Post by Bertie on Jun 15, 2006 11:41:06 GMT -5
Illegal Police Entry Doesn't Bar Evidence, Court Says
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Prosecutors can use evidence seized by police during a home search even though officers violated the Constitution by failing to knock or announce their presence before entering, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.
The justices, voting 5-4, today put new limits on the so- called exclusionary rule, which in some circumstances bars prosecutors from using the product of an illegal search. The majority said the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to violations of the ``knock and announce'' requirement for home searches.
``Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined Scalia's majority opinion.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
``The court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement,'' Breyer wrote for the four dissenters.
The ruling centered on a 1998 search at the Detroit home of Booker T. Hudson Jr. by police officers executing a search warrant for narcotics.
No Knock
The officers didn't knock when they arrived, instead shouting, ``Police, search warrant!'' and waiting three to five seconds before opening the door. Officers found cocaine and a gun in the house and arrested Hudson. The Michigan Supreme Court later upheld Hudson's conviction on drug charges.
The Supreme Court previously said that, under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, police seeking to enter a home generally must knock, announce their presence and wait for a period of time -- perhaps as long as 15 to 20 seconds. The rule is designed to give residents a chance to open locked doors and, if necessary, put clothes on.
The court has made exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule when police have reason to think a person inside may be dangerous or be trying to destroy evidence.
In the Michigan case, prosecutors opted not to argue that the entry into Hudson's home was constitutional, instead contending that the exclusionary rule shouldn't apply to knock- and-announce violations. The state argued that those types of police errors don't enable officers to seize additional evidence.
Hudson argued that the exclusionary rule is necessary to deter police officers from ignoring the knock-and-announce requirement.
The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Prosecutors can use evidence seized by police during a home search even though officers violated the Constitution by failing to knock or announce their presence before entering, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.
The justices, voting 5-4, today put new limits on the so- called exclusionary rule, which in some circumstances bars prosecutors from using the product of an illegal search. The majority said the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to violations of the ``knock and announce'' requirement for home searches.
``Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined Scalia's majority opinion.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
``The court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement,'' Breyer wrote for the four dissenters.
The ruling centered on a 1998 search at the Detroit home of Booker T. Hudson Jr. by police officers executing a search warrant for narcotics.
No Knock
The officers didn't knock when they arrived, instead shouting, ``Police, search warrant!'' and waiting three to five seconds before opening the door. Officers found cocaine and a gun in the house and arrested Hudson. The Michigan Supreme Court later upheld Hudson's conviction on drug charges.
The Supreme Court previously said that, under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, police seeking to enter a home generally must knock, announce their presence and wait for a period of time -- perhaps as long as 15 to 20 seconds. The rule is designed to give residents a chance to open locked doors and, if necessary, put clothes on.
The court has made exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule when police have reason to think a person inside may be dangerous or be trying to destroy evidence.
In the Michigan case, prosecutors opted not to argue that the entry into Hudson's home was constitutional, instead contending that the exclusionary rule shouldn't apply to knock- and-announce violations. The state argued that those types of police errors don't enable officers to seize additional evidence.
Hudson argued that the exclusionary rule is necessary to deter police officers from ignoring the knock-and-announce requirement.
The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.
