|
|
Post by mrfixit on May 14, 2011 14:28:55 GMT -5
www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdfBasically, in a nutshell you just lost your 4th Amendment rights here in Indiana. Hopefully, this will be appealed to a higher court or our legislature will take it up if we scream loud enough. Your 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on May 14, 2011 14:36:27 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on May 14, 2011 14:56:09 GMT -5
A Supreme Court decision is an opinion, and no more, it is not a law. It only applies to that particular situation. Look it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on May 14, 2011 16:50:39 GMT -5
Your partially correct.
Now there is legal precedent for the police to illegally enter a home and the homeowner cannot defend himself or his home with force. So the next time this happens a lower court will look at this decision as precedent of law. So nope they don't "make" the laws, your legislature does that, but they sure decide how those laws are applied.
With this ruling a police can ILLEGALLY be in your home and you have no right to defend yourself, your belongings, your papers and effects etc.
Read the ruling, it should scare the living daylights out of you. The police can now just open your door and walk in without a warrant or permission. You say oh no way they can't do that, it's illegal. Well this ruling says it's ok for police to illegally enter your home and it's illegal for you to fight back when they do. Your only recourse is to be submissive, hope they don't kill you or plant enough evidence to lock you away forever, and sue if your able to at a later date. It is a very broad ruling that should scare every single one of us to the core.
Don't take my word for it or dismiss it. Read the ruling, it only takes a few minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on May 14, 2011 17:08:29 GMT -5
From the ruling verbatim, copy and paste etc
They refused to recognize the right to reasonably resist unlawful police entry. Think about it. Go read the the whole thing including the dissent.
This is the same court that earlier in the week decided the police no longer needed a signed no knock warrant from a judge, that the police can decide that on their own when they get there with a warrant whether or not they want to knock and ask nicely or just knock your door down and swarm the house with ARs locked and loaded. Think about both and what it means for not just you but your children and grand children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on May 14, 2011 21:44:10 GMT -5
I expect that most of us would be too slow on the draw to meet them with force.
I've wondered whenever I've heard of mistaken raids on innocent people how it would have come out in my home.
There's normally a weapon pretty close to hand where I spend most of my time at home, and it has been in my hand on several occasions when I've checked out a suspicious noise at night.
I'd sure hate to be the one to shoot an officer breaking in with the wrong address or bad info, but I expect there's a good chance they'd be met by 110 grains of jacketed hollow point about the time they got to the family room doorway. There's just no time for indecision or for questioning the ill intent of anyone crashing through the door with weapons showing. Maybe I'd be able to discern police protective gear quickly enough in the confusion, not likely that I'd understand the shouted commands that seem to be standard practice in the cop shows. The unintelligible screaming would probably just make my reaction more drastic. Too many times I've heard about criminal intruders kicking in the door to gain entry.
Seems to me that using such tactics would be risking a much higher likelihood of an officer being shot than the previously used method, or of an officer geting off the first shot (or his fellow officers getting off a few dozen retaliations) and dropping the innocent resident. Not a good result either way. Just seems like a real bad idea, even if it is ruled to be constitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on May 15, 2011 5:23:42 GMT -5
Doesn't matter if it's with force, it says reasonably, which could be something as simple as holding the door. To me it would be different if there was some legal standard but as the ruling stands you cannot resist them in anyway even if they are illegally entering. The ruling, as it now stands, allows the police to enter your home anytime they wish whether it be legally or illegally whether there is a warrant involved or not. The ruling is dangerously broad. If they knock on your door and ask to enter you can say no but there is now legal precedent for them to enter illegally and any reasonable resistance to that entry is not recognized the Indiana Supreme Court. No gun play or anything, just reasonable resistance such as refusing them entry, holding the door, pushing them back out the door etc. Key word being REASONABLE.
In the situation you describe Russ, your probably just going to die. There will be 8 or 10 of them all decked out in bullet proof vests etc. You won't stand a chance, even if you got a shot off at one of them it would probably be center mass right into a vest and the rest would blow you away. Happens all the time, much more than you want to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 15, 2011 6:19:34 GMT -5
Now there is legal precedent for the police to illegally enter a home and the homeowner cannot defend himself or his home with force. So the next time this happens a lower court will look at this decision as precedent of law. So nope they don't "make" the laws, your legislature does that, but they sure decide how those laws are applied. With this ruling a police can ILLEGALLY be in your home and you have no right to defend yourself, your belongings, your papers and effects etc. Read the ruling, it should scare the living daylights out of you. The police can now just open your door and walk in without a warrant or permission. If this is for certain I have to question: What did all those who fought in past wars fight for??. From what mrfixit has posted, those who lost limbs, lives, etc. did it for nothing. This once great country, & the State of Indiana, is in drastic need for a change ....BUT NOT OBAMA'S CHANGES!! |
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on May 15, 2011 14:45:27 GMT -5
There are several points in it that make me question his defense:
1) The officers were responding to a domestic violence call from the alleged victim's sister, so they had legally valid probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed, which is the basic grounds for a warrantless search. As stated in the decision, a cop can legally enter your home on the presumption that a defendant may simply be attempting to destroy evidence prior to the arrival of a duly sworn warrant.
2) The husband very likely wasn't the only lessee listed on the lease, and the wife gave tacit consent to enter when she entreated her husband to stand aside and allow the officers to enter. Even if she wasn't on the lease, and therefore incapable of legally granting access, the officers still had reason to believe that her safety was in question.
3) His use of battery on the officers wasn't justified since they were attempting to enter the residence in the course of an investigation instigated by the emergency call, and the presumption of violence was involved. Under those circumstances the officers had the legal right to pursue the investigation over his objection since the safety of the alleged victim would be paramount.
4) I also question that screaming at and threatening a LEO is protected "political speech". By nearly any legal definition it's disorderly conduct, and there's nothing "political" about it.
I do question the court's decision that Indiana no longer recognizes a person's right to resist unlawful entry by LEOs since I'm not aware of any such revision to that law, but in this scenarion I'm reluctantly inclined to side with their decision as a whole. All the guy had to do was shut his mouth and leave the scene, he chose to escalate the situation and committed an act of violence against the officer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on May 15, 2011 18:41:21 GMT -5
"In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law."
That makes the ruling clear to me. The facts of the incident apparently were not a big factor.
What this means is this. A policeman comes to your door and wants in, and even if he has no probable cause or warrant, you cannot even hold the door against him. He can come in anyway and you have to seek a remedy through the courts.
This should go to the Supreme Court and be struck down.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on May 15, 2011 22:06:49 GMT -5
I hope it is Sasquatch, but with a preponderance of states doing the same before ours it probably won't be heard, and if it is they'll most likely side with the majority. It's a good bet that someone in those forty states has already challenged it.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 16, 2011 5:42:12 GMT -5
Guys, your posts all hold some creditability points, BUT the fact remains we're ALL losing our Freedoms, one-by-one in Indiana and the rest of our Country.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on May 16, 2011 8:16:20 GMT -5
There are several points in it that make me question his defense: 1) The officers were responding to a domestic violence call from the alleged victim's sister, so they had legally valid probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed, which is the basic grounds for a warrantless search. As stated in the decision, a cop can legally enter your home on the presumption that a defendant may simply be attempting to destroy evidence prior to the arrival of a duly sworn warrant. 2) The husband very likely wasn't the only lessee listed on the lease, and the wife gave tacit consent to enter when she entreated her husband to stand aside and allow the officers to enter. Even if she wasn't on the lease, and therefore incapable of legally granting access, the officers still had reason to believe that her safety was in question. 3) His use of battery on the officers wasn't justified since they were attempting to enter the residence in the course of an investigation instigated by the emergency call, and the presumption of violence was involved. Under those circumstances the officers had the legal right to pursue the investigation over his objection since the safety of the alleged victim would be paramount. 4) I also question that screaming at and threatening a LEO is protected "political speech". By nearly any legal definition it's disorderly conduct, and there's nothing "political" about it. I do question the court's decision that Indiana no longer recognizes a person's right to resist unlawful entry by LEOs since I'm not aware of any such revision to that law, but in this scenarion I'm reluctantly inclined to side with their decision as a whole. All the guy had to do was shut his mouth and leave the scene, he chose to escalate the situation and committed an act of violence against the officer. I understand what your saying and even agree somewhat. But the fact is that the man settled down after the policeman asked him to. It apparently didn't escalate again until after they followed him inside to get more things. I don't think anything was ever mentioned as to whose name was on the lease and there is some legal argument that even if his name was not on the lease it was still his home, obviously since they was married and his things was inside. My whole contention with all this is that it is such a broad ruling it basically allows the police to enter your home anytime they wish, without warrants or probable cause, and your only recourse is through the often one sided court system. Good luck winning a civil suit. I hope it is Sasquatch, but with a preponderance of states doing the same before ours it probably won't be heard, and if it is they'll most likely side with the majority. It's a good bet that someone in those forty states has already challenged it. As far as I know we are the only state this has happened to, so far. I would be interested to know if there is others. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 16, 2011 9:53:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on May 16, 2011 17:02:20 GMT -5
never thought I would see something like this in Indiana, what a crock
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on May 17, 2011 5:51:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 17, 2011 6:13:27 GMT -5
They just had a segment on Fox News, this morning, about this Indiana issue. They all said the law was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by windingwinds on May 17, 2011 8:04:21 GMT -5
Indiana isn't very friendly to anyone. The Nickel Plate trail they forced on us now has a multide of signs on it.........no horses, no motorized vehicles, don't let your dog poop on it. (which they can't tell dog poop from deer poop) This is what happens when you let city people take over, they tell you how to live. Next we'll have a longer deer season to stop the unlawful pooping on the trail!
And did you know that if you have a short in your phone line, even a DEAD one that you aren't using that it will call the police and you have a sherriff at your door at 5 am???!!! So they could barge in anytime. However, when my phone line kept calling police, they were very polite and did not barge in or violate my rights. I was not so polite to my phone company! Especially after the 2nd visit!
|
|
|
|
Post by countrystyle56 on May 17, 2011 11:04:02 GMT -5
Everyone is crying foul and focusing on the negatives of this. So I will go the other direction.
This law, be it unconstitutional or not, does have 1 positive that I can think of. And I think this may be why they are trying to turn it into a reality. If it were passed, it wouldn't give the drug dealers time to move their operation before the police could get back with a warrant to enter the home. That is the only good thing I could think of about this law.
Don't get me wrong, I am on the same page as all of you. We are seeing our rights washed away 1 by 1 in this "free" country! If you can call it that anymore!
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 17, 2011 12:52:30 GMT -5
Indiana isn't very friendly to anyone. The Nickel Plate trail they forced on us now has a multide of signs on it.........no horses, no motorized vehicles, don't let your dog poop on it. (which they can't tell dog poop from deer poop) This is what happens when you let city people take over, they tell you how to live. Next we'll have a longer deer season to stop the unlawful pooping on the trail! And did you know that if you have a short in your phone line, even a DEAD one that you aren't using that it will call the police and you have a sherriff at your door at 5 am???!!! So they could barge in anytime. However, when my phone line kept calling police, they were very polite and did not barge in or violate my rights. I was not so polite to my phone company! Especially after the 2nd visit! I am GLAD I moved to Kentucky!! |
|
