https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/436/searchcase.shtml

In an unusual second oral argument before the US Supreme Court Thursday, justices sparred over a Michigan case where police with a search warrant rushed into a home and seized evidence without knocking. The case, Hudson v. Michigan, is a test of previous Supreme Court rulings that police must generally knock and announce themselves before entering a residence with a search warrant.

Previously, the court has ruled that police must give people at least 15 or 20 seconds to answer the door or they risk running afoul of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. In the case of Booker Hudson, police announced their presence, but entered less than five seconds later. Hudson was convicted on cocaine charges as a result of the search.

When the case was first argued in January, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench and appeared ready to rule in favor of Hudson. But her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, appears much more sympathetic to the government. While he grilled Hudson's lawyers, he had no questions for government lawyers.

With the court evenly split on the issue, Alito's vote could make the difference. Justices favoring a less expansive view of police rights under the Fourth Amendment warned that the stakes are high. If the court rules against Hudson, said Justice Stephen Breyer, "We'd let a computer virus loose in the Fourth Amendment. It strikes me as risky and unprecedented."

"The police should not barge in like an invading army," said Justice David Souter.

On the other hand, Bush appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito joined Justice Antonin Scalia, who has never met a search he didn't like, sharply challenged Hudson's claim the evidence was tainted by an improper search. Although for decades, US judicial doctrine has been to suppress the "poisonous fruits" of illegal searches, Scalia suggested that the government has a good argument that "the punishment for it should not be to let the criminal go."

Back in January, Justice O'Connor worried that a ruling in favor of police in this case would result in cops across the country bursting into homes. "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" she asked.

Given the current complexion of the Supreme Court, the answer is probably no. A ruling is expected soon.

	Please make a generous donation to support Drug War Chronicle in 2007!

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en Español Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em Português Latest News Drug Library Search special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]