Pubdate: Mon, 19 Jun 2006
Source: Fayetteville Observer (NC)
Copyright: 2006 Fayetteville Observer
Contact:  http://www.fayettevillenc.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/150

SEARCH RULES REMAIN IN PLACE, BUT THEY NO LONGER HAVE TEETH

In general, the police are still supposed to knock and identify 
themselves before entering homes and brandishing guns. But if they 
don't, whatever evidence they find, they may use anyway. So said the 
court of last resort, in a 5-4 decision handed down Thursday.

It was a bad ruling, one that diminishes the sanctity of the home in 
order to expand the state's power to intrude on the privacy of its 
citizens. Anyone who calls that "conservative" is simply out of touch 
with reality. It's un-American, too. But we're stuck with it, and 
should therefore understand it.

Why should anyone who isn't a drug-dealing, gun-toting baddie like 
the appellant in this case care? Because officers get lots of 
unreliable tips. Because some magistrates dispense warrants with the 
same discretion as Santa tossing candy in the Christmas parade. 
Because officers can get the wrong house - as has happened in this 
community. Because you might be in the house and, though not a 
resident and not named in the warrant, take a bullet if you make a 
sudden move, also something that has happened here. Because you might 
be killed trying to protect your home from unidentified intruders, or 
die because, thinking the intruders might be lawmen, you don't protect it.

No-knock searches are supposed to be the exception. This decision 
practically invites law enforcement to make them the rule. That's not 
supposition. Four of the five justices in the majority - Alito, 
Roberts, Scalia and Thomas - tried to do away with the 
knock-and-announce rule. They had to settle for admitting unlawfully 
obtained evidence because the fifth justice, Anthony Kennedy, balked.

"It is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the 
sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry," 
Kennedy wrote as he voted to strip the deterrent from those "requisites."

Kennedy offered reassurance that victims of police officers who don't 
behave "competently and lawfully" can sue. They can - if they're still alive.

Still, it was Kennedy who provided the one useful bit of guidance, 
noting that legislatures can address abuses. That should now become 
the focal point of every discussion of this ruling. The best 
deterrent to abuse is to provide criminal penalties, penalties 
comparable to those awaiting other housebreakers, for sloppy, 
overbearing, bully-boy police work that victimizes innocents. Do 
that, and we may yet salvage the principle that no-knock searches 
should be rare and right.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman