No-Knock Warrants Before the SCOTUS

QandO piece discussing Hudson v. Michigan. Calling it this years Kelo.

I wish this were a more clear cut case to take to the SCOTUS. Here's a synopsis at Duke Law.

Hudson was charged and convicted in state court with possession of cocaine and a firearm after Detroit police officers entered and searched Hudson'’s home, pursuant to a warrant. Hudson argued that the evidence against him was seized in violation of the "knock and announce" rule of the Fourth Amendment, which requires the police to knock, announce their presence, and wait 20-30 seconds before executing a search warrant, except in exigent circumstance. The trial judge granted Hudson's motion to suppress the evidence because the officers failed to knock on Hudson‚’s door and then waited only three to five seconds after announcing their presence before entering his home. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was bound by two cases decided by the Michigan Supreme Court that created an "exception" to the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the knock and announce rule when the evidence would inevitably have been discovered.

Even better when you read the January blawg entry at SCOTUSblog.

On the afternoon of August 27, 1998, seven Detroit police officers approached the home of Booker T. Hudson seeking to execute a valid search warrant for narcotics and weapons. Upon reaching the door, several officers shouted, "Police, search warrant," but did not actually knock on the door. After waiting only three to five seconds (a time period that Officer Jamal Good described as lasting "about how long it took me to go in the door"), the officers opened the unlocked door and proceeded into the home. Officer Good testified that this rapid entry was motivated by a concern for officer safety (a concern prompted by his previous experiences of having been shot at during narcotics raids). Upon entering, the officers found Hudson sitting in the living room and several other people running throughout the house. On Hudson's person, the police discovered five rocks of crack cocaine. Elsewhere in the house police found numerous baggies of cocaine and a loaded revolver.

There is a lot to the argument that I won't go into, but you can read.

I understand that the police officer's job is intrinsically hazardous, but that doesn't sway the requirements of knock and announce. QandO also points out that these no-knock searches have had an increasing affect on citizens who were put through these raids by mistake. There are deaths attributed to this as well.

From my point of view, I think there should be the allowance for no-knock searches, but that they should be extremely limited. The environment of the search should be the factor for justification and should have to be proven to a standard. And, if they make a mistake and go into the wrong residence, they should be required by law to pay full restitution and have to face negligence charges. When using deadly force you should just be making a best effort, you should be taking extra measures to ensure that you're actions will not impact any innocent.

Final word quoted from QandO.

The police are public servants, doing a dangerous job. I appreciate that fact, having worked as a sworn officer in both military and civilian law enforcement. But the bottom line is that the police are our servants, not our masters, and any mode of policing that puts law abiding citizens at greater risk is intolerable, even if the price is some increase in the risk police officers face.