By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 16, 2011
WASHINGTON — The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.
The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.
“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”
Read More
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Prosperous Party beleives that citizens' 4th amendment rights are not violated if the police enter without a warrant if they hear evidence being destroyed. But the outcome of the situation depends on how the citizen reacts. If the police knock on the door and they hear no answer and suspicous sounds coming from the house or apartment, the police can only assume that the residents are trying to cover something up. However, the police cannot enter without knocking or announicing, because then they will be violating the citizens 4th amendment rights. The Prosperous Party firmly beleives in expanding citizens' rights, but if they involve illegal activities, the police must convene.
Post a Comment