News (Media Awareness Project) - US WI: High Court Asked To Clarify Rules In No-Knock Drug Cases |
| Title: | US WI: High Court Asked To Clarify Rules In No-Knock Drug Cases |
| Published On: | 1999-02-05 |
| Source: | Wisconsin State Journal (WI) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-09-06 14:06:46 |
Pubdate: Fri, 05 Feb 1999
Source: Wisconsin State Journal (WI)
Contact: wsjopine@statejournal.madison.com
Website: http://www.madison.com/
HIGH COURT ASKED TO CLARIFY RULES IN NO-KNOCK DRUG CASES
Appellate judges want the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether evidence
police obtained in drug investigations by rushing into homes unannounced can
be used at trial.
The dispute arose in three southern Wisconsin cases - two from Rock County
and one from Columbia County - because of a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that said the state Supreme Court was wrong when it allowed no-knock
searches in all felony drug cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to create an exception to its
1995 decision that said no-knock entries usually are unlawful, prohibited by
the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Prosecutions of the three cases, involving searches of homes in Beloit and
Portage, proceeded after the 1997 high court ruling, but the evidence used
in them was obtained before a no-knock search was considered illegal.
Other prosecutions for drug-related crimes are at stake in the legal
dispute, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Kleinmaier said.
"At least 10 or 12 other similar cases could be affected," he said.
The state contends the evidence obtained in the searches can be used because
police were acting under a law they thought was constitutional; thus they
were acting in good faith.
The 4th District Court of Appeals asked Thursday that the Supreme Court take
up the issue, saying the dispute has ties to a 1923 court decision fashioned
to deter police violations of the state Constitution.
In a no-knock search, officers have a judge's permission to barge into a
home without any announcement of who they are. Police say such power is
needed because drug dealers often are armed, and a speedy, surprise entry
prevents the destruction of evidence.
"Cops are doing this every day," Assistant Attorney General Thomas
Balistreri said. "It is one of the bread-and-butter law enforcement issues."
Source: Wisconsin State Journal (WI)
Contact: wsjopine@statejournal.madison.com
Website: http://www.madison.com/
HIGH COURT ASKED TO CLARIFY RULES IN NO-KNOCK DRUG CASES
Appellate judges want the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether evidence
police obtained in drug investigations by rushing into homes unannounced can
be used at trial.
The dispute arose in three southern Wisconsin cases - two from Rock County
and one from Columbia County - because of a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that said the state Supreme Court was wrong when it allowed no-knock
searches in all felony drug cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to create an exception to its
1995 decision that said no-knock entries usually are unlawful, prohibited by
the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Prosecutions of the three cases, involving searches of homes in Beloit and
Portage, proceeded after the 1997 high court ruling, but the evidence used
in them was obtained before a no-knock search was considered illegal.
Other prosecutions for drug-related crimes are at stake in the legal
dispute, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Kleinmaier said.
"At least 10 or 12 other similar cases could be affected," he said.
The state contends the evidence obtained in the searches can be used because
police were acting under a law they thought was constitutional; thus they
were acting in good faith.
The 4th District Court of Appeals asked Thursday that the Supreme Court take
up the issue, saying the dispute has ties to a 1923 court decision fashioned
to deter police violations of the state Constitution.
In a no-knock search, officers have a judge's permission to barge into a
home without any announcement of who they are. Police say such power is
needed because drug dealers often are armed, and a speedy, surprise entry
prevents the destruction of evidence.
"Cops are doing this every day," Assistant Attorney General Thomas
Balistreri said. "It is one of the bread-and-butter law enforcement issues."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
