Still no answer. I have responded to your posts in far more detail to explain what I was saying and why. You on the other hand merely obfuscate or evade the question.
One last time and I'm merely quoting it for purposses of clarification. Here is the post, in it's entirety that I was asking about.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nifty
So Nash, what you're saying is, you would like the evidence in the particular search and seizure to be inadmissable in the trial? (yeah, I know the actual seizure happened in 1998 or something)
Oops, sorry cops. You didn't knock. All that incriminating evidence you found isn't allowed into the trial. Sorry DA, looks like you don't have a case now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Your reply to Nifty)
That's exactly how it should be. There is a distinction between a search without a vaild warrant, and a warranted search badly executed. There have always been situations where evidence is discovered through error. The Supreme Court ruling now invites it, with the understanding now that there are no drawbacks to executing a bad search.
It really is that simple.
_____________________________ ______
My confusion here is that in the case being discussed there was no indications of a warrantless search nor did Nifty mention one. You brought up this thing with the term distinction and invalid warrant as well as how the search was executed. I asked for clarification for what you were trying to say. That's all. Should have been simple for you to clear up what you meant even though you had an obvious error in the post.
FWIW the normal result of a truly bad search, warrantless or not, is the same, exclusion of the evidence found during the search. No distinction there at all.
In this case the Court chose to rule the search was NOT invalid merely because of a technical situation, that being failure to knock and wait 15 to 20 seconds. There was a warrant and no challenge to the validity of the warrant was mentioned. There was also knowledge that there was an armed suspect in the premisis and no one disputed that there was an announced entrance made.
You chose to interpret this as an open invitation for a "bad search" which is a conlusion not supported by the actual information in the article. There are far more considerations in deteriminimng a good vs a bad search than this one point regarding knocking and time before entering. Further clarification will be had on the scope of this case when the ruling, or at least a GOOD extract of it, is available for anyone to review.
