The Supremes are already at it.

Now cops don't even have to knock before coming into your house.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8OON00.html

I wonder what's next...

Abortion
Miranda
What do you think?

They have signaled for a while that they want to make it easier to arrest and convict people.

Abortion is being held back so they can keep the freeps excited.

For a true Fascist state, one must first get rid of civil liberties.

Fascism is alive and well.

at least not until I think I understand it.

I've seen this interpreted as "the police can just barge in with no warning," but neither this nor the other (Guardian) article I saw about this seems to say that in the least. Does the actual SCOTUS ruling itself say this?

Otherwise, it seems like a strange formal rule to have in place, one that is neither necessary to what I'd assume its purpose is, nor sufficient in many instances. But I don't understand it; it may be that it was judged formally necessary at one point for a certain circumstance, one that holds in this case, but one that isn't required (or at least isn't sufficient, with announcing one's presence by voice) in other cases.

:mad:

I've read it once, very quickly and I wouldn't dream of stating that I understand it fully. But the reasoning, as I understood it, was a little baffling. Essentially, the Court did not say that it was OK for the police to do this type of thing. What the Court did, however, was refuse to extend the exclusionary rule (supressing evidence found thereafter) as a consequence. There was a rambling discussion of the civil deterrants available as well as an historical perspectiver regarding Mapp v. Ohio and it's "exclusionary rule" progeny which was supposed to comfort those reading it. Essentially "it's not a big enough deal to saddle the poor, poor police with such a horrible punishment when they break this, itty, bitty rule"...but I just didn't buy it. The most ironic part of the decision is that Scalia references the age old precedent of the exclusionary rule right before he guts it.

I'm sure there are Con-law scholars and attorneys much more learned and observant than I that will disagree and that's fine. I just got that kind of vibe when I read it this morning.

Plus, it makes being a public defender all that much harder. (Except North Dakota has specific statutory limits on this that shouldn't really be changed much).