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."
![[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 07:33 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