When the Hudson v. Michigan decision came down, many of us predicted it would basically unleash cops to render the knock & announce requirement all but meaningless. That's exactly what happened. See Louisville:
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
These are merely places where high-profile incidents exposed systemic failures. There's a reason why most drug task forces and SWAT teams often don't wear body cameras. They don't want us to see the knock-and-announce. Because it seems clear that many simply don't bother with it.
Some SCOTUS trivia on this: When Hudson was argued, Sandra Day O'Connor seemed clearly on the side of applying the Exclusionary Rule when cops violate K&A. But she retired before it was decided. Bush appointed Alito, who voted with the 5-4 majority -- against applying the rule.
If you've read me for a while, you'll also know that Scalia's majority opinion cited a "new police professionalism," arguing that internal discipline will prevent cops from breaking the rule. He cited the work of criminologist Sam Walker.
Walker was furious. He immediately ...
Walker was furious. He immediately ...
... said Scalia had completely misinterpreted and misapplied his work. Didn't matter. There's no fact check for SCOTUS opinions that cite BS scholarship or misuse good scholarship.
I don't know of a single instance where a cop was disciplined for failing to knock and announce.
I don't know of a single instance where a cop was disciplined for failing to knock and announce.
The cops in this video violated the rule, then maimed a man for life. Video later showed they lied about knocking and announcing. No discipline.
Not only are cops not disciplined for violating the rule, we've found places where *judges* routinely...
washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…
Not only are cops not disciplined for violating the rule, we've found places where *judges* routinely...
washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…
... grant no-knock warrants that clearly violate SCOTUS precedent.
The rule may as well not exist. Because Hudson took away any meaningful deterrent, cops can basically kick down doors with impunity. There's less judicial scrutiny. So there's less incentive for caution.
The rule may as well not exist. Because Hudson took away any meaningful deterrent, cops can basically kick down doors with impunity. There's less judicial scrutiny. So there's less incentive for caution.
Replacing O'Connor with Alito made violent, reckless raids more likely. It made death more likely. Replacing one justice with a slightly more law-and-order one basically killed the Castle Doctrine.
Ginsburg was on the correct side of Hudson.
Make of that what you will.
Ginsburg was on the correct side of Hudson.
Make of that what you will.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
