Court wrong to eliminate no-knock rule

  • Dick Startz / University of Washington Economist
  • Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:00pm
  • Opinion

Knock knock.

Never mind “Who’s there?” In fact, leave off the knock, too. Last month the U.S. Supreme Court said that cops with a warrant need not knock, let alone identify themselves as the police.

More specifically, the court said the “exclusionary rule,” under which evidence from an illegal search is excluded at trial, no longer applies in such a case. The decision was a close call – the justices split 5-4.

The facts before the court were clear. The police, warrant in hand, burst into the defendant’s house without announcing themselves. Taken by surprise, the defendant was caught with drugs.

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

The way things used to work, the evidence should have been excluded as the fruit of a tainted search. Traditionally, the “exclusionary rule” balanced the rights of the accused and the interests of effective law enforcement by tossing evidence resulting from police misconduct.

The idea that no one, not even the police, should burst into your home without announcing themselves is a longstanding American tradition. The Supreme Court stuck with this tradition in principle.

Where the court went off course was in not understanding the value of the exclusionary rule as a sensible mechanism to assure proper police conduct.

Technically, the court did not disturb the balance between law-enforcement effectiveness and citizen rights, leaving intact the requirement that police announce themselves. The new ruling formally changes only the enforcement mechanism.

You can still file a complaint or sue the police if they burst into your house unannounced. But evidence they find is now admissible at trial.

It’s a bad decision. The old exclusionary rule kept the police inside the bounds set by society.

As a practical matter, the Supreme Court KO’d the no-knock rule by eliminating the enforcement mechanism. And dumping the exclusionary rule without replacing it with something equally strong is a mistake.

On the surface, the exclusionary rule seems like a good target for elimination. It hands the guilty a get-out-of-jail-free card when law enforcement breaks the rules, but it doesn’t do anything at all to protect law-abiding citizens against police misconduct.

In a perfect world it’s the law-abiding, not the law-breakers, who would get the protection. Nonetheless, practical arguments about incentives favor keeping the traditional exclusionary rule.

The first argument is political. We simply don’t have an alternative mechanism for making sure that the police follow the rules. Under the American constitutional system the courts can enforce rules by excluding tainted evidence, but only the legislative branch can make it easy to sue the police for large damages. The right way to get rid of the exclusionary rule would be for Congress – or our state Legislature – to put an alternative, effective enforcement mechanism in place first, and only then relax the exclusionary rule.

But there’s a more subtle argument favoring the exclusionary rule over a sue-for-damages rule. As important as it is that the police respect everyone’s rights, it’s also critical that they go after criminals aggressively.

If we’re asking our police to be aggressive, we’d better think what it would be like to walk in their shoes, and ask what happens when an officer is accused, fairly or not, of stepping over the line.

If an officer can be sued easily, he or she is going to think twice before taking an aggressive action, because the risks of being sued are borne personally. So a sue-the-cops solution overly discourages aggressive policing.

In contrast, under the exclusionary rule the incentive to stay within the rules is that you blow your case if you break them … but the officer isn’t at personal risk.

Our system vacated by the Supreme Court used the exclusionary rule to control everyday behavior and the right to sue (but not to sue easily) to prevent really egregious violations. It’s been a good balance.

The exclusionary rule has largely succeeded in limiting police misconduct. It provided incentives for officers to follow the rules without putting them in fear of punishment for minor mistakes. The exclusionary rule has served us pretty well. The court erred in not leaving well enough alone.

Dick Startz is Castor Professor of Economics at the University of Washington. He can be reached at econcol@u.washington.edu.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

THis is an editorial cartoon by Michael de Adder . Michael de Adder was born in Moncton, New Brunswick. He studied art at Mount Allison University where he received a Bachelor of Fine Arts in drawing and painting. He began his career working for The Coast, a Halifax-based alternative weekly, drawing a popular comic strip called Walterworld which lampooned the then-current mayor of Halifax, Walter Fitzgerald. This led to freelance jobs at The Chronicle-Herald and The Hill Times in Ottawa, Ontario.

 

After freelancing for a few years, de Adder landed his first full time cartooning job at the Halifax Daily News. After the Daily News folded in 2008, he became the full-time freelance cartoonist at New Brunswick Publishing. He was let go for political views expressed through his work including a cartoon depicting U.S. President Donald Trump’s border policies. He now freelances for the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Toronto Star, Ottawa Hill Times and Counterpoint in the USA. He has over a million readers per day and is considered the most read cartoonist in Canada.

 

Michael de Adder has won numerous awards for his work, including seven Atlantic Journalism Awards plus a Gold Innovation Award for news animation in 2008. He won the Association of Editorial Cartoonists' 2002 Golden Spike Award for best editorial cartoon spiked by an editor and the Association of Canadian Cartoonists 2014 Townsend Award. The National Cartoonists Society for the Reuben Award has shortlisted him in the Editorial Cartooning category. He is a past president of the Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists and spent 10 years on the board of the Cartoonists Rights Network.
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, June 11

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer testifies during a budget hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday, May 15, 2025. (Al Drago/The New York Times)
Editorial: Ending Job Corps a short-sighted move by White House

If it’s jobs the Trump administration hopes to bring back to the U.S., it will need workers to fill them.

Marcus Tageant (Courtesy of City of Lake Stevens)
Welch: Marcus Tageant embodied the spirit of Lake Stevens

I served with Marcus on the city council, witnessing an infectious devotion to his community.

Comment: Why Trump’s Guard deployment is threat to democracy

Trump claims rebellion and invasion; there is neither. Policing protests must be left to states.

Comment: Hegseth renaming ships dishonors memory of ‘warriors’

Navy vessels were named for Harvey Milk, Cesar Chavez and others in recognition of their service to country.

Goldberg: Watch carefully; this is what autocracy looks like

Trump, in stepping past state officials, has over-reacted to discourage legitimate protest of his actions.

A rendering of possible configuration for a new multi-purpose stadium in downtown Everett. (DLR Group)
Editorial: Latest ballpark figures drive hope for new stadium

A lower estimate for the project should help persuade city officials to move ahead with plans.

A rendering of the new vessels to be built for Washington State Ferries. (Washington State Ferries)
Editorial: Local shipyard should get shot to build state ferries

If allowed to build at least two ferries, Nichols Brothers can show the value building here offers.

Comment: Reclaim and fly the American flag for ‘No Kings Day’

For those defending the nation’s ideals, there’s no better complement to a protest sign than the flag.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, June 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Trump’s tariffs could ground aerospace’s rebound

Just as Boeing and Airbus had worked out most of their supply chain kinks, the threat of tariffs looms.

French: Trump, as he hoped, gets his excuse for conflict

It’s on the slightest of pretenses, but Trump is getting the showdown he desired in California.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.

You're browsing in private mode.
Please sign in or subscribe to continue reading articles in this mode.

The Daily Herald relies on subscription revenue to provide local content for our readers.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Please sign in