The United States Supreme Court has provided in a close 5-4 majority decision the opportunity for criminals to turn their neighborhoods into the Wild Wild West. Under Hudson vs the State of Michigan, a warrant was issued for police to enter Mr. Hudson's home. However, police, upon finding the door unlocked, and without knocking or announcing their presence, walked in on Mr. Hudson.
Surprised by the invasion, Mr.Hudson was seized with guns and drugs. The incriminating evidence was used to convict Mr. Hudson at trial for wrongdoing. Mr. Hudson wanted the evidence suppressed based on the fact that the police did not follow, Michigan's knock and announce mandate as a step in assuring a reasonable search and seizure.
Whether or not a police with a warrant violating the knock and announce rule requires the suppression of all evidence found in the search was the argument. The Court opinionated that police entering the home in violation of the fourth amendment knock and announce rule was not ground for suppressing evidence." If criminal evidence is found no matter the way the officers obtained it, the court will not suppress it to protect criminals from prosecution of their wrongdoings it seems was the majority reasoning.
Too broad a ruling subjecting the innocence to unbridled discretion by police officers following a weak reasonable suspicion that criminal behavior may be going on in a home. Erased in this ruling is the locked door or window to the world guaranteed under the United States Constitution from government intrusion under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment was to keep government and other from freely entering your home. Now once inside, the police are free to scan for criminal activity, and once found one can be held indefinitely in the home until a search warrant is obtained to seize the evidence. One expected the government to knock on your door, but permission must be granted by the homeowner for government to enter.
Understood was, under certain circumstances, specifically criminal activity, the government can be granted entry to a home without permission. If a search warrant is presented you must allow police officers to enter the home. The search warrant served as the announcement that some criminal activity has been brought to the authority's attention and police need to gain entry to gather evidence to support their allegation.
Furthermore, the search warrant served as notice to prevent random intrusion by rogue police officers on a mission to clean up criminal activity in a neighborhood, preventing invasion on the homes of the innocence. Simply put, the government's agent appeared at the door with a warrant if not the agent was subject to misconduct and the evidence would be suppressed, with a few exceptions. No more. With the new ruling, a home as been reduced to not more private than the moving vehicle on the public roads, subject to random searches in hopes of finding incriminating evidence to prove culpable behavior by the occupants.
In order to deter such behavior, police were provided a procedure to enter the home with a warrant and knock and announce their presence. Police officer failing to follow the procedure has decided on their own to enter the home unannounced and void the procedure that even the innocence will use to justify the shoot first ask questions later.
Not to long ago, I was startled from a nap. Sleeping on the second floor unbeknownst to me, an intruder was making his way into my home through the back door. It just so happen that I was washing clothes and thought the noise was the washing machine. By the time, I sat up and started toward the sound did it become apparent that someone was trying to forcefully gain entry into my home. I gathered the cellphone to be call the police and as I waited on the second floor to be rescued.
But unfortunately, the intruder decided to climb the stairs where I was standing down. No time to retreat and without the police, I decided that the element of surprise would scare off this criminal from reaching the top of the stairs. I was lucky, it worked. But, if I had a gun as soon as I saw his silhouette would have been given me enough time to aim, shoot and fire.
I don't have a gun. It would not have matter whether it was a police, child, friend, family member or criminal, somebody would have been harmed. I believed in calling the police, who finally appeared long after the intruder was long gone, 7 or more officers with weapons of mass destruction, barking order for me to get on the ground.
Indiana is right to have concerns for the safety of the police officers under this ruling by the Supreme Court. Especially with a state bill not requiring residents to stand down or retreat but allowing Indiana residents to shoot first and ask questions later during a home invasion.
When a resident is startled from their sleep by someone forcing their way into their home, the resident is not trying to find out if the intruder crawling through the window is a police officer. This ruling encourages the innocence to go out an purchase a gun to insure that indeed, a home should be a person's castle, a refuge away from the evil of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment