The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed. Full Story »
Posted by Barry Grossheim - via LA Times (Most Emailed), Google News (U.S.), NewsRack (U.S.), Seth Roberts Farber (t)
Though a very brief treatment of this important legal decision, I recommend it because it is informative and accurate; it is also the only article I've seen so far on this matter, which could have far-reaching consequences across the entire country.
“I’m surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I’m even more surprised that nearly all of them went along,” said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.
I’m surprised, too. The article goes on to explain how this Supreme Court, headed by Justice Alito, has traditionally been very protective of the 4th Amendment. An 8-1 vote is a very strong message.
I'm sure more will be written about this decision from many angles: the Court's 8-1 vote (who voted which way and why); what this could mean for police departments and police searches; and any challenges to this decision. Using a toilet flushing sound as a reason to enter a residence is a curious example; it is weak on the grounds that the activity is something all toilet-trained humans do throughout their day. Could a "sometimes a flush is JUST a flush?" defense be attempted?