RULING UNLIKELY TO ALTER POLICE SEARCHES

They Knock for Safety Reasons

TAMPA - Although the U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday that prosecutors
could use evidence seized during an illegal search, Tampa police Sgt.
Ken Morman doesn't think police will change how they do their jobs.

The high court, deciding a Detroit case, limited the application of
the so-called exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally
seized evidence.

Police are required before executing search warrants to knock and
announce themselves. But if they fail to do that, the court ruled, the
exclusionary rule cannot be applied, meaning that any evidence they
seize still can be used in court.

The court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled
that banning such evidence, and possibly letting criminals go free, is
too high a price for society to pay.

The knock-and-announce requirement can be enforced through other
means, such as civil rights lawsuits against police who violate it and
internal affairs disciplinary actions, Scalia wrote.

Morman, who investigates narcotics cases for the Tampa Police
Department, said the ruling would not affect police operations because
officers always announce themselves for safety reasons.

"We want them to know who we are and what our presence and authority
is," said Morman, a 24-year department veteran.

Element Of Surprise

Decades ago, officers wanted to use the element of surprise,
especially in drug cases, to avoid people flushing evidence, he said.

The prevalence of home invasions and robberies among drug dealers,
however, means anyone barging into a place unannounced takes a huge
risk, he said.

"Everyone realizes that safety's got to be the most important thing,"
Morman said.

Detroit police acknowledge violating the knock-and-announce rule in
1998 when they called out their presence at Booker Hudson's door,
failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.
Thursday's court ruling upheld Hudson's conviction of drug possession.

Florida adopted a state constitutional amendment in 1982 that makes
state courts follow the rulings of federal courts in the area of searches.

Legal experts said this means any change in federal constitutional
procedures in this area, including Thursday's ruling, will apply in
state criminal investigations and trials.

The Supreme Court ruling did not specify how long officers must wait
after announcing themselves before entering on a warrant.

Morman said it is understood to wait "a reasonable amount of time for
a person to answer a door."

Generally within 15 seconds or so, police will hear, "Yeah?" or some
acknowledgment, Morman said.

"If you hear footsteps running away, or you hear, 'Dump it; it's the
cops' - once they exhibit they're not going to comply, we would make a
forceful entry," he said.

Defense lawyers said police would be wise to maintain the status quo
and continue to follow the knock-and-announce rule.

"I think it's a dangerous and scary opinion because we can expect more
doors being battered down in the middle of the night and more scared
people inside those doors shooting it out with police, particularly in
a state like Florida with all the gun owners," said Tampa lawyer
Rochelle A. Reback.

"Police who are anxious to make their cases will consider that
suppression (of evidence) is no longer a remedy for violation of the
knock-and-announce rule," she said. "There are no legal consequences
to a police choice not to knock and announce their presence, so they
have to weigh their personal safety with how badly they want evidence."

"There are officers out there that generally do a good job," said
defense lawyer Danny Castillo. "Some are poorly trained and will
flaunt their power."

But Castillo didn't expect to see a significant change in police
practices. "Cops can't just go willy-nilly," he said. "They still have
to have probable cause to obtain a warrant. They still have the
constitutional duty to follow the law We'll have to wait and see.
Hopefully, officers will continue to follow the law." 'Conservative
Movement'

Charles Rose, a professor at Stetson Law School, said Thursday's
ruling is in line with "the conservative movement to undo the Warren
and the Burger court and the many steps they took to rein in police
misconduct in the 1960s and the 1970s."

Rose said the rules are there to protect "that right to privacy within
your home that still exists. The fear of the privacy advocates is this
is going to give police carte blanche."

The ruling from the court's conservative majority was possible because
newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito broke a 4-4 tie. The outcome
might have been different if recently retired Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor was still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was
first argued in January, to rule in favor of the defense.

Tampa defense lawyer Barry Cohen said the ruling heralded "a sad state
of affairs" brought about by conservative politics.

"This country is founded on the Bill of Rights which separates us from
other countries," he said "The last 25 years has seen a picking away
at these basic rights We have elected people who are using fear
against us. If (Democratic Sen. John) Kerry hadn't lost, this wouldn't
be a problem." Possible Dangerous Precedent

He agreed with those who think the precedent may turn out to be
dangerous. "Now police are going to get killed," Cohen said. "You bust
into my house and you are going to get significant slugs in your
butt .. and they'll (the police will) shoot back."

Defense lawyer John Fitzgibbons agreed with Cohen the ruling was the
result of a political shift in the nation. "This shows that the Bush
revolution has arrived," he said.

"Over the past decade, the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth
Amendment have basically disappeared under first the Rehnquist court
and now the Roberts court. Police now have a great deal of leeway and
this simply continues the trend in weakening the Fourth Amendment."

Darrell Dirks, who heads the Narcotics Division of the Hillsborough
State Attorney's Office, had a different take. "Others will tell you
that this is an erosion of Fourth Amendment, but I can't tell you how
many times waiting has led to drugs being flushed. I hope this changes
that.

"Understand that I don't agree with knocking down doors," he
continued. "Common sense approaches are the right way to go, and if
you believe evidence will be destroyed, police should use reasonable
judgment."