out of fear for what the other party will do. Its just bad bad stuff. Another option is simply to make impersonating an officer an offense that always results in the death penalty. That might make people think twice about doing it, alleviating the problem.

16th June 2006, 02:19 PM	#22
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by rocketdodger Yeah that is what I kinda thought except you can easily imagine some kind of hollywood scenario where the cops bust in, the guy holds a gun on them demanding ID, they hold a gun on him demanding he drops his weapon, and neither of them will back down out of fear for what the other party will do. Its just bad bad stuff. Another option is simply to make impersonating an officer an offense that always results in the death penalty. That might make people think twice about doing it, alleviating the problem. well cops are unlikely to serve a "no knock" warrant on their own, it's only necessary for 1 officer to provide ID, their other can cover the suspect. No knock warrants ARE more risky for the police, and I expect this fact will be taken into consideration when "no knock" operations are planed.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

16th June 2006, 10:27 PM	#23
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Here's a cool 'no-knock' warrant example...Waco. I don't condem their use, I just think they must be very-well thought out.

17th June 2006, 01:50 PM	#24
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Here's a link to the text of the decision (PDF with selectable text): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/04-1360.pdf It is clear that it does not create a "no knock" rule and the Fourth Amendment still stands. The rule is still "knock and announce", but the evidence can't be thrown out because the rule was not obeyed. The "punishment" for the offending officers is a potential law suit from a citizen, but such a law suit is unlikely to be upheld in court (based on past court decisions). I am at this point undecided how I feel about it. The case in question (HUDSON v. MICHIGAN) is obvious that the "pepretrator" was trying to escape justice through a legal loophole. On the other hand, I can see where this is open to abuse if there is, in essence, no retribution for an officer or officers who do not obey the (still existing) "knock and announce" rule.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

17th June 2006, 04:33 PM	#25
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,528	Having been in law enforcement for the last 30+ years, I've been privy to watching the ever-changing opinions on search and siezure. There is constant change in case law, due to the fact that so many cases are challenged on search and siezure grounds. We used to get a videotaped training service called the "Police News" which was done up in a sort of evening-news format. They had a legal commentator who would update the latest decisions. On one of the last tapes we got before the thing died, this guy just blew up. "How the hell are the police supposed to know what to do with all these constant changes?" Hehe.... On this one, officers with a search warrant entered an unlocked door after only a brief announcement. They found contraband (drugs and a gun) and made arrests. The "knock and announce" rule was designed as a decent procedure for "normal" search-warrant cases, and evidently was intented to prevent embarrassing encounters with unclothed suspects or individuals using the toilet. In other words, preserving the "dignity" of the suspect. Of course, it has frequently given suspects opportunity to flee or hide/destroy evidence. Police may get around this by showing that there is substantial danger of flight by the suspect, violent resistance, or attempts to destroy evidence. This would normally be by viewing the criminal history of the suspect or his associates. If there are sufficient reasons, or if there are "exigent circumstances", police may kick in the door... In this case, a relatively minor divergence from procedure resulted in police finding contraband. SCOTUS found that the police would have likely discovered the contraband anyway, had procedure been followed. Most of the legal commentary I've heard is to the effect that the case will not strongly effect police procedures, but you can be sure there will be a lot of eyes following future cases.

17th June 2006, 05:36 PM	#26
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	This is the end! The Bush theocratic regime is finally stripping away the last of our civil rights!
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

17th June 2006, 09:17 PM	#27
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	Originally Posted by corplinx This is the end! The Bush theocratic regime is finally stripping away the last of our civil rights! That sentiment that you mock is more true than you realize.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

17th June 2006, 11:27 PM	#28
David Swidler Carrot Mohel Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Right here, obviously. Posts: 8,302	It's a good thing, I think. This way, the police won't put themselves at risk by announcing to Claus that they're there. He, after all, can't take the risk that the cops aren't really terrorists in disguise.

19th June 2006, 07:27 AM	#29
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Scenario: I'm sitting at home watching a hockey game (go Oilers) and cleaning my handguns. Suddenly my front door crashes open and men start pouring in. I grab a gun and commence shooting. I kill an unannounced officer. Am I guilty of 1st degree murder (killing a police officer)? Just to make things trickier, I live in Florida and we have a "stand your ground" law that allows you to protect yourself using deadly force. Charlie (thank god there's more Jesus on the SCOTUS) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

19th June 2006, 12:17 PM	#30
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080	Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide Scenario: I'm sitting at home watching a hockey game (go Oilers) and cleaning my handguns. Suddenly my front door crashes open and men start pouring in. I grab a gun and commence shooting. I kill an unannounced officer. Am I guilty of 1st degree murder (killing a police officer)? Just to make things trickier, I live in Florida and we have a "stand your ground" law that allows you to protect yourself using deadly force. Charlie (thank god there's more Jesus on the SCOTUS) Monoxide IANAL but I believe it would depend on what you where thinking when you shot. If you could argue hat you honestly believed that the officers where in fact criminals, then no you would not be guilty. Actually, scratch that, it's not what you believed, it's what you can make a jury believe you believed. If the police where in uniform you may have a very hard time with that defense.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,080

Reply

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

© 2001-2012, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.