Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85242 35212

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace
Register FAQ GFWiki Community Donate Arcade ChocoJournal Calendar

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


"Tough Shit" for Innocent Raid Victims
Reply
 
Thread Tools
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 02:09 AM Local time: May 23, 2007, 12:09 AM #1 of 24
Knock-and-announce isn't a necessarily guaranteed by the 4th Amendment, the text hardly defines it as necessary. And knock-and-announce doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the warrant itself. While the Arkansas case in 1995 did hold that the exclusionary principle could apply in cases where knock-and-announce was violated, it was not a steadfast rule.

Originally Posted by Hudson v. Michigan
The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Pp. 3–7.
Originally Posted by Wilson v. Arkansas (application of knock-and-announce)
This is not to say, of course, that every entry must be preceded by an announcement. The Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests. As even petitioner concedes, the common law principle of announcement was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances.

...

We simply hold that although a search or seizure of a dwelling might be constitutionally defective if police officers enter without prior announcement, law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry.
And Wilson was only overturned in this case on the grounds of knock-and-announce that the Arkansas Supreme Court didn't address the sufficiency of law enforcement's application of the warrant. They didn't hold that 4th was necessarily violated and I don't know if the Supreme Court heard another case between Wilson and Hudson.

How ya doing, buddy?
and Brandy does her best to understand

Last edited by BlueMikey; May 23, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
Reply


Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > "Tough Shit" for Innocent Raid Victims

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.