Knocking Down the Fourth Amendment

The police state scored another victory last week. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hudson v. Michigan that, if cops ignore the legal requirement to knock before invading an American’s castle, well, it doesn’t matter. They can still snatch up whatever they want as evidence, and such evidence can be introduced in court. This decision removes much of the incentive for police officers to obey the knock-first rule. And it undermines all other Fourth Amendment protections. By affirming contempt for Constitutional rights, the Supreme Court has put out the welcome mat for their further violation.

Did you enjoy this post?

Join the Sancerres at Sunset VIP list!

1 thought on “Knocking Down the Fourth Amendment

  1. What I’m confused about: The cops knew about the exclusionary rule, and ignored it.

    OK; but, rather than enforce the rule against the cop, the Supreme Court says, “Even though the cops know about this rule, we’re not going to enforce that rule. The rule is not longer required.” That, to me sounds like the court is rewarding people who ignore the rules. Sounds kind of like non-sense.

    Which leads me to other thoughts:

    1. If this case had never been brought (namely an effort to have the case dismissed), would we still have the exclusionary rule? IN other words, what’s weird about this is that our rights were protected until we asserted the right to have the rule enforced.

    It seems odd that we’re in a worse position for having sought to assert a rule which the court said was real. Seems stupid that we’ve lost a right by attempting to hold the cops-court to the rule they said they’d follow.

    2. How many other rules have the court created — that the law enforcement is ignoring — that the court doesn’t have any intent to follow; and when violated, the court will say, “Oh that doesn’t apply.” Kind of makes the predictability of the rules questionable: We make rules, but we don’t enforce them.

Comments are closed.