The Fourth Amendment and Other Quaint Early-American Notions
Updated on June 15, 2006 at 6:41 pm and 7:50 pm.
Our march toward a police state continues:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — 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.
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.
Notably, ahem, indeed.
So much for the exclusionary rule. Police may now apparently conduct unlawful searches without repercussion.
What’s the big deal? The guy was apparently guilty of drug charges, right? Ask yourselves this: If evidence obtained in an illegal search (until today, “knock-and-announce“, with some exceptions, was the law of the land) may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant, what incentive do police have to ever follow the law in conducting searches?
Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
“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.”
* * *
The case provides the clearest sign yet of the court without Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Hudson had lost his case in a Michigan appeals court. Justices agreed to hear his appeal last June, four days before O’Connor’s surprise announcement that she was retiring.
O’Connor was still on the bench in January when his case was first argued, and she seemed ready to vote with Hudson. “Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?” she asked.
She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held this spring so that Alito could participate, apparently to break a 4-4 tie.
Where art thou, Justice O’Connor?
It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
At this point, it really doesn’t matter much whether Bush leaves office tomorrow or appoints himself perpetual president. The damage is done. We’ll deal with the consequences of this administration for the rest of our lives.
Balloon-Juice’s Tim has commentary here.
UPDATE: I note that since the time I linked to it, Wikipedia’s “Exclusionary Rule” entry has been edited to reflect today’s Supreme Court ruling:
In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is not admissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial). The rule is no longer good law, having been overturned in the landmark 2006 Supreme Court ruling, Hudson v. Michigan, which held that illegally obtained evidence is still admissible at trial.
The rule was designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, for prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which provide for protection from unreasonable searches and seizure and compelled self-incrimination.
*sigh*
4 Responses to “The Fourth Amendment and Other Quaint Early-American Notions”
Well I followed your Wikipedia exclusionary rule link…Here is the good news about the new ruling and further loss of civil rights: “It is not applicable to aliens residing outside of U.S. borders” Whew, for a moment there I thought they gave the away the farm.
Comment by Ben Merc on June 15, 2006 at 8:47 pm.
You mean all of that “fruit of the poisonous tree” crap I had to pay BarBri to learn — for two exams — is now useless? Damn you, Supreme Court!
Comment by Dara on June 15, 2006 at 9:56 pm.
Ugh. I still have a few unwieldy BarBri books in a box somewhere. Thanks for the memories.
Don’t sweat it. Constitutional law will soon be very easy:
See! That’s so much easier! Who needs BarBri?
Comment by Chris on June 16, 2006 at 12:41 am.
The Don’t-Bother-to-Knock Rule
From NY Times editorial 6/16/06–sounds like this decision is just the beginning of a long nightmare to come ….:
If Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had stayed on the court, this case might well have come out the other way. For those who worry that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will take the court in a radically conservative direction, it is sobering how easily the majority tossed aside a principle that traces back to 13th-century Britain, and a legal doctrine that dates to 1914, to let the government invade people’s homes.
Comment by Steve on June 16, 2006 at 12:08 pm.