Indiana at it again
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
No, this is only one of the attacks on liberty. Liberty will die if we continue to tolerate this stuff.
As I stated before, NO one had better try to enter MY home without my permission or a properly served warrant. Try that break in stuff, criminal or law enforcement and there will be hell to pay.
If this gets any worse you are going to need a "program" to determine the difference between the government and the criminals.
TOP
Right of search and seizure regulated
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.
so, without more info, I would conclude Indiana is rewriting this part of our Biil of Rights, how does that work and if so, why dont they dismiss all the Bill of Rights since it appears Indiana can rewrite our laws with no risk to them..Its the same old crap IMHO<
or is it,,,Remember Anne Frank and 6 million others.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Right of search and seizure regulated
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.
so, without more info, I would conclude Indiana is rewriting this part of our Biil of Rights, how does that work and if so, why dont they dismiss all the Bill of Rights since it appears Indiana can rewrite our laws with no risk to them..Its the same old crap IMHO<
or is it,,,Remember Anne Frank and 6 million others.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Last edited:
This is just ONE of the reasons our criminal government is trying to outlaw private gun ownership, to protect those who would invade a private home from harm.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Maybe you should give more of the story.
Ind. court upholds ban on resisting police entry | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com
Not really what you make it out to be.
) — The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld its ruling that residents don't have the right to resist police officers who illegally enter their homes but explained further that the ruling also does not give police carte blanche to enter a home.
The 4-1 decision comes four months after the court ruled against an Evansville man charged with blocking and shoving a police officer who tried to go inside his home without a warrant after his wife called 911 during an argument.
Opponents of the earlier decision have argued it violates the common law "castle doctrine" that protects against entry into one's home. The court maintained Tuesday that blocking entry does not legally include battering a police officer in the process.
"We hold that the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer," Justice Steven David wrote in the majority opinion.
While the court did not substantively change its May ruling, it did clarify that it never intended to gut the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure, said Charles Geyh, law professor at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law.
"Our earlier opinion was not intended to, and did not, change that existing law about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures," David wrote.
Geyh said, "That's a subtle distinction, but a meaningful one."
The new decision says the ruling does nothing more than bring Indiana law in line with other states and that the argument of "a man's home is his castle" isn't a defense for attacking a police officer.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller was one of many leaders who asked the court to reconsider its position. He said he was satisfied with the additional explanation the justices laid out Tuesday.
"The Indiana Supreme Court's ruling today means that individuals still have the common law right of reasonable resistance to an unlawful entry, though there is never justification for committing battery against a police officer," Zoeller said in a statement.
State lawmakers studied the issue this summer and are considering introducing legislation to better define when and how someone can resist police entering their home.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
They actully state pretty clear that this ruling does not gut the 4th
"Our earlier opinion was not intended to, and did not, change that existing law about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures,"
Last edited:
Enter WITHOUT a warrant? NOT MY HOME! NEVER! NO one enters without permission. PERIOD. I don't care what court says what. It IS that simple. Entering without my permission is considered by ME, and that is the ONLY opinion that counts, as a home invasion and the invader(s) will be dealt with accordingly. I will then sue who ever is left for the cost of the clean up.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
They had permission to enter the home from the mans wife.She gave it to them when she called 911 seeking their help in dealing with the husband who she was fighting with.The husband answerd the door not the wife that called seeking help.Husband said no you can not come in to check on my wife to see if she is ok.Officer starts to walk in, husband assaults a police officer to try and prevent him from checking on his wife.He tried to use the 4th as a defence against these charges and was shot done.
When someone calls from inside a house for help and police show up the person who called does not come to the door the police have every right to enter the house to make sure the person calling for help is ok.That is what the court said.They did not say the police could search a home with out a warrent because they think you got drugs,guns,or what ever. In fact they made it clear that it is just the oppsite they do need a warrent for such searches.
When someone calls from inside a house for help and police show up the person who called does not come to the door the police have every right to enter the house to make sure the person calling for help is ok.That is what the court said.They did not say the police could search a home with out a warrent because they think you got drugs,guns,or what ever. In fact they made it clear that it is just the oppsite they do need a warrent for such searches.
IF they had permission, then it is OK. I don't think that they should just walk in though. I have little trust for police departments though. I have respect for those officer who are not out of control. I have NO use for those who abuse their power and even less use for large city departments. Far too much corruption.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Yes, I agree, and have throughout, that if they were summoned, they have the right to enter, but their earlier ruling went beyond that, which is, I guess, the reason for the clarification.
The clarification, however, is also flawed and contradictory. Notice how it cites the common law right to resist unlawful entry, then goes on to say that doesn't include battery on a police officer. Yet, such resistance would likely include what could be called battery, and the court has said resistance doesn't include that. So we're pretty much back where we started.
Bottom line: cops are not allowed to break the law in the name of the law. A cop entering your home unlawfully is a burglar, and an armed one, regardless of what clothes he's wearing or if he's on duty and supposed to be out doing honest police work at the time. If he's burglarizing your home (entering it for an unlawful purpose) or otherwise breaking and entering (with a defective warrant or no warrant, or without articulable, individualized/particularized probable cause--reasonable suspicion isn't found in the Bill of Rights), the mantle of law enforcement and imprimatur of government is gone and he's nothing more than an armed felon committing a crime in progress.
Hoosiers had better keep a shotgun by the bedside.
The clarification, however, is also flawed and contradictory. Notice how it cites the common law right to resist unlawful entry, then goes on to say that doesn't include battery on a police officer. Yet, such resistance would likely include what could be called battery, and the court has said resistance doesn't include that. So we're pretty much back where we started.
Bottom line: cops are not allowed to break the law in the name of the law. A cop entering your home unlawfully is a burglar, and an armed one, regardless of what clothes he's wearing or if he's on duty and supposed to be out doing honest police work at the time. If he's burglarizing your home (entering it for an unlawful purpose) or otherwise breaking and entering (with a defective warrant or no warrant, or without articulable, individualized/particularized probable cause--reasonable suspicion isn't found in the Bill of Rights), the mantle of law enforcement and imprimatur of government is gone and he's nothing more than an armed felon committing a crime in progress.
Hoosiers had better keep a shotgun by the bedside.
I'm pretty sure that a call for help from someone inside the home, followed by a refusal on the part of the alleged attacker to permit police to visually confirm the well being of whomever called would constitute probable cause.
It's a narrow set of circumstances, but domestic violence needs to be stopped somehow, and outside those circumstances, it's still unreasonable search & seizure.
It's a narrow set of circumstances, but domestic violence needs to be stopped somehow, and outside those circumstances, it's still unreasonable search & seizure.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I agree that if someone summons the cops and says something to the effect of "I'm being murderized in here," the cops shouldn't stop at the door because someone else says they can't enter. A call is a call, including the woman in the original story.
However...the ruling goes beyond that.
Second, for those of us that give a whit about the Constitution, need we review what it says in the Bill of Rights about the circumstances that allow the gummint to violate the sanctity of our persons, papers, and effects? It says that probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) enables the government to apply for a warrant. So from where does their expanded power--to enter right away after claiming they have probable cause--arise?
However...the ruling goes beyond that.
Second, for those of us that give a whit about the Constitution, need we review what it says in the Bill of Rights about the circumstances that allow the gummint to violate the sanctity of our persons, papers, and effects? It says that probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) enables the government to apply for a warrant. So from where does their expanded power--to enter right away after claiming they have probable cause--arise?
Last edited:
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
You think this is a GOOD thing?
For the most part yes, I agree with the law of averages. I believe that as long as you don't put yourself in shady situations, you won't have a problem.
I'm not going to expend my energy worrying about shady people. It goes to the people who had their camera's taken away, if they would have acted proactively, they would have avoided their rights being trampled on.
Same thinghere, if the guy could control his emotionsand not scare his wife into calling the cops, he wouldn't be in this situatuon.
These scenarios don't happen generally to law abiding citizens, it happens to those who skirt with the law. I could care less if their rights get trampled on if they are not respecting the laws of the land.
It's funny that there is always more to the story.
If you are speeding and get brutalized by some ignorant cop, don't break the law and you won't be put in that scenario.
Far too many people don't take responsibility for their actions and are quick to blame others without taking their fair share.
There have been totally innocent people KILLED by police when they broke into the wrong house. Do not believe for ONE SECOND that they don't make mistakes. They do and often. There are going to be cops killed as a result as well. Many cops have crossed over that line and many continue to do so.
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
That's fine, when you show me a real current example of that happening, I might pretend to feel bad. But until your hypothetical scenarios become more than super rare freak occurences, I'll continue to let the system do it's job, which for the most part, on the subject at hand, it is from what I can tell.
Otherwise you would have had a bunch or real life examples, as it stands now, the only examples are of shady people and I say the earth is already overcrowded and a bad police officer taking out a bad citizen isn't hurting me or society.
I agree that there are bad cops out there but there's a heck of a lot more bad criminals out there but it's more cool to bash government.