Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures have been weakened by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts.
Evidence illegally obtained by the police can be used in court, The Nation reports.
Recommended Stories
The 2006 case, Hudson v Michigan, centered around a police officer who disregarded “knock and announce” requirements before entering a home. The Roberts court ruled that the “exclusionary rule,” making evidence inadmissible if obtained in an unconstitutional way, did not apply when a police officer disregarded knock and announce.
Hudson did not overturn the exclusionary rule, but it weakened its power. The penalties that police officers could face have been lowered.
The exclusionary rule was instituted to protect against rights violations by the police. Justice Stephen Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, said the ruling “weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection.”
The Roberts Court has been cautious on some privacy issues and limited the ability of police to use GPS devices to track suspects or search smartphones. Yet, when the issue is between police work and the civil liberties of suspects and criminals, civilian protections have been weakened.
