| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/14/2011 8:49:55 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
By request of poster, duplicate |
Posted on 05/13/2011 6:33:44 PM PDT by WildSnail
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
(Excerpt) Read more at nwitimes.com ...
Go read the decision ~ the case is fully briefed in there. The guy just up and pushed a cop around. The cop appears to have been in that place lawfully having been invited there by the tenant.
But, say, let's look at this another way. Let's say your house is on fire and you call the fire department. They need to go busting in the front door to save your chilluns but they didn't bring a warrant. They bust in anyway and you pull out your AR 15 and start pumping rounds into the firemen.
Last time you did that what happened and when did you get out?
The cop was asked to come to the apartment by the woman who lived there.
That sounds like bad law.
Time to send this case to the USSC.
Yes, I hope they do that. And I hope it’s overturned. In the meantime, it’s added to the list of laws, regulations and acts that I summarily ignore because they so clearly violate the Constitution. I truly hope no one ever tests me on such matters.
Absolute and total BRAVO SIERRA.
If they have a warrant and are following constitutional law, not trampling unalienable rights, then they can enter...if they do not, then they can expect to be treated as the criminals that they would then be.
End of story...full story.
Otherwise...Lexington Green and Concord come to mind.
He was no longer a tenant ~ and had, in fact, told the cop he didn't live there.
So why is a warrant needed in this case?
Think hard. We'll give you all day to come up with some reason.
The decision is, of course, wrongly decided, but the 4th amendment hasn't got a thing to do with it.
It kind of gives new meaning to this old song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaQZcK_IS40
Hope it goes to the USSC, and that the USSC is not as ignorant of the constitution. But that is also a lot to hope for these days.
DOH!
Should have dug deeper...
Yep, the perp was a jerk. The trial lawyer has made a name for himself!
The judge is now infamous in many minds here...
Not your fault.
The other article is improperly posted with an incorrect title and content.
A search will not turn up articles with made up titles.
If that is true then why the non-stop posting to everyone who finds the decision disagreeable?
Probably so and if somebody calls and tells them they think you're suicidal.
No one, and I mean NO ONE may enter your private land, home or out buildings without probable cause, exigent circumstances plain view (i.e. a fire, safety reasons, or a life threatening circumstance.
Evidently, you are not familiar with: Georgia v. Randolph
The Supreme Court Limits the Fourth Amendment’s Consent Doctrine
In Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court ruled that consent to search a residence under the Fourth Amendment was not given when one co-occupant consented but another co-occupant, who was present at the time, refused to consent. The vote was 5 to 3, with Justice Souter writing the opinion for the Court. Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote concurring opinions, the more substantively notable being Breyer’s opinion in which he makes clear that his (critical) vote with the majority rested on the particular circumstances of the case. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented and each wrote separate dissenting opinions, although Scalia joined Roberts’ dissenting opinion as well.
The case is perhaps most surprising because it imposed a limitation on the consent doctrine, which has been applied quite expansively in a largely unbroken series of opinions, often with emphasis on its civic virtue and efficacy. The result in Randoph cut against the weight of lower court authority. Although the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that valid consent had not been given, theirs was a clear minority position; four of the federal circuits, and a majority of state courts that had considered the issue, ruled that consent was valid in similar circumstances.
The Supreme Court had previously decided two cases involving consent to search by real or apparent co-occupants, United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), and Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), and in both cases had ruled that consent by the co-occupants eliminated subsequent Fourth Amendment objections to the admission of seized evidence by an occupant who was not immediately present and therefore did not object at the time of the search. Both cases were clearly distinguishable from Randolph because the defendants did not refuse to consent to the search. However, as Roberts notes in dissent, that distinction is not as glaring as might first appear. In Matlock, where the co-occupant consented, Matlock was arrested in the yard of the house that was subsequently searched, and was detained in a police car near the house. Matlock did not refuse consent, but he was not asked. In Rodriguez, where the person who consented was not in fact a co-occupant but the police reasonably believed her claim that she was, the defendant was asleep inside the apartment that was searched. Apparently he could have been awakened and asked to consent, but these steps were not taken.
Sounds like the Indiana Supreme Court has communists leanings and have no idea what the Constitution means to America.
This is pure, murderous evil. It sets a precedent; it is a tool that will be used elsewhere and in another manner.
Thanks - I didn’t realize those details. Any more, anything that involves the government, I automatically assume the worst. 90% of the time, that is the correct assumption.
It should be that the cop entering illegally loses his pensions, goes to jail and held responsible for anything that resulted as a result of his raid. That’ll make them think 100X. And the town pays a few million to the violated person. That would also make them hire some good law professors to lecture the cops.
But now they have nothing to lose.
You can bet your ass I would empty a clip on anyone entering without law ful authority, I don't give a damn if he or she says they are the President of the United States of America!
Not happening!
The Fourth Amendment provides:
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.
The right to security in person and property protected by the Fourth Amendment may be invaded in quite different ways by searches and seizures. A search compromises the individual interest in privacy; a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). The “plain view” doctrine is often considered an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable,{4} but this characterization overlooks the important difference between searches and seizures.{5} If an article is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy. Arizona v. Hicks, [496 U.S. 134] 480 U.S. 321 (1987); Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983). A seizure of the article, however, would obviously invade the owner’s possessory interest. Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469 (1985); Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113. If “plain view” justifies an exception from an otherwise applicable warrant requirement, therefore, it must be an exception that is addressed to the concerns that are implicated by seizures, rather than by searches.
If a panel of judges cannot agree, then LEAVE US ALONE..
If the action involves a major intrusion of our long established rights, the least that can happen to overturn these rights is unanimous agreement of the panel of judges.....or .at the extreme least, 4 to 1 for crying out loud!
Expectations of privacy, and the plain view doctrines simply have nothing to do with this case.
The Court mistakenly escalated the language and inflamed the public ~ this will result in their removal from office, but it's not their legal acumen that's the reason ~ it's their stupidity and possibly their use of intoxicating substances.
What, exactly, is "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence"?
The fourth amendment, and all of the others, mean the same thing today that they did when they were written.
This court needs to be smacked down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.