The Supreme Court strikes again
So now we don't have a knock and announce protection any more. (Brief background: the "knock and announce" rule requires that police who are entering your home pursuant to a warrant are required to knock and announce themselves. It gives you a chance to put some pants on and open the door so the police can kick it down. It also identifies these intruders as police- picture a random collection of men breaking into your apartment and waking you out of a sound sleep and imagine what kind of tragedies could unfold as a result of surprise and confusion. There are exceptions if the police have actual reason to believe that the delay will result in destruction of evidence or render their efforts futile. The exclusionary rule is the standard remedy for violations of 4th amendment protections and regulations of police behavior, and requires that if the police fuck up, the evidence produced by their fuckup can't be used at trial. This is designed to deter bad police behavior.)
Scalia and co. ruled that the exclusionary rule was not a remedy to a knock and announce violation. There are several major problems here. The main one is: okay, if the exclusionary rule isn't the remedy to K&A violation, what the hell is? Scalia claims it's officer discipline and civil suits. Very nice except that federal law makes it perilously hard for prisoners to sue, law in general makes it hard for anyone to sue the government (governments are usually immune and the exceptions are complicated), and what the hell lawyer is going to take a civil suit against the government on spec? (The law will bar payment of attorney fees by the govt. in all but the worst cases, and most of these defendants are dirt-poor. With the exception of contingent-fee torts, lawsuits are generally for rich people.) Not to mention that police departments and juries are notoriously reluctant to discipline police even when their fuckup was shooting an innocent, unarmed person; you seriously think anyone is going to discipline an officer for failure to announce himself before busting into a house? Especially if the person whose rights were violated ended up with a guilty verdict and a jail sentence?
If there is no remedy, there is no right...by taking away the only effective, judicial remedy to violations of knock and announce, the court has essentially eliminated the rule. Perhaps even more disturbing, the opinion is full of overblown conservative rhetoric about the evils of the exclusionary rule. What further reductions can we expect from a court that is apparently incapable of recognizing that the exclusionary rule is the only real deterrent our system has to protect the 4th amendment rights of its citizens from overzealous police?
Scalia and co. ruled that the exclusionary rule was not a remedy to a knock and announce violation. There are several major problems here. The main one is: okay, if the exclusionary rule isn't the remedy to K&A violation, what the hell is? Scalia claims it's officer discipline and civil suits. Very nice except that federal law makes it perilously hard for prisoners to sue, law in general makes it hard for anyone to sue the government (governments are usually immune and the exceptions are complicated), and what the hell lawyer is going to take a civil suit against the government on spec? (The law will bar payment of attorney fees by the govt. in all but the worst cases, and most of these defendants are dirt-poor. With the exception of contingent-fee torts, lawsuits are generally for rich people.) Not to mention that police departments and juries are notoriously reluctant to discipline police even when their fuckup was shooting an innocent, unarmed person; you seriously think anyone is going to discipline an officer for failure to announce himself before busting into a house? Especially if the person whose rights were violated ended up with a guilty verdict and a jail sentence?
If there is no remedy, there is no right...by taking away the only effective, judicial remedy to violations of knock and announce, the court has essentially eliminated the rule. Perhaps even more disturbing, the opinion is full of overblown conservative rhetoric about the evils of the exclusionary rule. What further reductions can we expect from a court that is apparently incapable of recognizing that the exclusionary rule is the only real deterrent our system has to protect the 4th amendment rights of its citizens from overzealous police?