When Federal and State Laws Collide

This article outlines how it could be potentially tragic now that the US Supreme Court said that judges can't throw evidence out of court in the instance of a police officer with a warrant not announcing himself and knocking ont he door before entering. Now, police officers have no incentive to announce themselves and knock for fear their case may be thrown out of court by a judge.

Also, the Michigan House and Senate have just passed a package of bills that would essentially make it so people could defend themselves first and ask questions later (strengthening private property and self-defense rights). Here is their analysis.

The reporter thinks this could be potentially tragic. i.e. police officer hopes to get "perp" and busts into house without announcing himself in the hopes of catching the, in his mind, guilty person (remember no court case yet, so under law this person is SUPPOSED to be considered innocent) before he has time to get rid of evidence, accidentally gets the wrong address and busts into the wrong house and gets shot for his efforts. Or, exchanges gunfire and shoots a completely unsuspecting person. Think Ruby Ridge for the police.

However, if the reporter thinks that a police officer would now have no incentive to announce himself (or herself) because he does not have to fear getting his case thrown out, shouldn't the reporter be glad with the new package of bills? After all, I would think that getting shot for not announcing himself and not knocking would be a far greater incentive to follow the rules of knocking and announcing himself than just the fear that his case will be thrown out by a judge. Or at least it would cause said police officer to be more careful to actually break into the house he has a warrant for.

Well, judge for yourselves and post your comments.