Knock-and-Announce Case Not a Libertarian Outrage
---
I have very little to say about the Supreme Court's ruling in Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360 (PDF - 51 pages) — narrowly holding that the exclusionary rule is not an absolute and does not trump the inevitable discovery rule in an incorrectly executed "knock and announce" raid — that I didn't already cover in this previous post.
Before libertarians get all in a lather, let's keep the facts of this case in mind:
--There was a perfectly valid search warrant.
--The Fourth Amendment says nothing about "knock and announce." Nor, for that matter, does it even mention the exclusionary rule.
--The exclusionary rule has always meant that police misconduct is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for suppression of evidence. See U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). This is the crux of the majority's opinion and is wholly logical. Similarly, the inevitable discovery rule has long been held to trump the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). This latest case is hardly a radical departure from precedent (or common sense, for that matter).
--The warrant was for weapons as well as for narcotics (and both were found). Anyone care to make the argument that there is Fourth Amendment "right to lock and load"?
The tragedy of the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is the increasing disregard for the warrant requirement itself, not this case's reiteration of a longstanding and reasonable procedural rule.
By all means damn the drug war. By all means damn sloppy policing and excessive force. But don't damn this ruling — it doesn't deserve it.
More thoughts from SCOTUSblog, Below the Beltway.
Before libertarians get all in a lather, let's keep the facts of this case in mind:
--There was a perfectly valid search warrant.
--The Fourth Amendment says nothing about "knock and announce." Nor, for that matter, does it even mention the exclusionary rule.
--The exclusionary rule has always meant that police misconduct is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for suppression of evidence. See U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). This is the crux of the majority's opinion and is wholly logical. Similarly, the inevitable discovery rule has long been held to trump the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). This latest case is hardly a radical departure from precedent (or common sense, for that matter).
--The warrant was for weapons as well as for narcotics (and both were found). Anyone care to make the argument that there is Fourth Amendment "right to lock and load"?
The tragedy of the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is the increasing disregard for the warrant requirement itself, not this case's reiteration of a longstanding and reasonable procedural rule.
By all means damn the drug war. By all means damn sloppy policing and excessive force. But don't damn this ruling — it doesn't deserve it.
More thoughts from SCOTUSblog, Below the Beltway.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- A Sad Addition to the Dictionary
- Court Finds Unlimited Police Power to Plant GPS on Vehicles
- A Man's Home is His Castle......
- Any Fourth Amendment Outrage This Time?
- Knock-and-Announce Case Not a Libertarian Outrage
- A Right to "Flush It Down the Toilet"?...
- Supreme Court Upholds "Quick" Dog Sniff of Vehicle
- Maryland's Idiot Judges: Police Dogs "Part of the Family"
- Hair-Shaving and the Fourth Amendment
Posted by Kip on
15 June 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
