Indiana trounces Fourth Amendment

[Mr. Fife]

It's as bad as Kelo, only not as widespread yet.

 

Indiana's Supreme Court just ruled that police can basically enter Hoosier homes without a warrant, without justifiable cause, without apparently any regard whatsoever for the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know, that's the one where it says Americans have the right to be secure in homes and in their persons. In Indiana, however, that right was just watered down a bit, as three of five justices found police can, in fact, push into a person's home if the situation warrants and by warrants, it's meant that if police feel it to be true. (Not to be confused with warrants, as in the actual issuance of a legal document.)

 

It's as horrendous a ruling as Kelo v. the City of New London, which watered the constitutional protections for private property owners and opened the doors for government to take land based on the likes of economic development, rather than public use.

 

The Indiana case began as an altercation between husband and wife. When police arrived on the scene, the couple went inside and shut the door on the officer who tried to follow. When that didn't work when the officer forced his way inside the home the husband shoved him against a wall. Other officers responded with a stun gun, and the man was arrested.

 

What followed is a civil rights nightmare, as captured in these words, from Justice Steven David who wrote for the majority: "A right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

 

So Hoosiers have to cede their Fourth Amendment rights because police entering their homes illegally might cause an upset that leads to physical altercation? Most people might consider that just the proper time to exert physical force when an intruder enters.

 

As one dissenting judge suggested, the ruling is too broad in that it essentially tells Hoosiers that “government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.”

 

Meanwhile, just today, U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled 8-1 that police can enter a home without a warrant if they smell what they believe is marijuana, knock and identify themselves, and then hear evidence – or at least what they think is evidence – being destroyed. In other words, one unfortunately timed flush, and police could be surrounding the bathroom.

 

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexa...t#ixzz1Opz5c7Zr

[pyre400]

Yea - I was talking with friends about this case over last weekend. Unfreak'n believable.

[Air Commando]

I will shoot whomever comes into my house illegally. If the police or anyone else think they can come onto my private property and enter my house they will leave in a body bag. I have zero problem whatsoever when it comes to pulling the trigger and I will not hesitate. Sorry if some people are butt hurt about this but tough sh*t.

[pyre400]

I will shoot whomever comes into my house illegally. If the police or anyone else think they can come onto my private property and enter my house they will leave in a body bag. I have zero problem whatsoever when it comes to pulling the trigger and I will not hesitate. Sorry if some people are butt hurt about this but tough sh*t.

 

The big concern I have about shooting one is that there's usually more than 1. Just like all these damn swat raids. So say you survive a gun fight, take a few of the ******** out, you're still going to jail. That's assuming you survive, or your family is not killed in the crossfire.

 

Its probably the worst scenario I can think of... Just look too - at how they are justifying these swat raids. If they think you've broke the law, and if they think you have guns, you get your warrant delivered via swat....

 

I'd say that this country is in very bad shape - hopefully we start electing some constitutionalists and not the canned shills that people are calling "electable".

[vezpa]

Its not like the police arrived on the scene and just barged into the house without any knowledge of what was going on. The officers saw the people fighting, the people saw the officers and then they fled back into the house locking the officers out. That is very different then officers just showing up and barging in without seeing anything going on or seeing anybody.

 

That is basically almost felony evasion isn't it?

[spec4]

On another forum I've read posts that the Indiana legislature is looking at this.

[Uncle Harley]

our local news comes from Terre Haute In and their local poliece chief was on record on the news stating that even though they could now that his people WOULD NOT be entering without permission or a warrant.

[Blade13]

It's even worse in Newton Co., Indiana:

 

Indiana Sheriff: House to House Random Searches Now Possible

http://www.infowars.com/indiana-sheriff-house-to-house-random-searches-now-possible/

[Buzzard]

I'd say that this country is in very bad shape - hopefully we start electing some constitutionalists and not the canned shills that people are calling "electable".

 

...and what happens when socialists keep getting elected because some people refuse to vote for anyone but a staunch constitutionalist?

[lockman]

SCOTUS has ruled previously that you have the right to use force to resist an unlawful entry even if they are police officers. Since 4th & 5th amendment protections are incorporated, Indiana decision will probably be challenged in all cases where 4th & 5th amendment protections are not adhered to.

[pyre400]

I'd say that this country is in very bad shape - hopefully we start electing some constitutionalists and not the canned shills that people are calling "electable".

 

...and what happens when socialists keep getting elected because some people refuse to vote for anyone but a staunch constitutionalist?

 

Then you get candidates like GW and Obama... IMO there's no difference between the 2.

 

Better start likin' evil, because that's all we're getting unless people start standing up for principle.

[Ocellairs]

SCOTUS has ruled previously that you have the right to use force to resist an unlawful entry even if they are police officers. Since 4th & 5th amendment protections are incorporated, Indiana decision will probably be challenged in all cases where 4th & 5th amendment protections are not adhered to.

 

 

...one might be able to resist an unlawful entry, but surviving the bugger is another matter. So who really wins?