A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.Well! If we're afraid of a "flood" of appeals, then I guess knock-and-announce violations must not be very unusual. I guess they're probably pretty much business-as-usual.
The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.
President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said disallowing evidence from every "knock-and-announce violation" by officers would lead to the "grave adverse consequence" of a flood of appeals by accused criminals seeking dismissal of their cases.
"People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner," Hudson's lawyer David Moran had told the high court. The justices have ruled in the past that police should announce their presence, then normally wait 15 to 20 seconds before bursting into a home.Well, Mr. Moran, people have all sorts of "rights," in principle, but as the government grows increasingly lawless, those "rights," along with fifty cents (or several dollars at Starbucks), might get you a cup of coffee, but they're not going to keep the black-clad commandos from howling into your house like a militarized tornado, screaming obscenities as they throw you to your floor and shove their H&K muzzles into your face.
Once again, government is about absolutely nothing except force. If you must have government, you'd better find some way to keep it tiny, weak, starved, and fearful; or you'd better get used to hoping you only end up getting roughed up and zip-tied, instead of being shot down like a rabid dog. WWPHS? (What Would Patrick Henry Say?)