Breaking News from the New York Times: Alito Vote Loosens Limits on Evidence
In a 5-4 decision in the case of Hudson v. Morgan, the Court refused to exclude evidence gathered by police that had a warrant, but failed to knock before entering a private home. There was a strong dissent written by Steven Breyer that countered the majority opinion by Antonin Scalia. New Justices Roberts and Alito voted with the 5-member majority.
This decision reverses long standing precedent of the "knock and announce" policy. This decision really shows the divisions in the new Roberts Court. What do you think?
The text of the decision can be found here.
Analysis from NPR.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In all honesty, if they had the warrant, then their search is justified.
I too, would be annoyed at the fact that they didn't knock before barging in, but failing to do so does not void the evidence.
(the links aren't working on my computer, so forgive any assumptions).
However, if I was a justice, I wouldn't want to create any new precedent that would allow police to just barge in. Furthermore, this sounds like a violation of due process. Aaaannndd, I don't like scalia or roberts, sooo I'd vote against them.
-ex-Redheaded-We the People student
Post a Comment