Justices weigh if knock needed before a search

WASHINGTON – Detroit police did not bother knocking on Booker Hudson’s door when they arrived with a warrant to search for drugs.

They found crack cocaine, but the Supreme Court debated Monday whether the drugs can be used as evidence because officers were wrong not to knock and give Hudson time to come to the door.

Other court actions In other action taken Monday by the Supreme Court, the justices: * Let stand a lower court ruling that allows use of federal funds in placing young teachers in religious schools. * Refused to hear an appeal from a former covert CIA officer, Jeffrey Sterling, who accused the agency of race discrimination. * Declined to intervene in a dispute between an online dating service and the University of Texas over the blocking of e-mails. * Turned down an appeal from Robert Courtney, the former Kansas City pharmacist convicted of diluting chemotherapy medications of customers. * Rejected the appeal of former Cicero Town President Betty Loren-Maltese, convicted of using an insurance scam to bilk taxpayers in the Chicago suburb. * Declined to consider whether foreign governments can file civil lawsuits in U.S. courts to collect taxes from American companies, a loss for European Community members that accused tobacco companies of selling cigarettes to smugglers.

Justices could use the case to make it easier for officers to execute search warrants. Or they could tightly enforce previous rulings that say police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

The state of Michigan, backed by the Bush administration, argued that even though officers made a mistake by rushing into Hudson’s home, the blunder was not related to the finding of the drugs and should not require a judge to bar that evidence.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor seemed ready to rule against police.

“Is there no policy protecting the homeowner a little bit?” O’Connor asked David Salmons, a Bush administration lawyer.

She said that the Detroit officer testified that he routinely went into houses without knocking and giving the homeowner time to come to the door. She predicted that policy would be adopted by “every police officer in America” if the court said there was no penalty.

The court’s four most liberal members also seemed skeptical of the police side in the case during Monday’s lively argument.

Over the years the Supreme Court has clarified the so-called knock-and-announce rule, making exceptions for police who have reason to believe a suspect would be dangerous or try to get rid of evidence. In 2003, the court said that police officers don’t have to wait longer than 15 or 20 seconds before breaking into a home to execute a search warrant.

In the Hudson case, officers called out that they had a warrant then went inside 3 to 5 seconds later. Hudson was convicted of cocaine possession and sentenced to probation after the 1998 search.

Justices will decide whether to throw out his conviction.