Dawk
Favorite Answer
It is important that everyone feel safe and actually be safe. There are situations when some take it upon themselves to infringe on the rights of everyone and attempt to steal or harm them. When there is reasonable suspicion that something is not right, then today we give our law enforcement the prerogative to take action.
No matter what anyone may think, this is the very best the civilization has developed so far in the history of the world. It is not perfect by a long shot. It will continue to improve as long as people like you are thoughtful enough to keep everyone thinking.
Jester, Esq.
This is an acceptable interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, albeit a conservative interpretation. All the Fourth Amendment guarantees is protection from "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and that warrants be based on probable cause. The Supreme Court's interpreation of the word is certainly debatable, but their actions are not irrational. The moral of the story is this is what happens when a conservative (allegedly) President is allowed to appoint a conservative justice. The court slides farther to the right, incrementally. It's like with the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. The Constitution does not say the government cannot take your rights away, it only says that the government must provide you with whatever process is due. When you vote for any Congressman or President, think long and hard about the Constitutional implications. Roberts and Alito will likely be on the Court for thirty years.
C_Bar
Demonstrates the radical conservatives on the court. The rule has been upheld for 90 years (long before the liberal Warren court) and grows out of good police practice. The 5 justice majority demonstrates that history and good sense will give way to increased police powers -- a strange understanding of what a conservative is, but it is why Roberts and Alioto were put on the Court, to back up Bush's claim that the Executive branch (which includes police) can do no wrong.
That said, I don't think it the most outrageous thing in the world, and most police for their own protection will continue to announce themselves, but it illustrates where the Court will be going for many years hence.
Swordfish
Here's a scenario for you guys; an honest family with guns (allowed under the Constitution) is minding there own business when all of a sudden the door is busted in and havoc rings. Someone grabs the family gun and the entire family is shot to death because the police had the wrong address. At least with the knock there might be some type of safeguard to curtale such an event.
The Krieg
I agree with the decision. The police are often restricted from doing things that a private citizen, bounty hunter, or bail bondsman is permitted to do. The problem is the potential for abuse, but that is a problem with most laws. The court just felt that law enforcement did not need an additional obstacle in order to do their jobs.