BCT Editorial – 6/20/06

This page was last updated on June 20, 2006.

Shootout; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 20, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The U.S. Supreme Court may have made police work even more dangerous than it already is.”

[RWC] The editorial misrepresents the ruling.

“The court last week ruled 5-4 that police officers armed with search warrants can enter homes without knocking or waiting.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an earlier ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Also, there have always been exceptions to the “knock and announce” rule. It’s nothing new, as the editorial would have us believe.

“While law-and-order types cheered the ruling, officials had better think twice before making use of their newfound constitutional freedom because it could make their line of work even more dangerous.

“For instance, police have been known to raid the wrong house. Let’s say that happens. They smash down the front door without warning, and the homeowner comes up shooting. In the resulting shootout, two officers are wounded.”

[RWC] Earth to the editorial author. These circumstances occurred before this ruling.

“Should the owner be held liable for the wounding of the officers when, as far as he knew, he was defending his home from mysterious intruders?”

[RWC] Notice the editorial provided no context for the ruling.

Police officers were going to search a suspected drug dealer’s residence and they had reason to believe the suspect would try to dispose of the drugs. As a result, the police officers announced themselves and then entered the residence after three to five seconds. For whatever reason, the Michigan courts ruled this was a violation of the “knock and announce” rule. As a result, the drug dealer moved to have the drugs and guns found in his residence excluded from his trial.

The Michigan and U.S. supreme courts simply ruled that evidence that would have been recovered anyway should not be excluded.