In a close 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police seeking to execute a search warrant need not knock and announce themselves before entering a suspect's house.
Court analysts believe the court's decision may have been different had recently retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor still been on the bench. O'Connor heard the arguments in the case but after he retirement, arguments were heard again to allow new court member Samuel Alito to participate in the decision. Both of President Bush's new appointees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, voted with the majority in this case.
The court's decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia admitted that the police violated the rule that said they had to knock and announce themselves before entering the house of a suspect. The case before the court took place in Detroit. In it, the police failed to knock, announced their presence and entered the suspect's house 'three-to-five seconds later.'
Scalia, writing for the majority, said that suppressing evidence found was too great a penalty in a situation where the drugs and gun would have been found anyway.
'Whether that preliminary misstep 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,' Scalia wrote.
The dissent was written by Justice Stephen Breyer who explained that the court's decision 'weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection' under the Fourth Amendment.
Breyer wrote that police can now enter without knocking at any time since they know there is no penalty for failing to do so.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate on the court, supported the police in the case but wrote his own opinion. Kennedy cautioned, 'it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry.'
