Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

High court gives police wider search authority

The 5-4 vote weakens the "knock-and-announce" rule for officers and showcases the court's new makeup.

By TIMES WIRES
Published June 16, 2006

WASHINGTON - In a decision some experts said showcased the Supreme Court's move to the right, the nation's highest court made it easier Thursday for police to enter homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.

The decision left uncertain the value of the "knock-and-announce" rule, which dates to 13th century England as protection against illegal entry by police into private homes.

It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners, even unsympathetic homeowners like Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and cocaine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.

The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and new Justice Samuel Alito, ruled that police blunders should not result in "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for defendants. Also voting in the majority were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

Dissenting were liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The decision followed a reargument less than a month ago, with Alito appearing to cast the decisive vote. Breyer's dissenting opinion seemed to have been drafted to speak for a majority that was lost when former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the court shortly after the first argument in January.

Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the ruling "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." He said the majority's reasoning boiled down to: "The requirement is fine, indeed, a serious matter, just don't enforce it."

David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson, said: "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

Supporters, however, said the ruling will help police do their jobs.

"People who are caught red-handed with evidence of guilt have one less weapon to get off," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

Certainly, the case provides the clearest sign yet of the court without O'Connor.

Hudson had lost his case in a Michigan appeals court. Justices agreed to hear his appeal last June, four days before O'Connor's announcement that she was retiring.

O'Connor was still on the bench in January when his case was first argued, and she seemed ready to vote with Hudson. "Is there no policy of protecting the homeowner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" she asked.

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held this spring so that Alito could participate. His vote likely broke a 4-4 tie.

Four justices, including Alito and Roberts, would have given prosecutors a more sweeping victory but did not have Kennedy's vote.

Ronald Allen, a Northwestern University Law professor, said the ruling "suggests those four would be happy to consider overturning" a 1961 Supreme Court opinion that said evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in trials. "It would be a significant change," he said.

Kennedy joined in most of the ruling but wrote to explain that he did not support ending the knock requirement.

"It bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry," he said.

Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

Scalia, writing for the majority, said that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.

Detroit police acknowledge violating the knock-and-announce rule when they called out their presence at Hudson's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds. Hudson was convicted of drug possession.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

High court offers tribute to late chief justice

WASHINGTON - The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was praised Thursday by lawyers who practice before the Supreme Court as a man of sharp intellect, quick wit and love of family and friends.

Rehnquist, who died in September after a battle with cancer, served nearly 34 years on the court first as an associate justice and then as chief justice.

During a special session of the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts, a former Rehnquist law clerk, praised his predecessor not only for his contributions to the law but also for "knowing what was important in life."

Speaker after speaker at the tribute described an unpretentious man who reveled in his anonymity - despite the key position he held in government.

Allen R. Snyder, a former Rehnquist law clerk, remembered Rehnquist's delight when tourists asked him to take snapshots of them in front of the court, having no clue who he was.

--Information from the New York Times and Associated Press was used in this report.

[Last modified June 16, 2006, 07:06:58]