Protect the Fourth Amendment

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision regarding the 4^th Amendment concerns me. The case revolves around the concept that the police need a warrant to enter private property unless they have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed. But where do you set the bar on that “reason”? How much evidence do they need that evidence is being destroyed? And does it matter how serious the crime is that they are investigating? Does a police officer’s suspicion that someone is destroying evidence in a murder case give them more reason to enter without a warrant that an equal amount of suspicion that someone is destroying evidence of petty theft?

The reason the Supreme Court decision concerns me is that the case they were hearing involved the police smelling marijuana through an apartment door. They banged on the door and got no response. They heard “movement” inside. They suspected that the evidence (drugs) was being destroyed and so they entered. A lower court found that they didn’t have enough evidence that evidence was being destroyed. They assumed so because they banged on the door and it’s only natural for a drug suspect to flush the drugs when the cops are outside. The lower court said they shouldn’t have banged on the door. They should have got the warrant first. Then, the people inside wouldn’t have known they were there and wouldn’t have destroyed evidence. And hearing “movement” inside is not much proof. I find it even more worrying when the crime is only smoking marijuana. I can imagine the police being really worried that a murder suspect would get away with his or her crime. But smoking pot? Even if you are in favor of it being illegal, are you willing to give up your 4^th Amendment rights across the board to make sure no one ever gets away with it by flushing the evidence?

It seems to be that we have no more 4^th Amendment rights. All the police have to do is knock on the door or otherwise announce their presence and they can assume that the suspect is destroying the evidence for whatever crime the police are investigating. Or they can assume that the suspect knows the police are coming and would naturally destroy evidence. This is not even close to the probable cause standard. Scary.