Supreme Court Weighs Police Search Conduct

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court considered Monday whether police officers should have knocked to announce their presence when responding to complaints about a party so loud that authorities could not be heard shouting their presence.

Several justices seemed ready to side with four Brigham City, Utah, police officers who tried in vain to get the attention of people at a July 2001 party before entering the home without a warrant and screaming, "Police!"
...
Once on the back porch, an officer yelled, "Police," at a screen door. When he received no response, he opened the door, took a few steps inside and screamed, "Police," again.

"Why isn't screaming, 'Police,' enough?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, who described requiring more as "absurd."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042400619_2.html

[Atman]

1. Hmm...this is an interesting one

Too bad Scalia is the one quoted, because I automatically side with the homeowners! That man is fucking embarrassment.

That said, if it was so loud that they could not be heard knocking and screaming from the SCREEN door, and IF all they really did do was step inside the door (as opposed to beginning a wholesale raid or starting to search people) and announce their presence again, I dunno. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

I suppose they could have tried flashing their blue lights...those suckers are pretty hard to miss, and I find it hard to believe that someone at the party wouldn't have noticed them. Or maybe used a bullhorn siren at the door. But it does appear they made an honest to goodness "good faith" effort to announce themselves. Now, had they gone in and found drugs on the table and then tried to arrest people for that which they otherwise would not have found, then maybe that would be a different story. As I said, this is a tough one. Which is why, I suppose, it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

[lyonn]

2. No one should be able to simply walk into someone's

home without permission, period. Get a warrant. More rights going down the drain if this is allowed. We are not talking about someone's life in danger. These are noisy people. Sheesh

How did this case get this far? That is scary too.

[Kagemusha]

4. The purpose does matter a lot in the law.

What the above poster said. There's a big difference between trying to just announce yourself in the face of unreasonable noise and barging in to search the place.

But, that's not really the point. If the solution is simply to fight noise with more noise - sirens etc, as you say - then there's no reason to be seen to weaken protections. We can say the cops did nothing egregiously wrong without conceding that they could not have improved upon their behavior, and in future cases, will be expected to do so.

[MrPrax]

3. Loud Party?

Why do I think that a cops' idea of a 'loud' party in Brigham City, Utah might be different than 'loud' parties elsewhere? So 'loud' they need a Constitutional opinion? um....

[lyonn]

5. Skimmed the pleadings and it seems it concerns

a response to a complaint of a noisy party. Cops get there and they don't hear a loud party but do hear shouting and an argument. They don't knock on front door, only peek in front windows then go around to the back and see 2 people appearing to be of high school age discussing someone shouldn't have drank so much. The cops detain them while other cops look in back door and see 4 adults restraining a teenager against a refrigerator and then see the kid get an arm free and punch one of the adults drawing blood. Cop opens door and shouts "cops" and fight/tussle stops. Cops go inside and then one of the adults told the cops they should get out or something like that and was verbally abusive to cops, he gets arrested and charges with misdemeanors, giving booze to minors and something else, forgot the actual charges, never the less they were misdemeanors. The point seems to be do cops have a right to enter your home without warrant or that someones' life is in danger. Since the hassle stopped when cops shouted at them there was no need to save anyone's life. So why did they need to go in and make arrests?

[Rose Siding]

6. Pretty slippery slope

Even some reasonable justices are commenting on the case like it's no big deal, but you always have to wonder: what next? How will this effect other settled practice of law enforcement.

[Rex]

7. The world must be coming to an end soon, I agree with Scarface.

I guess they should have sat out on the grass until the party was over. :eyes: Smart cops would have called CPS and had the power shut off.

[NorthernSun]

8. Court picked weakest possible case

The fact that the case comes from Mormon country and is probably the weakest case they could have picked to decide 5th Amendment rights is worrisome.