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

To: SeaHawkFan
You obviously know what "precedence" means.

So you agree that an Indiana citizen does not have a right to resist police entry into his home without a valid warrant? .. because that is exactly what the decision states. Even the Indiana AG is up in arms about the broad implications.

The decision says (in boiled down words) that you cannot resist ANY unwarrantable search and that you must take civil action at a later time if you feel you have been violated.

Are you agreeing with this?

25 posted on 09/20/2011 1:18:40 PM PDT by FunkyZero ("It's not about duck hunting !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: FunkyZero
See my post #31.

I am saying the court addressed the concern you and I have about the original decision.

The court also STRONGLY suggested the legislature provide further guidance to the courts through legislation.

In this particular case, the wife clearly invited the cops to enter to check up on her. Had the cops not done so and she was killed by her husband, her family would have had a slam dunk civil rights action against the local government.

33 posted on 09/20/2011 1:32:12 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

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