Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two privacy rulings hit us right where we live
desertdispatch.com ^ | 30 May, 2011 | JACOB SULLUM

Posted on 05/31/2011 6:53:40 AM PDT by marktwain

A few years ago, two police officers were chasing a crack dealer at a Lexington, Ky., apartment complex when they lost sight of him as he ducked into one of two units at the end of a breezeway. Detecting “a very strong odor of burnt marijuana” coming from the apartment on the left, they figured that must be the one, so they banged on the door and shouted, “Police!” Hearing “the sound of persons moving,” the officers later reported, they feared evidence was being destroyed, so they kicked in the door.

It turned out to be the wrong apartment, but inside the cops discovered a guest smoking pot and, during a “protective sweep” of the apartment, saw marijuana and cocaine powder “in plain view.” A more thorough search turned up crack, cash and drug paraphernalia.

So much for the alleged destruction of evidence. So much, too, for the doctrine that a man’s home is his castle, not to be forcibly entered by government agents on a whim or a hunch. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court said the “exigent circumstances” that exist when someone might be flushing drugs down a toilet allow police to enter a home without a warrant, even if their own actions create those circumstances.

As the lone dissenting justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted, this decision “arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases.” Instead of “presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate,” they can retroactively validate their decision to break into someone’s home by claiming they smelled something funny and heard something suspicious.

While the U.S. Supreme Court said police may force their way into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, the Indiana Supreme Court, in a less-noticed decision issued the week before, said police may force their way into a home for any reason or no reason at all. Although the victim of an illegal search can challenge it in court after the fact, three of the five justices agreed that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” They thereby nullified a principle of common law that is centuries old, arguably dating back to the Magna Carta.

The case involved Richard Barnes, whose wife called 911 in November 2007 to report that he was throwing things around their apartment. When police encountered Barnes outside, he shouted that they were not needed because he was in the process of moving out. His wife emerged, threw a duffle bag in his direction and told him to collect the rest of his belongings. When two officers tried to follow the couple back into the apartment, Barnes blocked the way, while his wife said “don’t do this” and “just let them in.” Barnes shoved one officer against a wall, and a scuffle ensued.

After he was convicted of battery on a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct, Barnes appealed, arguing that the jury should have been instructed about “the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen’s home.” The Indiana Supreme Court could have ruled that the officers’ entry into the apartment was lawful given the possibility of violence, especially since Barnes’ wife had called 911 and arguably invited them in. The majority suggested as much but inexplicably decided a far broader question. “Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry,” the court said, “we need not decide the legality of the officers’ entry into Barnes’s apartment.”

This backward approach suggests the justices were eager to repudiate a straightforward extension of self-defense that struck them as an outmoded impediment to law enforcement. Like the “sniff, knock, listen and kick” rule endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision illustrates the steady erosion of security in the name of security, even in the setting where our right to be left alone is supposed to be strongest.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: constitution; police; search; warrant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last
It appears that they final nails are being driven into the coffin of the 4th amendment.
1 posted on 05/31/2011 6:53:42 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Are the courts trying to get LEO’s killed???
2 posted on 05/31/2011 6:57:37 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Jared Lee Loughner - Disciple of Michael Moore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yep, and the rest of the Bill of Rights are on life support.


3 posted on 05/31/2011 6:59:26 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Welcome to the USSA, comrade. Keep your eyes down and shuffle along.


4 posted on 05/31/2011 7:00:31 AM PDT by Travis McGee (Castigo Cay is in print and on Kindle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
“there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Your home, your car, your person -- the police have full access 24/7 for any reason at all. You cannot stop them.

Unless, of course, you decide to stop them.

I think the police may come to regret making it open season on citizens. Nobody likes jack-booted thugs.

5 posted on 05/31/2011 7:00:36 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68
Are the courts trying to get LEO’s killed???

How many home owners will be charged with murder for defending their homes?

How long before such events are used to justify confiscation of privately-held firearms?

'Cause you can't have upity citizens shooting at cops who bust down doors for no reason, ya know.
6 posted on 05/31/2011 7:02:40 AM PDT by ConservativeWarrior (In last year's nests, there are no birds this year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Educate yourself. Even the lawyer who worked with Mr. King on the Kentucky case thought that Justice Alito's opinion was perfectly sound. I guess facts don't matter to liberaltarians.

http://volokh.com/2011/05/19/common-misreadings-of-kentucky-v-king-and-the-difference-between-exigent-circumstances-and-police-created-exigencies/

7 posted on 05/31/2011 7:05:38 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68

Yes.

Then on to step 2:

Taking the guns away from you because its too dangerous for LEO’s.

Part of the plan, my man...part of the plan...


8 posted on 05/31/2011 7:14:37 AM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I commit no crime in person or at home. Therefore, it is my policy that I will defend myself against illegal police action including warrentless search.... Years ago I swore to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I hope that day never comes in the US....but I will honor my pledge.


9 posted on 05/31/2011 7:16:55 AM PDT by Rapscallion (Obama is a foreigner. He has no right to the office. He must be impeached. It's not personal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Indiana court has no jurisdiction over the 4th amendment.

BTW, one more time, the Indiana case has been misrepreented.

Barnes was OUTTA THERE. Other USSC cases of recent vintage say that she could have barred the cops, as a resident of the apartment, but she not only didn't bar them, she called them to help her!

The case would have been easily decided against Barnes ~ the man ~ simply by noting he was NO LONGER A RESIDENT.

The major mistake the court in Indiana made was using Islamic exegesis to examine the facts ~ then writing the woman out of the case and ruling on the basis no longer recognized in English or American common law ~ to wit, that the man is the head of the household and even if he doesn't live there the womenfolk gots ta' do what he says!

I've noticed a decided disinterest on the part of the "home is a castle" people who've commented to deal with the woman's rights to be in command of her own castle.

In fact, a clear reading of Indiana's Castle Doctrine law makes it understood that SHE could have called in the cops, or just picked up a shotgun and turned Barnes into a spray of pink mist.

I suspect a number of them to be Moslems who've infiltrated FR in the last couple of years.

10 posted on 05/31/2011 7:17:23 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sends chills through my body - literally. What happened to “the land of the free”?


11 posted on 05/31/2011 7:18:21 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

Warrantless search is not always unlawful.


12 posted on 05/31/2011 7:18:56 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Did the cops bust down the door and enter an apartment without a warrant or not?


13 posted on 05/31/2011 7:20:06 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
I guess facts don't matter to liberaltarians.

Liberaltarians arguments always boil down to "I want to smoke pot"

14 posted on 05/31/2011 7:20:17 AM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Why would we be surprised at the deterioration of liberty in a time when even the equal protection of right to life of all persons is disregarded?

Remember, they’re butchering thousands again today in the abortuaries, or via chemical poisons.


15 posted on 05/31/2011 7:23:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ('To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
As the lone dissenting justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted, this decision “arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases.” Instead of “presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate,” they can retroactively validate their decision to break into someone’s home by claiming they smelled something funny and heard something suspicious.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the voice of reason, America is in deeper trouble than anyone thought.

16 posted on 05/31/2011 7:23:52 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Really? I have often thought of myself as much like a Libertarian. And I have NEVER smoked pot. AND I don’t want to.

What most Libertarians want is Freedom from Socialists, Authoritarians, Communists, and overbearing Government in all forms.

Is that bad?


17 posted on 05/31/2011 7:25:37 AM PDT by King_Corey (www.kingcorey.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Adder

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2727531/posts

Uh Huh....

beginnings of step 2


18 posted on 05/31/2011 7:26:55 AM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Adder
Their plan will run them out of LEO’s before we run out of guns.
19 posted on 05/31/2011 7:28:41 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Jared Lee Loughner - Disciple of Michael Moore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

i am a libertarian. i do not smoke pot. i do support a person’s choice to do so at home at their own risk. stepping out of that circle, endangers the lives of others and opens them to the consequences of that action.

the destruction of being secure in one’s home is an end to western civilization and a free society. it is.

tell me how your prohibition is saving lives and money.

it is not.

teeman


20 posted on 05/31/2011 7:31:14 AM PDT by teeman8r (armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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