Posted on 05/17/2011 2:59:28 PM PDT by Dr. Marten
CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.
At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.
However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.
” The 4th amendment is quite clear, even to grade schoolers. “
Grade schoolers, yes - but, apparently, it is beyond the comprehension members of law enforcement, the judiciary, and, surprisingly, not a few FReepers....
A short refresher —
(Ahem)
” 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. “
Somehow, my copy seems to be missing the clause that says ‘except when it’s inconvenient for the police to do so’.....
If my home were ever searched in such a manner I can guarantee you the Sheriff would be the first person I would personally hold responsible in the dark of night.
The dreamers here think we can change all this with a couple of election victories...
However, the reality is that the cancer is too far advanced...Only heroic surgery can offer real hope for patient recovery...
I am stunned that an LEO would say this. He is violating his oath to preserve the Constitution.
This has gone out of control and should be heard immediately by SCOTUS to keep people from getting killed.
This such a bad idea it boggles the mind.
If so, his approach is flying right over the heads of those who care.
I bet the KGB BASTARDS will not “randomly” raid a cops house and shoot his Golden Retriever.
IThe drug war and the war on terrorism have brought about the very worst in law enforcement.
Most on this forum are adamantly against drugs and terrorism.
The problem is that their strong beliefs have brought about the wrong medicines for the treatment of both.
Time to arm the booby traps before you go to bed !
When this idiot starts randomly going into people’s house’s people are going to start arming themselves to stop it.
Police will lose any respect they have left. They will then be the Gestapo.
And now for the bonus question: who benefits?
In fairness the 4th amendment of the Federal Constitution is to just that the Federal Constitution and does not apply to the States which are empowered by the people separately in their own State Constitution.
The real clause at issue here is the nearly identical Article 1 Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution which reads:
“Section 11. Search and seizure
Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html#sec-11
That is what is likely going to get some Indiana law enforcement agents stupid enough to conduct a “Random and warrens search” killed by citizens just defending themselves and their own home.
I hope this sheriff is just trying to make a issue with this crazy court edict in the interest of inviting public contraversy & debate and doesn’t plan on sending any of his deputizes to actually do this.(That might get some of them killed)
In any case this is clearly a very scandalous issue for for the State of Indiana. Their Supreme court judges should be publicly ridiculed if not impeached if that is possible.
Mean while their politicians might be wise to talk about the issue and ways to deal with activist judges, as well as the aftermath of their edict.
If you are invaded and your weapon bears, FIRE!
They’re going to shoot you anyway (71 rounds in seven seconds last time ‘round), and if each victim takes at least one with them, this crap will stop.
Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge.
He’s proposing something which doesn’t completely overlap with what the Indiana court granted. And to tell the truth, does he really want his municipality to get slapped with the inevitable ACLU law suits which could easily end up going above the Indiana courts’ head into Federal realms? Because they’re going to have to invent some kind of “random warrant” to do it. Perhaps it is sarcasm.
A man has to die somehow. It may as well be while shooting JBTs
I hope this idiot is the first through the door of a very prepared freedom fighter.
That would still probably get him in dutch with the Federales.
The ACLU won’t sue over this. It’s not their bag. They are only about protecting victim rights, and to them, we (freedom lovers) are not victims - we are criminals.
Why would you feel LEOs as a class are deserving of respect anymore? Don’t you read the news? LEOs as a class are a bigger threat to the constitution than drug dealers are. Not every one, certainly but as a class, yes.
Hard to know how this stands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.