Search & Seizure II: Return of the Supreme CourtFollow

I think there is a subtle difference that perhaps people are not getting. The court case does not say that cops have the right to enter without warning. What the court is saying is that if they do enter with out warning then it is too harsh a penalty to the public interest to have the evidence that was obtained made inadmissible. The court does not bar civil or even criminal penalties for the police violating their own protocol. I do believe that a civil remedy(i.e. $$) is appropriate in this case, since the police did not give adequate warning before breaking the door down.

We have too many legal loopholes that let evidence become inadmissible because of police misconduct or mistakes, and this does not punish the police or police department, it punishes the public. Removing this as a remedy for these type of violations and moving more towards hitting the police departments in the pocket book and the individuals responsible if it is high enough for criminal charges, is a far more efficient method of deterring crime and deterring rights violations, without letting killers and rapist go free because the police have perpetrated what is essentially a separate crime upon them.