Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The death of the 4th Amendment in Indiana. One small step toward a police state in Indiana, one giant leap for total tyranny in America. On May 13th, 2011 the Indiana Supreme Court rules that people have no right to resist illegal police entry into their homes. An unbelievable assault to the Constitution and affront to the people! What country am I in again?! Will it be overturned in the US Supreme Court or have they just set precedent to pave the way for other states to nullify our Constitutional rights? What if it isn't overturned? Where's the public outrage?
I am still wondering, at what point will people be fed up, if its not the TSA sticking their hands down childrens pants then will it be when the police show up at their door for a friendly neighborhood search? What will it take?
PS...I realize there was a thread started by Roadking on this topic and props to him but I thought this was so important a topic that I wanted to "repackage" it so to speak to spark more discourse and get the word out. Thank you.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
I don't see any wrong-doing here. The police were legally situated. They were called to the scene. It is the police who determine when the matter is settled, not the husband (in this instance).
I don't see any wrong-doing here. The police were legally situated. They were called to the scene. It is the police who determine when the matter is settled, not the husband (in this instance).
Its not that particular incident that is the problem, its the ruling that is the problem. Just because there was a situational need to enter the premises due to the husband's aggression and assault of an officer does not necessitate the nullification of the fourth amendment. That's like saying that because some people drive their cars recklessly that everyones right to drive is revoked. The fourth amendment is in place for a good reason, heck we even had a war to win that right (among others) So are you saying that after over the entire course of American history that the fourth amendment should be nullified over some domestic dispute or am I not understanding your position correctly?
We are more quickly becoming a police state. Never thought I'd see it in my lifetime
Your right about that. In some ways I can't believe all of this is actually happening in other ways when considering all factors I am not surprised at all. I am still amazed that all of the people I talk to aren't more upset by or even aware of all of these escalating events. Don't get me wrong, I think people are waking up but they are just not as incensed and or moved by current events as I am. Maybe I am in the smaller percentage that's ahead of the curve where I don't need to have a knock at my door before I figure out what they have in store for us. I don't need to lose my rights to appreciate how and why I have them but sadly that is probably what it will take for many to snap out of it.
I don't see any wrong-doing here. The police were legally situated. They were called to the scene. It is the police who determine when the matter is settled, not the husband (in this instance).
The situation with the husband is not what is of note. This is what is.
If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said. “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 that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”
The police don't just to decide when they can enter. They must have probable cause to enter. I might agree that the call was the probable cause to enter so the officer so the police were allowed entry, however thats not the judge said.
The situation with the husband is not what is of note. This is what is.
If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said. “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 that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”
The police don't just to decide when they can enter. They must have probable cause to enter. I might agree that the call was the probable cause to enter so the officer so the police were allowed entry, however thats not the judge said.
Now thanks to that ruling they don't need to give any reason to enter your home. I hope they wipe their boots before they search my house.
I don't see any wrong-doing here. The police were legally situated. They were called to the scene. It is the police who determine when the matter is settled, not the husband (in this instance).
The courts already found the entry illegal. Essentially, they gave the police a blank check to do whatever they want with no fear of consequences. The courts are a joke when it comes to addressing police abuse of rights.
Perhaps someone shooting the thugs in Arizona recently who blocked medical help for an hour+ from their victim, might have saved that person.
The courts already found the entry illegal. Essentially, they gave the police a blank check to do whatever they want with no fear of consequences.
I don't see where it says that. It says...
Quote:
If police enter a home illegally...
....and the operand is "if."
Then punish the police, except I doubt that will happen because the police are protected by unions, but then that's your fault for allowing the police to be in unions. You want blithering idiots and criminals deciding if an entry is illegal or not? Really? I can just see all the Legal Wizards here on CD dispensing advice. I guess it will make interesting viewing on Cops, Court TV and other, um, "news" programs.
This is a no-win situation. I would hope that more intelligent people could see that. You're going to resist? And the police will do what? Call for back-up, right? And then what? You going to wait until everyone in your home is shot to pieces and then, what surrender or commit suicide?
And then what? The police will lie. Trust me, I did the law enforcement thing. The police will lie and even plant evidence if necessary to justify their actions. So your family is dead, and you're dead or in jail. Smells like a hollow victory to me.
....and the operand is "if."
Then punish the police, except I doubt that will happen because the police are protected by unions, but then that's your fault for allowing the police to be in unions. You want blithering idiots and criminals deciding if an entry is illegal or not? Really? I can just see all the Legal Wizards here on CD dispensing advice. I guess it will make interesting viewing on Cops, Court TV and other, um, "news" programs.
This is a no-win situation. I would hope that more intelligent people could see that. You're going to resist? And the police will do what? Call for back-up, right? And then what? You going to wait until everyone in your home is shot to pieces and then, what surrender or commit suicide?
And then what? The police will lie. Trust me, I did the law enforcement thing. The police will lie and even plant evidence if necessary to justify their actions. So your family is dead, and you're dead or in jail. Smells like a hollow victory to me.
I think your point is that probable cause and the use of it by law enforcement is a complex and nuanced issue in and of itself, if I am interpreting your post correctly. Maybe you could help me to understand with your law enforcement background, why it would ever be necessary to do away with the practice of obtaining a search warrant from a judge when as you said police will go so far to plant evidence any way to cover themselves? In light of police planting evidence or falsifying probable cause even more reason to uphold the fourth amendment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now thanks to that ruling they don't need to give any reason to enter your home. I hope they wipe their boots before they search my house.
