Can you shoot cops who don't knock before they come in? ...Castle Doctrine

How the New "Stand Your Ground" Law Changed the "Castle" Doctrine
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law changes Florida's self-defense rules in several ways.

First, it is now very easy to invoke the "castle" doctrine in Florida.

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

So let's go back to Lisa and Bob. Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

Second, the new Florida law expands the definition of "castle" to include vehicles -- such as cars and boats. This expansion the castle doctrine was clearly intended to address carjacking.

Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE

The Supreme Court has determined that "every householder, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house."19 The knock and announce rule provides citizens with psychological security, knowing that one need not fear an unexpected intrusion. Privacy interests also are protected, avoiding unnecessary embarrassment, shock, or property damage resulting from an unannounced entry.

The rule serves to protect both the individual citizen and the police from the risk of harm and the potential for violence that may occur as a result of an unannounced entry.20 Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not "mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder."21 Innocent citizens also are protected from law enforcement officers who mistakenly might shoot armed occupants who merely are trying to defend themselves from who they preceive to be armed intruders.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2511815&postcount=100

Knock-and-announce is part and parcel of serving a warrant. Without that, the entry into the home becomes an unlawful entry and any evidence seized becomes tainted, from that unlawful entry, and is suppressed.

At least since Weeks (1914) at the federal level and Mapp (1961) at the state level, that has been the law until now. In fact, Justice Breyer lists 41 major 4th amendment cases to document this. And what does the majority list? 4 cases, selectively reviewed and taken out of context. A context that Breyer put back in!

Since the signing of the Magna Carta, knock and announce has been the common law. Semayne's Case (1603), the Court of King's Bench explained, "the law <...> abhors the destruction or breaking of any house (which is for the habitation and safety of man) by which great damage and inconvenience might ensue to the party, when no default is in him." So it appears that part of the reason for knock-and-announce is for the prevention of destruction of private property! Researching this further reveals that the sanctity of the home and hearth were such, that the King's men would knock, announce themselves, their purpose and their authority. They were permitted entry if denied and upon warrant of the King, if no one was at home.

If there is no remedy for police/prosecutorial abuse, then what is to prevent the abuse? The exclusion of evidence is the only deterrent that works. This was pointed out in Mapp. Criminal and civil remedies did not work then, and they don't work now.

And to clear things up, at the trial court, the police said they announced, waited a few seconds and went in. The defense insisted there was no knock and no announcement. What was never contested was that the entry was unlawful. Should have been a slam-dunk. Unlawful entry results in an unlawful search. That's what the law was up till now.

What the State is saying is that IF the entry had been lawful, then the search would have been also. Irrelevent! Would have, could have, If, Might have, all mean nothing. It is what actually happened, that matters... Well, used to matter.