Posted on 05/16/2011 8:40:02 PM PDT by wrastu
Here it comes
Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr.
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html
If I have done nothing wrong then why the need for a search?
If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear fellow citizen.
Did you forget the /Sarc
We have due process for a reason
Post the whole blog not just a link. Some of us are on handhelds.
“And the Sheriff is ready to roll today.”
Somebody in Indianna needs to move for some kind of expedited appeal to the USSC. RIGHT NOW.
The Indiana Supreme Court only rules on the constitutionality of Indiana laws. If the Legislature passes a law removing the legality of anything, and said law is signed by teh Governor, as the Lil’ Piggie said, “T, th, that’s all, F’, Folks”.
Courts rule on constitutionality of laws, they do not create laws.
Well, not unless they agree with the “Wise Latina”.
;-(
My whole family is originally from Indiana. When did it turn into a Marxist hellhole? I would understand if it was Detroit or Chicago or NYC but Indiana?
Even the dissenting justices admitted that the officer probably was entering the home legally (he was responding to a 911 call from the home for domestic violence).
The majority mentioned the fact that most states have eliminated the common law right to resist an illegal entry. AFAIK, those state statutes have not been tested by the US Supreme Court. Anyway, read the decision. There's no way a sheriff would use it as a basis to conduct random entries.
People will accept it. Indeed, most will not even be aware of it. There will be no significant protests or demonstrations, no legislators speaking out or taking action.
No one will even quit paying taxes over this — a non-violent form of protest.
if you’re fighting an assailant who is wearing a BPV, aim for the femur first. They will be unprotected and a load of buckshot to the femur at close range will put a man on the ground instantly and/ more than likely, result in rapid bleed out. I think 4 buck is the preferred buckshot incidentally especially indoors and especially if you want to shatter a femur and shred a femoral artery. I heard the military determined that 4 buck was the optimal shotgun round for military applications.
Even here in liberal, blue mexifornia every lib will be up in their gay arms. Never thought IN would turn commie fast.
If this headline is true...this obviously smacks up against the 4th Amendment.
We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers
That's in the first paragraph! Then they go on to engage in a little stroll through history concluding with why they can just skip along with the 1960's fad of making up laws whenever they want to! Oh, and throwing out mmmmm 800 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Because see, the prisons aren't as mean as they used to be.
Got it. Since tyranny is oh so softer nowadays, it's cool for the cops to step on you.
Reading that "decision" is like a nightmare. These are power mad Leftists ruling from the bench - I don't care if they call themselves something different. That's all they are - totalitarians who believe in state power and state power only. To them, rights are anachronisms that must be crushed in the name of "state policy".
Even Dred Scott didn't capriciously crush the rights of citizens the way this cavalier screed does.
Would you care to bet some money on that?
“Lastly, I heard from Steve David the clearest expression of commitment to proper restraint in jurisprudence, and to deep respect for the boundaries of judicial decision-making. He will be a judge who interprets rather than invents our laws,”
Guess that about does it for slimy little Mitch. Never did like the little peckerwood, this just ices it.
Apparently, the recent ruling in Indiana brings them in line with the majority of other states. Where’s all the examples from those other states? Why are people getting all hot bothered by it now?
High court sides with police in warrantless search case from Kentucky
Associated Press
May 16, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King’s apartment.
The court said there was no violation of King’s constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
Officers knocked on King’s door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.
But Alito said, “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame.”
In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases.
“Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant,” she said.
The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home.
The issue was whether warrantless entry was justified after the officers’ knock on the door triggered a reaction inside that sounded like the destruction of evidence.
An odd set of facts led to Monday’s ruling.
Police were only at King’s apartment building because they were chasing a man who sold cocaine to a police informant. The man entered King’s building and ducked into an apartment. The officers heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors.
They didn’t know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left.
In fact, the suspect had gone into the apartment on the right. Police eventually arrested him, too, but prosecutors later dropped charges against him for reasons that were not explained in court papers.
I guess you skipped over the part where they said that's the law in a majority of states. If the current predictions of doom for Indiana are true, then where's the examples of doom from those other states?
Isn’t this the same Mitch Daniels who hearts Sharia law?
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.