|
Court Rules Police can Break
the Law: Illegal Entry
Bloomberg Greg Stohr June 15, 2006 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 in a Michigan case, 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 dispute may have been one in which Alito's vote decided the outcome. The court heard arguments in the case twice, the first time in January with now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench. During that session, O'Connor said she was concerned about the "sanctity of the home." Second Session Three weeks later the Senate confirmed Alito to replace O'Connor. The court later scheduled a second argument session so that Alito could take part. Alito's decision to join the majority left Kennedy at the center of the court -- a position that might become familiar territory for him with the court's current composition. Kennedy wrote separately to say the ruling "should not be interpreted as suggesting that violations of the requirement are trivial or beyond the law's concern." Kennedy also said the "continued operation of the exclusionary rule" is "not in doubt." 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. The officers didn't knock when they arrived at the house, 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. Locked Doors 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. Breyer, in his dissent, criticized the state for not arguing that the entry was justified. Breyer said the search warrant referred to the possibility of weapons in the house, suggesting that officers, to ensure their safety, needed to surprise Hudson. "Why did the prosecutor not argue in this very case that, given the likelihood of guns, a no-knock entry was lawful?" Breyer wrote. "From what I have seen in the record, he would have won. And had he won, there would have been no suppression here. That is the right way to win." 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. To contact the reporter on this story: Last Updated: June 15, 2006 12:01 EDT Commentary: |