Hoosierland, no warrant needed now..

[Hoosier4life2005]

http://www.webnewsjax.com/indiana-supreme-court-ruling-police-can-enter-private-homes-with-out-exception/
 In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing the official response for the court stated,  if a police officer wants to enter a home for any or even for no reason, a homeowner or any other person can not do anything to resist or block the officers entry into a private home. “We believe… a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties without preventing the arrest.” David Goes on saying a person arrested following a unlawful entry by police can still be released on bail and will be given ample opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/18/the-indiana-supreme-court-guts-the-fourth-amendment/

Unless this gets overturned... theres no way I can live in Indiana with this law in place here in Indiana.  WIll the US Supreme court step in and over rule yall' think?

Me and all my friends are absolutley LIVID (for obvious reasons I shouldnt have to explain on here).

I really hope the Constitution lives through this huge assault.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.



Thoughts? 

[jmd_forest]

What Justice Steven David meant to say was, "Modern jurisprudence is incompatible with the Fourth Amendment so we're going to pretend the Forth Amendment doesn't say what it says or mean what it means". 

Of the two, it is less likely we will lose our rights by having them taken away from us by force than by having them wither and die due to lack of exercise.

Although I find it hard to believe this would withstand a Supreme Court challenge, the SC has been busy lately gutting that very amendment as well. You may find out that very soon there is no place to run to where real liberty is upheld.

[davewindsor]

Me and all my friends are absolutley LIVID (for obvious reasons I shouldnt have to explain on here).

I really hope the Constitution lives through this huge assault.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.



Thoughts? 

I'm curious as to what you think is appropriate for the police under the circumstances. 

If you read further, it says, "In this case the police were called to investigate a domestic disturbance, in which a husband and wife were arguing outside their apartment. As the couple entered the apartment the husband told the police they were not needed and then blocked the doorway entrance into the apartment. When the officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against the wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him."

Have you ever had noisy neighbours who were screaming and arguing with their wife/girlfriend every night and your tenants were fed up with it and threatening to move?   What do you if you don't own the duplex next door where this is happening?  You call the police.  Are you saying you don't want the police to resolve it? 

What it looks to me is that these neighbours were screaming/arguing outside.  Neighbours were fed up with it and called the police.  The neighbours saw the police, told the police to get lost and ignored the complaint by walking inside.  The police tried to follow them to deal with the complaint and the noise makers blocked the entrance and shoved the officer against the wall.  The officers then apprehended and arrested him. 

Those neighbours are absolute pricks.  Why didn't they remain outside and let the police resolve the complaint?  If this happened next to one of my buildings, I would be applauding the cops for dealing with these troublemakers.  I've had problems like this before with noisy neighbour-tenants.  Would you rather the cops did nothing about the complaint because the troublemakers are claiming 4th amendment rights to ignore the cops because they walked inside their house while continually pissing off the rest of the neighbourhood every night?  If the police didn't do anything about it, that would really piss off.   

I'm curious, how do you think the police should deal with neighbours causing problems in the neighbourhood who ignore the police?

The second case involved police entering a house with a warrant, but they didn't knock first, "On Tuesday, the Indiana supreme Court Ruling on the police serving a warrant and entering a home with out knocking is justified if officers decided the circumstances warrant such action."

Let's say there's a known drug dealer in the house who's shot at police before and there's a warrant for his arrest, do you really think it's a good idea for the police to knock first?   I think there are circumstances were it's appropriate.   You don't think it's reasonable under certain circumstances? 

I'm curious, what do you think is appropriate under these circumstances?

[Mdhaas]

The problem with today's politics. Conveniently leave out the important things.....a.k.a. the truth.

Where is Paul Harvey when you need him?    "and now, the rest of the story....."

[jmd_forest]

"I'm curious as to what you think is appropriate for the police under the circumstances. "

How about the police follow the law, like the one below:

"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."

I agree that from the incident described, the neighbors were absolute pricks ... but not criminals. If there was sufficient cause, the police should be able to call in for a warrant. If not, I see no reason the police should not be considered armed invaders and treated as such. When the police are allowed to trample our rights without repercussions and, as in this case, with support from the authorities, the rights trampling will continue and expand.

In the second case, from what I've read, the police knew beforehand of the circumstances that they used as an excuse for a no-knock warrant but chose to withhold that information from the judge issuing the warrant. Judge Dickson's ruling actually states that the police should state all known facts when seeking a warrant but then rules against his own statements in refusing to suppress the evidence.  This sounds a lot like "We know what should be done but your rights don't concern us" to me.

Police have a tough job and I applaud those officers who do their job well and understand the boundaries imposed upon them by local, state, and federal law. A badge and gun should not be an excuse to carte blanche trample the Constitution.

jmd_forest

[Hoosier4life2005]

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

[davewindsor]

"I'm curious as to what you think is appropriate for the police under the circumstances. "

How about the police follow the law, like the one below:

"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."

I agree that from the incident described, the neighbors were absolute pricks ... but not criminals. If there was sufficient cause, the police should be able to call in for a warrant. If not, I see no reason the police should not be considered armed invaders and treated as such. When the police are allowed to trample our rights without repercussions and, as in this case, with support from the authorities, the rights trampling will continue and expand.

You don't know the neighbours weren't criminals.  How do you know that they've never committed a crime or been charged by police before?  How does the officer know that wife was not assaulted, which a crime?  You don't know that. 

What does your 4th amendment quote have to do with running away from a police officer?  A police officer is carrying out his duties in responding to a neighbourhood complaint.  You can't just ignore a cop and walk away fand then push the cop against the wall and say it's a 4th amendment issue.  That's ridiculous.

And the normal way of dealing with a 4th amendment issue is the exclusionary rule, e.x, cop follows the suspect inside and spots a bag of coke and seizes it and charges him with possession.  Well, under the 4th amendment you can argue the exclusionary rule that the charge of possession was a result of an unreasonable search and seizure because the cop didn't have a warrant to search his house for drugs, but this still doesn't say the cop can't walk inside.  And he wasn't charged with possession.  He obstructed a police officer in carrying out his duties responding to a complaint and then the suspect assaulted the officer.  It's not a fourth amendment issue.  There's also a safety issue if the wife was assaulted and doesn't complain about it--see Battered Wife Syndrome.  The officer has to determine that too by talking to his wife.

And why should an officer get a warrant to follow someone who is running away from him?  For what?  All the officer wants to do is carry out his duties and talk to him.  It's not even practical.  Officer responds to a complaint and now has to spend several hours getting a warrant to talk to the suspect.  The police department doesn't have the man power to tie up their officers like that.  I can just imagine the jump in crime rates if an officer had to get a warrant every time they wanted to go after and question an uncooperative suspect. 

The judge saw how ridiculous it was to use the 4th amendment defense in this instance and rejected it.  Rightly so imoZ.

[jfpen]

http://www.webnewsjax.com/indiana-supreme-court-ruling-police-can-enter-private-homes-with-out-exception/
 In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing the official response for the court stated,  if a police officer wants to enter a home for any or even for no reason, a homeowner or any other person can not do anything to resist or block the officers entry into a private home. “We believe… a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties without preventing the arrest.” David Goes on saying a person arrested following a unlawful entry by police can still be released on bail and will be given ample opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/18/the-indiana-supreme-court-guts-the-fourth-amendment/

Unless this gets overturned... theres no way I can live in Indiana with this law in place here in Indiana.  WIll the US Supreme court step in and over rule yall' think?

Me and all my friends are absolutley LIVID (for obvious reasons I shouldnt have to explain on here).

I really hope the Constitution lives through this huge assault.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.



Thoughts? 

Hoosier,
             The police entered because of "reasonable suspicion". That's all they need. If the judge is saying that the police don't even need "reasonable suspicion" to enter a home, then I agree with you. But in this case, I think they did.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5003941_definitions-cause-vs_-reasonable-suspicion.html

JP

[andydallas]

many years ago I was managing a radio station in a small town, I became a 'reserve police officer" for the local police department, I wore a uniform, badge (but it said reserve) gun, etc,

I think everyone should be required to spend one evening in a police car with police (even if they just sit in the car), the crazy people you deal with, the people with anger problems, etc.

For all the police knew this guy was going in the house to get a gun, they would always go in after him to protect themself, the spouse and anyone around, the question only becomes can they use what they find as evidence.

Police arrive at a house, or stop a car, and have no idea what sort of people they are dealing with, is the person a law abiding citizen, or have they made  multiple trips to prison and are only one arrest away from getting life as a habitual criminal.

[jmd_forest]

From the information provided in the several articles I've read on this ruling, the police were called for a domestic disturbance regarding a couple arguing outside.  Please note that neither of the couple were charged with any violations for anything that happened BEFORE the police illegally entered the home, therefore there was no criminal actions regarding the incident, at least prior to the fellow defending his home from illegal entry. Whether either of the couple were previous criminals is immaterial to this incident. Unless the police officer witness abuse or evidence of abuse that excuse is also immaterial to this incident. No witnessing or evidence of abuse was noted in any of the articles I read and no such charges were filed. Unless a person had been formally detained or arrested by the police they are not running away from the police. No one is under any obligation to interact with the police in any way if not being detained or under arrest. Non of the articles I read noted the victim was charged with eluding police (running away),  only assaulting the "officer" after the "officer" illegally invaded his home. This illegal invasion was the heart of the case. Per Justice Steven David's ruling "“We believe… a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth amendment jurisprudence,”. The illegal entry DID occur. The ruling reverses several hundred years of legal precedence, since the Magna Carta, allowing persons to protect themselves and their property from illegal government intrusion, as noted in the dissenting ruling by  Justice Brent Dickerson, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

jfpen: Perhaps you should have read a little further in the article you referenced. If you had, you would have read: "If a police officer has reasonable suspicion in a situation, he may frisk a suspect or detain the suspect briefly. Reasonable suspicion does not allow for searching a person or car, and is not enough for a search warrant or arrest". Police need probable cause to arrest or search. There was no probable cause in this case, as noted in the ruling. If they had probable cause, that is what they could have used to get a warrant to enter the property.

andydallas: For all the police knew, the guy had nuclear weapons in the house or was hiding several dozen bodies he had dismembered earlier that day. Unfortunately, they had no EVIDENCE of either, or if  he was going into the house to get a gun, or knife, or sandwich. Unless he had been formally detained or was under arrest he did nothing illegal, as supported by the evidence that the charges all have to do with actions AFTER he entered his own property.

The result of this ruling is that protecting yourself and property from illegal government invasions of your property is now illegal (at least in Indiana), where previously it had been your RIGHT. I suspect it will be upheld in the SCOTUS, if appealed to that level, since they seem hell bent on gutting the 4th.

Hoosier: The quote from Jefferson is magnificently appropriate.

jmd_forest

[Bluemoon06]

The judge is right.  If a police officer wants to enter a residence in this particular case he has to enter and it is lawful.  If you are standing outside creating a disturbance and when confronted with a police office retreat inside then he not only should but must enter no matter what is said.

The judge is right.  If a police officer wants to enter a residence in this particular case he has to enter and it is lawful.  If you are standing outside creating a disturbance and when confronted with a police office retreat inside then he not only should but must enter no matter what is said.

As far as police entering when it is not lawful.  The police can do whatever they want.  That is why they are called the police.  But it is merely a nuisance.  If they enter the house unlawfully and you don't consent but don't resist and no matter what they find they can't convict you with that evidence because it was obtained illegally.  So no harm no foul (except for they will not return the marijuana to you…bummer).  If they were to attempt to  enter your house illegally and you resist they beat you up enter anyway and now they have reason to be in the house and when they find the 6 tons of cocaine you go to jail for it.

Just like when they stop me for a traffic stop I don’t consent to anything but I don’t resist either.  Remember they are the police.  The reason they call it the police force and not the police service is that they use force.  The judge uses reason.

[jmd_forest]

The classic definition of a police state, " The police can do whatever they want".  A significant part of the reason the 4th amendment is formalized in the Bill Of Rights is that our ancestors were sick and tired of that type  of abuse from the British Crown and wanted to make sure it could NEVER happen in the USA. It is one of the things they fought and died for.

As for "this particular case", the judges acknowledged the police entered UNLAWFULLY. They simply made it illegal for you to enforce your right to be secure in your own property. For the past several hundred years it had been your RIGHT (and obligation as an American) to resist unlawful police invasion of your property.

Its hard to believe so many are so willing to forfeit their rights. As I mentioned in an earlier post, "Of the two, it is less likely we will lose our rights by having them taken away from us by force than by having them wither and die due to lack of exercise."

[andydallas]

police are only the 'enemy' of people breaking the law,,,for the rest of us they are there to protect us from the people wanting to break the law

[jmd_forest]

Sigh..... if that were only the case:

Warren v. District of Columbia:"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989):"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005): "The Supreme Court ruled ... that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm" The Supreme Court added, "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones."

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police: "the Court ruled that the police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime"

More references are available upon request

It would be nice if the police were there to protect us, it simply is not so.

[Mdhaas]

It would be nice if the police were there to protect us, it simply is not so.

That's a pretty broad statement. I have numerous friends that are police officers. Where would you be without police protection in your area?