RUSH: We have a Supreme Court ruling, and we have unhappy liberals. Now, need I say more? As far as I’m concerned, that says it all. If you want the details, I’ll give it to you, but here they are. The case is Hudson vs. Michigan. It revolved around a search. “In 1998, police with a warrant entered the unlocked home of Booker Hudson without knocking. They found Mr. Hudson and a loaded gun nearby and some cocaine rocks. Because the cops didn’t knock as required, Hudson’s lawyers wanted the evidence suppressed, but there was a 5-4 ruling.” The Supreme Court said no dice, and the libs are lamenting. It’s all over the blogosphere.
“Oh, Sandra Day O’Connor, where are you? If she had just been on the case during this vote, it would have probably been different.” Here’s Justice Breyer speaking for the liberal wing of Ginsburg, Souter, and Stephens. He said, “The decision weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” but five Supreme Court justices — Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito — ruled “that police blunders don’t give defendants a get out of jail free card,” and that’s essentially what the libs want. I think they did knock. Did they just not wait long? They didn’t (interruption). Well, I know that.
There’s a story I read here: You gotta knock, wait five seconds or ten seconds, and then go in. I thought they knocked and then go in. Regardless, the court’s ruling is the court’s ruling. According to Robert Allen of Northwestern University Law School, “The ruling ‘suggests those four would be happy to consider overturning’ a 1961 Supreme Court opinion that said evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in trials.” Hudson’s lawyer, David Moran, “gloomily declared, ‘The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the US. There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated.'” No doubt too “humiliated” to grab their loaded weapons. Now, you know what I think?
The reason this appears to be such a stark change in people’s minds is because we have gotten so accustomed to the relaxation of such common sense procedures in the court and in law enforcement for I don’t know how long, so this does seem Draconian. If this law professor is right — and, by the way, if you read Scalia’s opinion, he wrote for the majority — I can see where this Robert Allen of Northwestern University Law School might conclude that the court would be happy to consider overturning that ’61 decision declaring evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment can’t be used in trials. That’s pretty Draconian. So this is a decision that has the left angered. Common sense says — and this is what Scalia said is his opinion, essentially. He said, “Defendants shouldn’t walk because cops make honest mistakes,” but there’s going to be a whole lot of sleepless nights in liberal land, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of this, when you see them already lamenting the loss of Sandra Day O’Connor.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: While watching the US Open and responding to some e-mail I went and did some research on this case, and you’re right. I was wrong. They didn’t knock but they announced themselves, the cops I’m talking about in this Hudson case. Now, the opinion was written by Scalia. That’s enough for me. But for you, I’ll go further. The police announced themselves and three seconds later forced their way into the house. They did not knock. The majority in the court said, look, the cops would have found the gun and the drugs had they knocked anyway. But in any event you punish the police, not the public, and you don’t exclude all the evidence because of the improper entry into the house. That’s what they’re saying. You don’t exclude all the evidence simply because of the improper entry into the house.
That’s the way it used to be. It really is not that Draconian at all. It just seems like it because of where we’ve been. Where you could get a whole case thrown out if there was no knock, or if they just barged on in. Even with a warrant. You gotta let the perp know that you’re out there. You gotta let the perp know you’re coming in. Turn it around and look at it the other way. If the court had ruled that the evidence would be excluded, it would have been saying it’s not good enough to announce yourself, you have to knock, and if you don’t knock, any evidence of a crime, no matter how serious will be excluded even if you have a search warrant. That’s what seems extreme to me and that’s what this court was saying. It would be really extreme when you’ve got a warrant to throw everything out just because you didn’t announce yourself when you got there.
All I need to know is the libs don’t like it. So that means, to me, a great ruling.