Is it time to move to Canada yet?

[novapsyche]

High Court backs police no-knock searches | more | more | more

Can you tell that I am highly concerned about this ruling?

I actually have tears in my eyes.

Comments

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

The police have always done whatever they feel like. I don't like it, but we've been living in a police state for a while now.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

More people will die for living next door to dealers.

[ex-druid210.livejournal.com]

High time. Pun intended. (high court)

So, what was the court doing that it was so high?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

You won't be able to escape from this by going to Canada or Europe.

[entheo.livejournal.com]

Why not, I thought that moving to Europe would be the perfect solution, unless you wanted someplace warmer.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The surveillance situation is even worse in Europe. They take it for granted that there's cameras watching you and people snooping through your transactions.

[techno-shaman.livejournal.com]

Why do you feel this is such an important matter?
I am no expert on search and seizure law, but it seems to me that the difference between 10 seconds and 0 seconds doesnt seem such a big thing, since they will be entering anyways?
~Zephyr~

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

The thing about this ruling that made me less than worried was that they had to have a warrant. With a warrant they can enter even if nobody's home! So, knocking and waiting vs. knocking and not waiting vs. not knocking isn't a big deal. What scares me is any and all rulings/laws/customs that say they can enter WITHOUT a warrant, like the Patriot Act allows.

[techno-shaman.livejournal.com]

*nods*
That was more my thought. The knock issue didnt seem as scary, though it could present a disturbing trend.
Warrantless search rights on the other hand would have me exercizing my second amendment rights.
~Zephyr~

[kyril.livejournal.com]

No-knock warrants were already available when the police allege enough risks should they serve a warrant normally. And inevitable discovery is also a well-seated legal principle. I honestly don't know how this got all the way to the Supreme Court, unless there's something else we don't know that makes it interesting. (e.g. the McDonalds coffee case showed evidence that the corporation repeatedly ignored warnings that their coffee was not just hot but dangerously so; it wasn't just a woman being stupid about where she spilled her coffee.)

And I don't think the SCOTUS said the defendant couldn't sue over the inappropriate search...but it would be a civil case against the P.D. and/or the municipality.

On the other hand, "dismissed on a technicality" is the only really effective way our justice system has of making sure the police follow the rules. The penalty normally *is* disproportinate because the court can't normally penalize the police or prosecutors in any other meaningful way.