Indiana repeals the 4th amendment?????

[Will Carry]

Is this some kind of a sick joke? Say in ain't so!

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

[oldogy]

I have a feeling that will go a bit farther and overturned somewhere. JMO

oldogy

[leroy]

.....I have a feeling that will go a bit farther and overturned somewhere. JMO

oldogy....

I agree. This kind of stuff started the American Revolution.

Keep up the good work.

leroy

[Caster]

I agree. This kind of stuff started the American Revolution.

Keep up the good work.

leroy

Yeah, but I doubt it'll start another one. There are a select few that are excluded but for the most part; America, land of the ignorant and lazy, home of the coward that refuses to get their hands dirty.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Well... first no court in Indiana (or any other state) can "repeal" any part of the US Constitution or federal law. Next, the court didn't say that illegal entries by law enforcement were suddenly legal, rather, they said that individuals have no justification to "resist" the entry. I definitely see both sides of this debate, but consider this: all a defendant would have to do is claim that he/she believed the officer's entry to be unlawful, so they would be able to resist officers and not be held criminally liable. This is very similar to all states that I am familiar with that have laws prohibiting people from resisting an officer even if they believe the arrest/detention to be unlawful. Justification resides in the mind of the defendant, and if the law says that all you have to do is claim a belief that the officer was acting illegally, virtually every case of resisting an officer would be dropped.

[Pain103]

It doesn't state you have no expectation to privacy or against illegal search and seizure. I take it as you can not forcefully resist an entry by a LEO. That doesn't mean you don't have recourse if it truly is a violation of rights or illegal.

[peejman]

Interesting. What if you believe the person trying to detain you or gain entry is impersonating an officer? I guess I'd take my chances on the resisting charge rather than risk letting some waco in my house.

[bajabuc]

I really want to see where this one goes.

[bajabuc]

You missed the best part:

"This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking. "

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well... first no court in Indiana (or any other state) can "repeal" any part of the US Constitution or federal law. Next, the court didn't say that illegal entries by law enforcement were suddenly legal, rather, they said that individuals have no justification to "resist" the entry. I definitely see both sides of this debate, but consider this: all a defendant would have to do is claim that he/she believed the officer's entry to be unlawful, so they would be able to resist officers and not be held criminally liable. This is very similar to all states that I am familiar with that have laws prohibiting people from resisting an officer even if they believe the arrest/detention to be unlawful. Justification resides in the mind of the defendant, and if the law says that all you have to do is claim a belief that the officer was acting illegally, virtually every case of resisting an officer would be dropped.

Exactly

[Dolomite_supafly]

Here is the problem I have.

Everybody jades their observation to fit their outcome. Officers and criminals alike. Problem is if it comes down to a he said she said type of scenario the officer's scenario is assumed to be the correct one which may not be the case.

Coming from a long time in LE I would like to see it this way. Unless in instances where a life is in jeopardy the officers must have a written, signed by a judge, warrant in order to search. Drop the destruction of evidence exigent circumstance as well as the probable cause circumstance as a reason for immediate entry. If there is probably cause right then the officer can convince an "on call" judge to issue a warrant. If need be the officer may stand by until the warrant is signed to prevent a possible criminal from leaving the scene.

In the end I agree that a citizen may not aggressively defend against a officers search, whether legal or illegal. But on the other hand I do not believe the officer should be allowed any type of immunity from civil suit or criminal charges if they are proven to have entered illegally. Imagine how officers actions would change if there was a chance of them loosing their job, house and freedom over a questionable search.

Also, I do not agree with a "safety frisk". It is used far too often as a reason to search for drugs as well as other non weapons under the guise of officer safety. There are better ways to ensure the officer's safety. In lieu of a "safety frisk" handcuff the individual during the investigation and once complete release them without a pat down. After all a handcuffed individual can't fight or hit the officer as easy as when his hands are free. If the officer thinks the person may have drugs or other items on their person then they can get a warrant.

Just my thoughts

Dolomite

[Caster]

You know, high strength security doors for your home is wise investment for many reasons. The kind not so easily knocked down without mechanical assistance. Just sayin'.

[Garufa]

Apparently the US Supreme Court made a similar ruling yesterday....

Court sides with police in warrantless search - Yahoo! News

[Dolomite_supafly]

Apparently the US Supreme Court made a similar ruling yesterday....

Court sides with police in warrantless search - Yahoo! News

I read that as well.

What will happen is it will happen a few times without any objection then it will become common place across the nation. And in every instance they will cie the IN supreme court rulling as well as the supreme court ruling as precedent. It is not the officer's fault but the administrators fault as well as our fault for allowing it to progress.

It is a sad state of affairs in this country when citizens begin to fear LE, that is already happening, and it is about to get much, much worse.

Dolomite

[JAB]

Personally, I believe that Americans should have the right to resist ANY unlawful entry into our homes by whatever means are necessary, including violent means. To me, the sanctity of one's home and protection from illegal/warrantless searches are among the most basic tenants upon which our country was founded. Illegal entry equates to a home invasion whether the person illegally invading is wearing a hoodie or a blue uniform and badge. Remember, Writs of Assistance (which basically gave authorities the same legal right to search with impunity as the court cases cited in this thread are giving cops) were among the wrongs perpetrated on our forefathers which led to the Revolutionary War. That should be enough to tell the courts that their rulings in these cases are dead wrong and go against everything our country is supposed to stand for.

[macville]

I am very sad to see that the voice of reason on the USSC was dear Ruthie. I think that was a very very bad ruling that will open up to many rights violated and probably innocent people getting killed.

[LagerHead]

I think this is a tough call to make. On the one side you have your Constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. This doesn't really remove the requirement for officers to have probable cause or a warrant. Basically what this boils down to, as stated by East_TN_Patriot, is that you can't shoot an officer for searching your home illegally. I really don't see a problem with that. Besides, if it's unlawful and they find something and you can't get it thrown out on that technicality alone you need a better lawyer.

On the other hand you have the officer safety issue. They do a dangerous job and sometimes they have to make life and death decisions on the spot. If they make an incorrect decision, legally speaking, about whether they should do a search right now is the correct course of action for you to take to resist? You can make it known that you do not consent to a search but if they believe you have reasonable cause is it really the wisest action to hold court on your front porch? How has that worked out for folks in the past?

As a Libertarian I have a problem with this on some level but I do see most LEO's as decent folks with an often thankless job. Maybe Fallguy or some other attorney or officer could tell us: what is the most common reason criminal cases are thrown out of court? I would imagine that unlawful searches must rank up there.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Interesting. What if you believe the person trying to detain you or gain entry is impersonating an officer? I guess I'd take my chances on the resisting charge rather than risk letting some waco in my house.

That is a different issue, but again, if it really were the cops, you'd better have some pretty compelling evidence. Generally, it's pretty easy to tell if it is a real police officer or not. Legality of a search, however is not. In fact, most people don't even come close to knowing the difference.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think this is a tough call to make. On the one side you have your Constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. This doesn't really remove the requirement for officers to have probable cause or a warrant. Basically what this boils down to, as stated by East_TN_Patriot, is that you can't shoot an officer for searching your home illegally. I really don't see a problem with that. Besides, if it's unlawful and they find something and you can't get it thrown out on that technicality alone you need a better lawyer.

On the other hand you have the officer safety issue. They do a dangerous job and sometimes they have to make life and death decisions on the spot. If they make an incorrect decision, legally speaking, about whether they should do a search right now is the correct course of action for you to take to resist? You can make it known that you do not consent to a search but if they believe you have reasonable cause is it really the wisest action to hold court on your front porch? How has that worked out for folks in the past?

As a Libertarian I have a problem with this on some level but I do see most LEO's as decent folks with an often thankless job. Maybe Fallguy or some other attorney or officer could tell us: what is the most common reason criminal cases are thrown out of court? I would imagine that unlawful searches must rank up there.

In my experience, most cases are thrown out is simply a lack of sufficient evidence. Some cases do get tossed due to an improper search, but seldomly are they blatant cases of officer misconduct. Rather they are a ruling based on interpretations of case law. Many of the cases that are more blatant are either dropped by the prosecutor or are more commonly plead out. In my decade in policing, I can count on one hand the number of cases I know were thrown out of court due to an illegal search.

[LagerHead]

In my experience, most cases are thrown out is simply a lack of sufficient evidence. Some cases do get tossed due to an improper search, but seldomly are they blatant cases of officer misconduct. Rather they are a ruling based on interpretations of case law. Many of the cases that are more blatant are either dropped by the prosecutor or are more commonly plead out. In my decade in policing, I can count on one hand the number of cases I know were thrown out of court due to an illegal search.

Well there you have it. Then I imagine this new law will have very little real world impact on the way police conduct themselves or the way cases are handled.

[Guest redbarron06]

I think this is a tough call to make. On the one side you have your Constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. This doesn't really remove the requirement for officers to have probable cause or a warrant. Basically what this boils down to, as stated by East_TN_Patriot, is that you can't shoot an officer for searching your home illegally. I really don't see a problem with that. Besides, if it's unlawful and they find something and you can't get it thrown out on that technicality alone you need a better lawyer.

On the other hand you have the officer safety issue. They do a dangerous job and sometimes they have to make life and death decisions on the spot. If they make an incorrect decision, legally speaking, about whether they should do a search right now is the correct course of action for you to take to resist? You can make it known that you do not consent to a search but if they believe you have reasonable cause is it really the wisest action to hold court on your front porch? How has that worked out for folks in the past?

As a Libertarian I have a problem with this on some level but I do see most LEO's as decent folks with an often thankless job. Maybe Fallguy or some other attorney or officer could tell us: what is the most common reason criminal cases are thrown out of court? I would imagine that unlawful searches must rank up there.

Here is the problem. As I read the SCOTUS summary it come down to a officer walking down the street can smell something, then knock on your door ID himself. If he hears you move then he can kick the door down and conduct the search claiming that "he heard what sounded like the destruction of evidense". Because he claims to belive that you were destroying evidense he now has the go ahead from SCOTUS to search your house and seize anything he thinks may be illegal including hauling you off to jail.

Here is the SCOTUS decision read it for your self. Please tell me I am reading it wrong. I want to belive that I am readin it wrong. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

With an officer adding the words "I thought I heard the destruction of evidence he may now come into your home at any time and without a warrant. You are left only with the option of standing their with your hands in your pockets and then cleaning up after he leaves if he does not arrest you when he does. Does anybody here think they they wont truck every gun you have off to see if they are on a stolen gun report, or every class III item you have until you prove to them you have the AFT forms?

And if they dont find anything, you dont even have the option of filing a complaint because SCOTUS has said it was not unconstitutional.

[LagerHead]

Here is the problem. As I read the SCOTUS summary it come down to a officer walking down the street can smell something, then knock on your door ID himself. If he hears you move then he can kick the door down and conduct the search claiming that "he heard what sounded like the destruction of evidense". Because he claims to belive that you were destroying evidense he now has the go ahead from SCOTUS to search your house and seize anything he thinks may be illegal including hauling you off to jail.

Here is the SCOTUS decision read it for your self. Please tell me I am reading it wrong. I want to belive that I am readin it wrong. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

With an officer adding the words "I thought I heard the destruction of evidence he may now come into your home at any time and without a warrant. You are left only with the option of standing their with your hands in your pockets and then cleaning up after he leaves if he does not arrest you when he does. Does anybody here think they they wont truck every gun you have off to see if they are on a stolen gun report, or every class III item you have until you prove to them you have the AFT forms?

And if they dont find anything, you dont even have the option of filing a complaint because SCOTUS has said it was not unconstitutional.

I'm a Libertarian, so I'm totally with you on the fact that the search may be unconstitutional. I just don't want to see people shooting cops over a bad search. It's just not an eye for an eye. Cops who regularly abuse the system will eventually get theirs. And all the rest have better things to do for the most part than kicking in doors of random houses for no reason.

I can't say I'm for this 100% but until we remove probable cause as a tool officers have at their disposal I don't see a reasonable alternative.

[LagerHead]

You know, Judge Napolitano is hard to argue with.

Resisting the State - Fox Business Video - FoxBusiness.com

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm a Libertarian, so I'm totally with you on the fact that the search may be unconstitutional. I just don't want to see people shooting cops over a bad search. It's just not an eye for an eye. Cops who regularly abuse the system will eventually get theirs. And all the rest have better things to do for the most part than kicking in doors of random houses for no reason.

I can't say I'm for this 100% but until we remove probable cause as a tool officers have at their disposal I don't see a reasonable alternative.

First it was the Stamp Act. That started a war. Second, it was the 4th Amendment, requiring a judge to find probable cause. I don't know when a police officer got the right to determine probable cause on his own, except when he witnesses a crime in progress.

I don't even agree with that, except directly witnessing a crime, but the right to knock down a door without a warrant is going too far. I will have to side with the dissenting vote on this one.

Give up your freedom, one at a time, and you will slowly die. this decision was wrong. Got nothing to do with cop bashing. It's got something to do with preserving our sinking Constitution. It was worth fighting over once.

I wonder when the next one will happen.

Some things don't have to be compromised to death, but it certainly seems that the Constitution is being raped.

Can any of you think of how many ways this can be abused? It was bad enough when

the Asset Forfeiture laws were allowed to come about.

[strickj]

I'm all about making things easier for cops just trying to do their jobs but I draw the line at an unconstitutional law.

This will not last very long before it's challenged and the SCOTUS steps in.