🚀 go-pugleaf

High Court Eases 'Knock and Announce' Rule for Police
Legal Times

The Supreme Court on Thursday weakened the longstanding "knock 
and announce" rule under which police in most circumstances must 
knock on the door, announce their presence and wait briefly before 
forcibly entering a house without a search warrant. Although not 
repealing the rule itself, Justice Antonin Scalia's 5-4 majority 
opinion said the traditional remedy for police violation of the 
rule -- namely, barring the use at trial of the evidence found -- 
is no longer required.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150362317902

---
He also cited that police training etc.,  would make
the intrusions less likely to do much harm.  But that
the interest of society in the acqusition of evidence 
against criminals,  far outweighed any benefits that
might be gained by restraining the police.

Well...  He doesn't seem to be about to comprehend
that it's much more complex than just the police 
getting evidence against criminals.  What he's saying
is the best societal interest,  really isn't.  The simple
fact is that if police aren't required to knock first,  
and/or will not lose the evidence gained,  then you've
no way to restrain them.

  Historically police tend to use every power given to them
and even try to extend that power beyond it's design.

  But further, and even more importantly,  societies best, biggest
and most important interest is that innocent people not be killed.
Most especially neither killed,  nor placed at exceptional risk
of being harmed,  by institutionalized proceedures,  and that's
exactly what this ruling does.

  First,  by removing the penalty,  they remove the need to
observe any of the finer points of law they would make,  since,
in the end result,  there will be no penalty for not observing
the remaining "guidelines".  Second,  not every house that
police will attempt to enter,  will,  in fact be complicit or
contain evidence of any actual crime.  They do make mistakes.
However,  since most people at home,  at various times of day,
aren't "fit" to recieve company of any kind.  Persons lounging
nude in front of the tv. for example,  would,  upon hearing
the commotion at their front door,  race to cover themselves.

This quick movement,  to get clothes,  or even go into another
room out of fear and a lack of knowing whose doing what,  can very
well be taken as dangerous,  by policemen/women already hyped
with the expectation that they are moving against a dangerous
individual intent on covering their crime trails.  

This ruling places more of society at higher risk of having
innocent people killed,  and that is not worth the mere gain
of evidence to get another conviction.  One more conviction,
obviously,  will not end the scourge of drugs, burglary or
other crimes.  They will still be with us,  long after innocent
people are killed in error by police attempting to vigorously
enforce the law,  and meet the dangers -- real or imagined --
that they face in trying to do so.

This was bad law!  Very bad law and the court will have
blood on it's hands when the error happens as it must,  it's
just a matter of time.

obwon