Liberitarian
New member
imported post
This is a link to an article defending no knock warrants-
http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=35336
Some of its more infuriating comments are:
In November 2006, after shooting and wounding three police officers involved in a no-knock entry, an 88-year-old woman was killed. An informant had erroneously identified the woman's home as the location of a drug dealer.
"This woman lived in a bad neighborhood, in a bad house and that type of environment contributes to the fact that she is going to make the decisions she made," notes DiFranza."
In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court released its ruling on the Hudson v. Michigan case stating that the Constitution does not require the government to forfeit evidence gathered under illegal no-knock searches. Citing increased professionalism by law enforcement and alternative deterrents, such as administrative discipline and civil lawsuits, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the 5-4 majority stating that the traditional punishment for police violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule — barring the use of seized evidence at trial — is no longer required.
And now thekicker
"We want to support the Fourth Amendment, but by the same token, you have to split the difference in law enforcement between protecting the Constitution and its application in the street," says Greg DiFranza, tactical enforcement unit coordinator for the Institute of Police Technology and Management. "For the most part, officers want to do it the right way, but by the same token, we see a different danger side than the people who actually draft and sign these warrants."
This is a link to an article defending no knock warrants-
http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=35336
Some of its more infuriating comments are:
In November 2006, after shooting and wounding three police officers involved in a no-knock entry, an 88-year-old woman was killed. An informant had erroneously identified the woman's home as the location of a drug dealer.
"This woman lived in a bad neighborhood, in a bad house and that type of environment contributes to the fact that she is going to make the decisions she made," notes DiFranza."
In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court released its ruling on the Hudson v. Michigan case stating that the Constitution does not require the government to forfeit evidence gathered under illegal no-knock searches. Citing increased professionalism by law enforcement and alternative deterrents, such as administrative discipline and civil lawsuits, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the 5-4 majority stating that the traditional punishment for police violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule — barring the use of seized evidence at trial — is no longer required.
And now thekicker
"We want to support the Fourth Amendment, but by the same token, you have to split the difference in law enforcement between protecting the Constitution and its application in the street," says Greg DiFranza, tactical enforcement unit coordinator for the Institute of Police Technology and Management. "For the most part, officers want to do it the right way, but by the same token, we see a different danger side than the people who actually draft and sign these warrants."
