The Supreme Court ruled over the summer that police are not legally required to knock on the door or wait for any amount of time before entering a house to carry out a search warrant. The Court was divided five to four on this controversial issue. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion; joining him were Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The case that brought about this ruling involved Booker Hudson, a man from Detroit. Officers executed a search warrant in August 1998 on Hudson's home, finding him in possession of crack cocaine as well as a gun. Prosecutors claim that officers shouted, "Police, search warrant!" but readily admit that they did not knock on the door and that they waited only three to five seconds before entering and finding Hudson sitting on his couch. Hudson was eventually found guilty, despite the fact that, as his lawyer, David Moran, argued, "People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner."
Arguing the majority opinion, Scalia wrote, "Disallowing evidence from every knock-and-announce violation by officers would lead to the grave adverse consequence of a flood of appeals by accused criminals seeking dismissal of their cases." It's difficult to say whether Scalia's assumption about a "grave adverse consequence" is correct, but its accuracy is largely irrelevant. Even if a greater number of alleged criminals were to seek appeals as a result of an unjust search, they would simply be exercising their Fourth Amendment rights, which have protected United States citizens for over 200 years.
Of course, not everyone agreed with Scalia. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the minority opinion, argued, "Our Fourth Amendment traditions place a high value upon protecting privacy in the home. A centerpiece of those protections includes the exclusionary rule, under which evidence seized in illegal searches should be suppressed at trial. (This ruling) weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the dissent.
Scalia added that police might be placing their lives in danger if they vacillated over their entry for legal reasons. "If the consequences of running afoul of the law were so massive, officers would be inclined to wait longer than the law requires producing inevitable violence against officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in many others."
While the potential threat to police officers might give us pause, Scalia has created a false dilemma by suggesting that police must violate the fundamental rights of citizens in order to remain safe and perform their job effectively. The safety of police officers and adherence to the Fourth Amendment are not mutually exclusive. Scalia is certainly right to value the safety of police, but we mustn't forget that the threat of danger is a fundamental risk accepted by law enforcement officers in order to protect the safety of citizens. If our government gives priority to the safety of a few police officers at the expense of all its citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, then our government has essentially failed us.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that police must announce their presence and wait 15 to 20 seconds before bursting into a home. Overturning this precedent is an outrage. Some police officers have argued that giving the suspect any warning of their presence allows the suspect to attack them or attempt to flee. This view is incredibly demeaning in that it assumes all suspects are criminals and should be treated accordingly. There's a lot wrong with law enforcement in this country, but at the minimum, the police should enforce the law with respect for the innocent, who, according to our judicial philosophy, include everyone who has not yet been judged guilty.
Besides reflecting a lack of respect for innocent citizens, the Court's ruling continues the U.S. government's trend of encroaching into its citizens' privacy in the name of security, bringing us one step closer to a police state. I certainly don't appreciate my tax dollars funding tyrannical government soldiers who might burst down my door with no warning.
Michael Ramos-Lynch '09 proposes a toast to anarchy.
