« A bittersweet moment | Main | When breaking news happens... »

The Hudson ruling

I'm ill-equipped to comment on the legalities of the recent Supreme Court ruling on no-knock searches (I know, when does that ever stop me?) Still, no matter what judicial reasoning went into deciding Hudson, I can safely say that I'm unhappy with the outcome.

First, just to be clear, this is not about warrantless searches. It's about whether warrants have to be served politely. I'm aware of no such constitutional guarantee, but I do think that as a matter of police etiquette, knocking is far more desirable than not.

Granted, there are certain circumstances in which the police must maintain the element of surprise. Imagine, for example, raiding a house in which violent, armed resistance is expected -- a safe house full of heavily armed drug dealers, or militant terrorists, for example. There's no sense in giving them time to pick up their Glocks or AK's and assume battle positions.

Nevertheless, I worry about the implications of this ruling for normal, garden-variety police searches. My prediction? More police officers will be shot. Many people, if awakened in the night by people forcibly and violently entering their homes, are going to reach for their guns. I can't say I blame them. I wish the case of Cory Maye had better informed this ruling. I have a bad feeling that we might see more Cory Mayes in the post-Hudson future.


I have no problem with this ruling.

For all too long, criminals have beaten the system by appealing on technicalities such as this. Do you doubt, Barry, that the criminal's attorney assured him that there was no way they could lose this appeal?

Forget that the guy was guilty as sin. Rather that he could get off on a technicality.

Sorry, I am tired of that game.

Book 'em, Danno.

i mean it really looks like these dudes are sayin "man Spokane is just like Iraq"

Post a comment