judith_s: (Default)
[personal profile] judith_s
In a rather significant departure from precedent, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that if the police fails to obey the knock & announce rule (knock & wait for enough time for someone to reach the door before knocking it down), it will not exclude the evidence they find. Apparently fruit of the poisonous tree is just fine to eat now.

The analysis in Scalia's majority opinion hints at some major future changes. According to the opinion, the key query is not whether the law was obeyed but whether "the interest that a constitutional right serves will, in fact, be directly advanced by barring the evidence obtained from a violation of that right." Here the interest according to the court is "not to be caught in your nightgown." And since excluding the evidence doesn't advance that right, the evidence is not excluded.

Short summary: exclusionary rule has been gutted. Expect more doors to be broken down in the near future.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-15 10:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lifeofglamour.livejournal.com
Expect more cops to be shot by homeowners in the near future.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-15 10:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angelbob.livejournal.com
Here the interest according to the court is "not to be caught in your nightgown." And since excluding the evidence doesn't advance that right

Well, actually since police are more likely to break down your door and catch you in your nightgown in this case, excluding the evidence *does* advance that right.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-15 10:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] judith-s.livejournal.com
I don't disagree with you, I was merely reporting on the Supreme Court majority opinion's justification. Apparently the fact that you can sue them in civil court is enough deterent, and we no longer need to have an exclusionary rule. I'm expecting tortured confession exclusions & the Miranda warnings to be gutted next.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-16 12:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] japlady.livejournal.com
do they at least have to count to five?

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-16 02:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] judith-s.livejournal.com
In this instance, they counted to three. But given the Court's rationale, I think they won't need to knock for long.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-16 01:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com
Well, that's charming...

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-16 03:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sierra-nevada.livejournal.com
As I heard it from Nina Totenberg on NPR this afternoon, the court opinion apparently allows individual states to have stricter standards, so now is the time to contact your state legislators about sponsoring a bill to curb state power. Kinda like with Kelo v. New London.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-16 11:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] malabar.livejournal.com
Persons wishing to flee the country should contact me...

(no subject)

Date: 2006-06-16 03:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kawgirl.livejournal.com
Great. Just great.

Profile

judith_s: (Default)
judith_s

December 2018

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425 26272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags