COURT WIDENS POLICE SEARCH POWERS

Does this mean it's no longer the 'drug exception' to the Bill of Rights?

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court uses a Boring man's case to
expand police search powers

The U.S. Supreme Court used an Oregon case Wednesday to expand the ability
of police officers armed with a search warrant to kick down a door without
knocking.

In a unanimous ruling, the court overturned an Oregon judge's decision to
exclude from evidence weapons seized during a 1994 raid of a Boring man's
home.

Under the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and
seizure, police officers armed with a search warrant must announce their
presence and give the occupants a chance to come to the door. Only after a
reasonable amount of time has passed can officers enter the house by
opening the door or kicking it down.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has adopted three exceptions under which
the police can use the element of surprise: if announcing their presence
could put officers in danger, lead to the destruction of evidence or allow
a suspect to escape.

Cutting a finer line, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that
officers kicking down the door must meet a heavier burden of proof that
their safety is in danger, for example, than must officers who open a
window and sneak in.

The U.S. Supreme Court now says police don't need to make that distinction.
They can just go in.

Stephen F. Peifer, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Portland, said the ruling
simplified a rule that had applied to law enforcement across the vast 9th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which stretches from Arizona to Alaska.

"I can tell you that it's already being well-received in the law
enforcement community because it applies a simpler rule that can be better
understood and applied," Peifer said. "Prior to this ruling today, officers
were in a quandary as to what level of proof they needed to have to force
entry when not knocking and announcing."

That distinction had prevented Peifer from prosecuting Boring resident
Hernan Ramirez since his arrest on weapons charges in 1994.

Federal agents were looking for a fugitive named Alan Shelby who had
escaped from Tillamook County sheriff's deputies on Nov. 1, 1994.

An informant said he saw someone he thought was Shelby at Ramirez' home in
Boring. The informant also said that Shelby might have a stash of guns.
Shelby, facing a federal prison sentence, had threatened that he would "not
do federal time."

Federal agents got a warrant. On the morning of Nov. 4, agents
simultaneously announced their presence through a bullhorn and broke a
window in the garage.

Ramirez, who was asleep along with his wife and a child, thought burglars
were breaking in. He grabbed a gun and fired. After realizing that it was
the police, he surrendered.

Federal agents seized the gun. After learning that Ramirez was an ex-felon,
agents arrested him on an accusation of being an ex-felon in possession of
a handgun.

Shelby was not in the house.

U.S. District Judge Ancer L. Haggerty threw out the gun as evidence because
the search was improper under the 9th Circuit rule.

The government appealed, but the 9th Circuit affirmed Haggerty's ruling.

Ramirez' attorney, Michael R. Levine, argued before the Supreme Court in
January that the 9th Circuit's distinction was well-reasoned.

"What I argued to the court was there's a difference between coming through
an open door and breaking down the door," Levine said.

Levine argued that the 9th Circuit rule helped protect the police, who are
more likely to get shot when surprised homeowners think that burglars are
breaking in.

"The whole function of the knock-and-announce rule is to protect the police
as much as it is the homeowners," Levine said.

The Supreme Court sided with the government, which argued that police who
need to use surprise for their safety should not have to meet a heavier
burden of proof if the window is latched.

"Whether such 'reasonable suspicion' exists depends in no way whether
police must destroy property in order to enter," wrote Chief Justice
William Rehnquist.

Ramirez is in federal prison on subsequent drug charges, Peifer said. No
trial date has been set on the weapons charges.