Pubdate: Mon, 23 May 2011
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2011 The Seattle Times Company
Contact:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/409
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raids.htm (Drug Raids)

SUPREME COURT'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RULING GIVES POLICE TOO MUCH DISCRETION

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed last week police officers who smell 
drugs, knock loudly and listen may find the exigent circumstances to 
enter a home before obtaining a warrant. This is too much discretion 
in the hands of law enforcement.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling fragments the force of the Fourth 
Amendment. The ruling leaves the Constitution's protection against 
warrantless searches as a symbolic right, easily sidestepped in 
practice by police.

Two Kentucky police officers sparked the case when, in search of a 
suspect, they broke into an apartment smelling of marijuana for fear 
of evidence being destroyed. They got the wrong place but still found 
illegal drugs.

The Fourth Amendment once emphasized the right to the security of 
one's home. The U.S. Supreme Court now confirms that police who smell 
drugs, knock loudly and listen may find the circumstances necessary 
to enter a home before obtaining a warrant.

This leaves the law too open to the interpretation of law-enforcement 
personnel.

Rather than placing more pressure on police to stay in line with the 
Constitution, the court places the weight of proving constitutional 
rights on citizens.

That does not translate well for poorer communities, where mistrust 
of police is high. People in these communities may not find the sound 
of the police knocking on their door to be the inviting call the 
Supreme Court majority described.

The ruling falls among a patchwork of exceptions to the Fourth 
Amendment that the courts, unwilling to inquire into the subjective 
intent of law enforcement, have created. Yet, giving law enforcement 
such discretion in claiming exigent circumstances allows even more 
subjective intent between police and constitutional protections.

In a solo dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rightly recognized the 
danger of allowing the Fourth Amendment to crumble to police 
discretion. Requiring police to acquire a warrant should be the rule, 
not the exception.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom