“A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a “reasonable” amount of time before entering.” That was the heading of a story at CNN.com today.
The high court heard a case concerning proper procedure when it comes to serving search warrants. In the past the Supreme Court has ruled that police should announce their presence and then wait a reasonable amount of time. The trouble often arises in that reasonable is variable. However, by the officer’s own statements in this case, it was obvious (to me anyway) that they didn’t wait a reasonable amount of time.
“What difference does it make?” you may ask. Well, usually if the warrant isn’t served properly then all evidence gathered is thrown out of court and usually results in the perpetrator walking free. So, it’s in the best interest of the case for the warrant to be executed properly. This warrant wasn’t served totally proper, however the high court ruled that the evidence was still admisable. Of course it was by a slim 5-4 margin.
The question is, what repercussions will this have later on? 4 of the justices felt that this ruling is giving LEOs the ability to violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches-and-seizures. The remaining 5 justices felt that requiring officers to wait a set amount of time increases the likelihood of violence against the officers and the odds of evidence being destroyed.
I understand both viewpoints. However, I don’t feel that there should be a set in stone type procedure on how to execute a search warrant. Those types of situations are highly unpredictable and oftentimes contain extenuating circumstances. I feel the officers should feel free to act and react as needed AND the courts should have the ability to examine situations individually and then rule on whether evidence is to be excluded.
