Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Moonman62
you ask: “ Is that really what they said”

Yes. If this doesn't wake people up, nothing ever will.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/indiana-high-court-rules-people-resist-illegal-entry-police-homes/

For the Sheriff to come out the very next day and expand their right to search ‘unlawfully’ to ‘random’ searches...there is something very evil afoot here that will not be confined to one state. We are going to be very lucky if we still have the right to vote by 2012.

28 posted on 05/16/2011 9:07:10 PM PDT by maine-iac7 (watch the other hand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: maine-iac7; ltc8k6
If either of you care to read the actual opinion and the reason why the officers entered the home, you can access the PDF file here.

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.

48 posted on 05/16/2011 9:40:49 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: maine-iac7; Moonman62; muawiyah
Nowhere did the court affirm the right of the police to conduct random searches. Just because the court said there was no right to make a specific response to an illegal activity doesn't make the activity suddenly legal.

By the logic being used, if a court case ruled that a cop was wrong in just shooting someone for speeding, we'd have a chorus of FReepers claiming the case said that people had the right to speed.

I have as many questions about the ISC case as anyone, but that doesn't mean we should be making things up or acting like idiots.

82 posted on 05/17/2011 3:11:13 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: maine-iac7
SCOTUS said there is no "right to vote," in Bush v. Gore:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

110 posted on 05/17/2011 4:52:08 AM PDT by PghBaldy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson