The cops did have a warrant. Rather than the Minneapolis "soft knock" (not that the MPD is the only offender in that), they announced themselves, waited three seconds, and kicked the door in, rather than "soft knocking", waiting three seconds, and kicking the door in.
Not much of a difference, really.
The abuse of "dynamic entry" warrant service isn't in that sort of thing -- it's always going to be easy for cops/prosecutors to persuade a judge that somebody who they have probable cause for a warrant for illegal drugs is more than a little likely to either dispose of them or retrieve a weapon if he's given much time to react -- but in the overuse of the door-kickers generally.
Hmmm... I seem to remember somebody or other taking exception to governmental "jack booted thugs" kicking in doors some years ago . . .
Think what you will of the decision, but the matter under consideration in Hudson v Michigan is not "they announced themselves, waited three seconds, and kicked the door in, rather than 'soft knocking', waiting three seconds, and kicking the door in."
Love this from the article: "Justice Scalia expressed confidence that there was an 'increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline' that minimizes the need to deter misconduct by excluding evidence."
Right. We should rely on the police to police themselves when it comes to gathering evidence. Just as we should rely on the Executive Branch to police themselves when it comes to exercise of its powers. Right.
That said, there is something strange about the exclusionary rule. The idea is to deter illegal searches, at least partly for the benefit of people who haven't done anything wrong.
But the only case in which the exclusionary rule applies is when the cops find evidence of a crime -- they can kick in the doors of noncriminals right and left without stubbing their toes on it.
Theoretically, of course, there's the internal disciplinary procedures you reasonably mock, and the civil lawsuits which, upon occasion, have resulted in a whole dollar's worth of damages...
Well, some of us were saying that there would be some further fallout from not punishing the jackbooted BATF kittenstompers... pity we were right.
It wouldn't get one's goat quite so, except that we are told early and often that Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are Strict Constitutional Interpreters and not the sort of vile activist judges who would decide a case on their own biased vision of how the world would best work. It should have been an open-and-shut case, as the First Congress gave helpful hints like "[T]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," and not "[U]m, like, until the police are sufficiently professional that they don't need external oversight any more."
I have to say that, of the Bill of Rights, the Third will be next to go; the only other one that's left in meaningful terms is the Second, and the Republicans aren't going to touch that one.
Next is section 1 of the 14th Amendment. After that, who knows, the 22nd? There may also be one or two words left in the 5th that are standing in the way of the War on Terror.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 07:19 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 07:33 pm (UTC)Not much of a difference, really.
The abuse of "dynamic entry" warrant service isn't in that sort of thing -- it's always going to be easy for cops/prosecutors to persuade a judge that somebody who they have probable cause for a warrant for illegal drugs is more than a little likely to either dispose of them or retrieve a weapon if he's given much time to react -- but in the overuse of the door-kickers generally.
Hmmm... I seem to remember somebody or other taking exception to governmental "jack booted thugs" kicking in doors some years ago . . .
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-17 06:34 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 07:45 pm (UTC)Right. We should rely on the police to police themselves when it comes to gathering evidence. Just as we should rely on the Executive Branch to police themselves when it comes to exercise of its powers. Right.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 08:33 pm (UTC)But the only case in which the exclusionary rule applies is when the cops find evidence of a crime -- they can kick in the doors of noncriminals right and left without stubbing their toes on it.
Theoretically, of course, there's the internal disciplinary procedures you reasonably mock, and the civil lawsuits which, upon occasion, have resulted in a whole dollar's worth of damages...
Well, some of us were saying that there would be some further fallout from not punishing the jackbooted BATF kittenstompers... pity we were right.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 10:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-17 06:33 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-18 03:23 pm (UTC)B
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 09:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-17 06:40 pm (UTC)B