In the Name of Drugs

The recent use of a no-knock warrant here in Atlanta, what I deem as a blatant abuse of power by police and judges on either side of the political aisle (as well as completely illegal), has prompted me to spew forth from my minute IP soapbox today. I will go ahead and warn you that if you find yourself agreeing with conservatives and if you toe the line of the Republican party, you'll probably want to take a hike; ditto for short attention spanners.

For starters, here's what the Fourth Ammendment says about the searching of individuals and their homes:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In 1995, SCOTUS set the standard in Wilson v. Arkansas - for a search to be valid and not violate the individuals' rights spelled out above, there must be a "knock and announce" by the officers serving the warrant. The police simply cannot kick in your front door and come on in at their whim. This procedure is not only in place to protect rights, but to protect lives.

Think of it this way (if you haven't already): you're at home with your family having a typical evening. Suddenly the door is blasted open - what do you do? Grab a bat? A gun? Huddle the family? Has the thought even crossed your mind that the ones coming in on you are (supposedly) the good guys? Of course not!

If you're like any other law abiding citizen, fight or flight kicks in and you prepare to stand your ground or get the hell out. Stories of home invasions, especially here in the Atlanta area, are rampant; for the last year or so, it's even included police impostors, guys kicking in doors or windows and immediately yelling "police" or "FBI" in order to nullify the possibility of the homeowner arming themselves or calling the police.

So what's to separate the good guys from the bad guys? As set forth in the Constitution and in the 1995 SCOTUS ruling, they have to knock. Which leads to the all important question - what happens when the good guys don't knock? Simple - when taken to trial, the evidence is tossed. At least, that's what's supposed to happen...

Rewind to six months ago, Justice Scalia offers an opinion in just such a case, Hudson v. Michigan:

Whether that preliminary misstep [the lack of knocking before entering, m] had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained,and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house. But even if the illegal entry here could be characterized as a but-for cause of discovering what was inside,we have “never held that evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because ‘it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions
of the police.’”

My heart sank like a bowling ball in a tub of Jello when I first read that; still does today.

We are a nation built on the rule of law; those laws (loosely) say that you may enjoy your rights and exercise them to the fullest extent possible until you violate somebody else's rights. At that point, the police and courts step in and punishment is meted out proportionally - at least that's the general idea. That's woman's long-winded way of saying that when you do something wrong, you get punished; the punishment serves not only as a system of justice but also as a deterrent. Much the same as any parent-child relationship.

What Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy (all conservative) did was removed the punishment. There are no consequences whatsoever. Rhetorical question: if you can do something illegal but suffer no consequences, would you do it?

And as if that wasn't enough, Scalia, apparently in an effort to cleanse his conscience, offers us this consolation:

...social costs are the deterrence benefits. The value of deterrence depends on the strength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act. That incentive is minimal here, where ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve nothing but the prevention of evidence destruction and avoidance of life-threatening resistance, dangers which suspend the requirement when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they exist...[emphasis added, m]

So, the social costs here, as far as Scalia is concerned, are the destruction of evidence and/or avoiding fatalities (assumedly both police, criminal, and innocent bystander). Even more chilling:

Today ’s decision does not address any demonstrated pattern of knock-and-announce violations. If a widespread pattern of violations were shown, and particularly if those violations were committed against persons who lacked the means or voice to mount an effective protest, there would be reason for grave concern.

Justice Scalia, I give you "grave concern." This is a map of the U.S. compiled by the Cato Institute documenting what they call para-millitary raids, including no-knock warrants, that went wrong. In most cases, these warrants and raids were all done in the name of the war on drugs; I won't get into it here - mostly b/c I haven't fully made up my own mind about it - but it really begs the question, "Is it really worth it?"