Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

4th Amendment now Void in Indiana

TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
edited May 2011 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
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.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

Allow me to reiterate:
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.

Nobody tell Thanatos. He might get... upset.

The basic gist of the situation is that the police can come into your home, for any reason, at any time, and it is unlawful for you to resist or not comply.

In the situation referred to in the article, the one that prompted the decision, I probably would've sided with the police given that the guy knew they were there, knew they weren't going to shoot him, and they just wanted to make sure that the situation was fully difused.

That being said, the Supreme Court of Indiana basically just gave every police officer in the state the right to do whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal. That is... upsetting.

Taramoor on
«1345678

Posts

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    This seems relevant.

    http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2011/03/28/newark-police-illegally-detain-honors-student-over-cellphone-footage/

    A bystander films police doing police things with her cell phone. Police don't like this so they confiscate the phone, delete the recorded video, and put bystander in handcuffs in their squad car for two hours without charging her with anything. That's not saying that sort of thing is business as usual - she'll win the lawsuit against Newark PD, I bet - but cops across America are getting bold lately.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thats.....something alright.

    sig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I'm pretty sure that even Scalia and Thomas are going to tell Indiana to go fuck themselves.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that even Scalia and Thomas are going to tell Indiana to go fuck themselves.

    Are you willing to bet your rights on it?

    Because if it holds up at the USSC, then it hits every other state simultaneously. (Mapp v Ohio)

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    emnmnme wrote: »
    This seems relevant.

    http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2011/03/28/newark-police-illegally-detain-honors-student-over-cellphone-footage/

    A bystander films police doing police things with her cell phone. Police don't like this so they confiscate the phone, delete the recorded video, and put bystander in handcuffs in their squad car for two hours without charging her with anything. That's not saying that sort of thing is business as usual - she'll win the lawsuit against Newark PD, I bet - but cops across America are getting bold lately.
    She'll be lucky not to get criminally prosecuted for violating the... officers'... right to privacy.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that even Scalia and Thomas are going to tell Indiana to go fuck themselves.

    Are you willing to bet your rights on it?

    Because if it holds up at the USSC, then it hits every other state simultaneously. (Mapp v Ohio)

    Two things:

    1) How else do you suggest injustice be remedied if not in a court of law?
    2) I would put cash monies on this being at least a 7-2 ruling against, if not unanimous. Even gold backed cash monies.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that even Scalia and Thomas are going to tell Indiana to go fuck themselves.

    Are you willing to bet your rights on it?

    Because if it holds up at the USSC, then it hits every other state simultaneously. (Mapp v Ohio)

    Even if Scalia and Thomas uphold it who cares, its not like the others will.

    sig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.

    I don't really see anything upsetting about that. If anything, it's a step forward, because maybe it will drive calls for some reform.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If the Tea-Party doesn't get up in arms about the Constitution being subverted, I am going to shit a brick.

    Also this sorta thing can be appealed.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.

    How do you figure?

    sig.jpg
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    emnmnme wrote: »
    This seems relevant.

    http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2011/03/28/newark-police-illegally-detain-honors-student-over-cellphone-footage/

    A bystander films police doing police things with her cell phone. Police don't like this so they confiscate the phone, delete the recorded video, and put bystander in handcuffs in their squad car for two hours without charging her with anything. That's not saying that sort of thing is business as usual - she'll win the lawsuit against Newark PD, I bet - but cops across America are getting bold lately.

    The police tried this in Maryland, but the courts told them to fuck right off.

    http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/28/followup-motorcyclist-wins-taping-case-against-maryland-state-p/
    According to the Baltimore Sun, Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. has thrown out the wiretapping charge, leaving Graber only to answer for his traffic violations. Why? Common sense, it would seem, has prevailed. The judge ruled that police officers shouldn't have an expectation of privacy when engaged in a traffic stop. He said, in part:

    Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation.

    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    If the Tea-Party doesn't get up in arms about the Constitution being subverted, I am going to shit a brick.

    Why would you expect them to be on the side of dirty hippies? If you didn't live in such a blatantly obvious crack house the cops wouldn't have to unlawfully enter it. I mean, libertarians will be up in arms about this, sure, but the [strike]Christian Coalition[/strike] [strike]Moral Majority[/strike] [strike]Republican Base[/strike] Tea Party probably won't.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.
    How do you figure?
    When was the last time you remember someone physically resisting the cops and the cops getting in trouble for it?

  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Why do people believe that the Tea Party give a rat's ass about the Constitution?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.
    How do you figure?
    When was the last time you remember someone physically resisting the cops and the cops getting in trouble for it?

    BARTA shooting.

    tea-1.jpg
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.

    How do you figure?

    Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not giving police permission to enter without cause; it's just stopping you from physically preventing them from doing so. The ruling states that it is still appropriate to challenge the entry later, after which I assume any evidence gleaned would be thrown out.

    That doesn't strike me as much different than what we have now. I don't know about you, but if a SWAT team kicks down my door without the proper warrant, I sure as hell am not tackling the guy in the front. Frankly, I'm not even sure how that would work. What level of physical force against the police should be allowed? What level of education should you be required to have to determine whether or not a warrant is valid before you strongarm the cop out of your room?

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    So if a police officer entered your home for a patently illegal purpose, like robbing you, could one still not reasonably resist it?

    What does unlawful police entry entail? That is, what specifically is being upheld as in the interest of public order and therefor can not be resisted against in any way?

    I notice that the legal document specifically does not mention the US fourth amendment from what I read, almost implying that they were fixing some archaic English law rather then removing the protection of the US Constitution.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.
    How do you figure?
    When was the last time you remember someone physically resisting the cops and the cops getting in trouble for it?

    BARTA shooting.
    You missed the "physically resisting the cops" portion of my sentence.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    If the Tea-Party doesn't get up in arms about the Constitution being subverted, I am going to shit a brick.

    Why would you expect them to be on the side of dirty hippies? If you didn't live in such a blatantly obvious crack house the cops wouldn't have to unlawfully enter it. I mean, libertarians will be up in arms about this, sure, but the [strike]Christian Coalition[/strike] [strike]Moral Majority[/strike] [strike]Republican Base[/strike] Tea Party probably won't.

    They should is the point, since the Constitution is one of their favorite things to talk about.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    If the Tea-Party doesn't get up in arms about the Constitution being subverted, I am going to shit a brick.

    Why would you expect them to be on the side of dirty hippies? If you didn't live in such a blatantly obvious crack house the cops wouldn't have to unlawfully enter it. I mean, libertarians will be up in arms about this, sure, but the [strike]Christian Coalition[/strike] [strike]Moral Majority[/strike] [strike]Republican Base[/strike] Tea Party probably won't.

    They should is the point, since the Constitution is one of their favorite things to talk about.

    The imaginary Christiatution is one of their favorite things to talk about.

    They have no actual knowledge of the real constitution by any stretch.

    Steam.gif Galedrid - WoW.gif Benediction - bnet.gif Galedrid#1367
    Origin.png Galedrid - FFXI.png Kingshand - FFXIV.png Galedrid Kingshand
    360.png Galedrid - WiiU.gif Galedrid - 3DS.png 3222-6858-1045
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    rndmhero wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The case in the OP is really just codifying what has been the de facto law for many, many years, now.

    How do you figure?

    Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not giving police permission to enter without cause; it's just stopping you from physically preventing them from doing so. The ruling states that it is still appropriate to challenge the entry later, after which I assume any evidence gleaned would be thrown out.

    That doesn't strike me as much different than what we have now. I don't know about you, but if a SWAT team kicks down my door without the proper warrant, I sure as hell am not tackling the guy in the front. Frankly, I'm not even sure how that would work. What level of physical force against the police should be allowed? What level of education should you be required to have to determine whether or not a warrant is valid before you strongarm the cop out of your room?

    Different people respond to having their door kicked in differently. While I, personally, wouldn't shoot somebody breaking into my house, other people have. And given that there are rather strong differences in my opinion and other people on this board when it comes to gun ownership around the house it is a thing that exists, and philosophically I can't exactly find fault with somebody protecting themselves and their 'castle'.

    tea-1.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    This is nothing new, as Than pointed out. You basically never have the right to use force against an officer, period, unless they are unlawfully assaulting you. And better be sure, in that case.

    Basically, as far as your rights go in this case, you just have to make it clear before they enter that you are not consenting, and pursue legal remedies.

    I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't so much see a problem with the ruling per se; I'm actually (more ore less) in agreement that a physical altercation with the officer is probably not an acceptable remedy here. If there's a problem with the situation, it's more an issue of evidence from such an entry finding its way into court or the fact that there is no real chance that disciplinary action would ever be taken against the officers.

    Spoiler:
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is nothing new, as Than pointed out. You basically never have the right to use force against an officer, period, unless they are unlawfully assaulting you. And better be sure, in that case.

    Basically, as far as your rights go in this case, you just have to make it clear before they enter that you are not consenting, and pursue legal remedies.

    I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't so much see a problem with the ruling per se; I'm actually (more ore less) in agreement that a physical altercation with the officer is probably not an acceptable remedy here. If there's a problem with the situation, it's more an issue of evidence from such an entry finding its way into court or the fact that there is no real chance that disciplinary action would ever be taken against the officers.

    If the officer is there meaning harm to you or your family, do you then have the right to physically stop them? This is obviously not a likely scenario, but it has happened before (or at least an officer stopping someone on the road to rape/murder them).

    Step outward a bit further. If the officer attempts to enter your house without cause and without a warrant, how do you, as the one inside the house, perhaps with children, or a spouse, a frail parent, a pet that you care about, or just your own life... how do you not have the right to tell them to fuck right off and keep them away from your home, with force if necessary? You have the right to do so against any other random asshole, so why do police suddenly get the authority to violate your rights?


    All that said, this argument should boil down to "domestic dispute, we were concerned and had cause to check the house." That's not what it seems like, though.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If we lived in a society that had actual control over its police forces to an extent that we could reliably bring them to justice for blatantly illegal acts, I would be in favor of this, because it makes it easier for them to do their job.

    However, we don't. I'm not sure how I feel about it. The right to defend one's home from intruders is a pretty fundamental part of this country. I don't really see how it makes a difference if the intruder is a police officer or a burglar (or both).

    steam_sig.png
  • LorekLorek Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is nothing new, as Than pointed out. You basically never have the right to use force against an officer, period, unless they are unlawfully assaulting you. And better be sure, in that case.

    Isn't breaking into your house some kind of unlawful assault? At what point does it go from checking in on the situation to breaking and entering?

    steam_sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lorek wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is nothing new, as Than pointed out. You basically never have the right to use force against an officer, period, unless they are unlawfully assaulting you. And better be sure, in that case.
    Isn't breaking into your house some kind of unlawful assault? At what point does it go from checking in on the situation to breaking and entering?
    At the same point where it goes from cold-blooded murder to "he was just doing his job:" at the point the person isn't a cop.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Too many cops are dangerous sociopaths to give this kind of freedom to.

    In before: "Woman sued by police department after being shot several times for drawing her gun on police officers that bust into her house at 3 in the morning"

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    texas will never allow this
    people down there value their castle doctrine even more than their bbq or cattle

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is nothing new, as Than pointed out. You basically never have the right to use force against an officer, period, unless they are unlawfully assaulting you. And better be sure, in that case.

    Basically, as far as your rights go in this case, you just have to make it clear before they enter that you are not consenting, and pursue legal remedies.

    I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't so much see a problem with the ruling per se; I'm actually (more ore less) in agreement that a physical altercation with the officer is probably not an acceptable remedy here. If there's a problem with the situation, it's more an issue of evidence from such an entry finding its way into court or the fact that there is no real chance that disciplinary action would ever be taken against the officers.

    Well, this is by definition concerning unlawful entry. If they have a warrant then they have a right to be there and can justifiably arrest you for interfering with a lawful search. I'm thinking more along the lines of no-knock warrants being served on the wrong house and people responding to the break in.

    tea-1.jpg
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    texas will never allow this
    people down there value their castle doctrine even more than their bbq or cattle

    let's not go too far

    steam_sig.png
  • ShawnaseeShawnasee Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    You're talking about letting the government decide when it is and isn't ok to enter your home.

    Whether it is a lawful or unlawful entry isn't going to be decided until after the fact and some of you are ok with this?

    Chanus wrote: »

    Your wang is a better man than you.
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2011
    The only way I can see this being remotely sensical is if it's meant and interpreted similarly to how the right to not be arrested for no reason doesn't preclude resisting arrest being a crime.

    Does anybody know if senators can be tried for resisting arrest if the altercation happened while the senator in question was attempting to attend a vote?

  • EliteBattlemanEliteBattleman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I get the sense that a lot of you are okay with this.

    I don't know if I'm just a paranoid asshole, but this is the first thing I think of:

    (Image)
    Spoiler:

    This is my sig.
    There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    That's it, I'm buying a shotgun. If some asshole decides to enter my home without my permission he's going home in a body bag, police officer or not.

    But seriously, this is incredibly alarming. We have a very corrupt police force, so let's...give them more control?

    JKKaAGp.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that even Scalia and Thomas are going to tell Indiana to go fuck themselves.

    Are you willing to bet your rights on it?

    Because if it holds up at the USSC, then it hits every other state simultaneously. (Mapp v Ohio)

    Since it's the Indiana Supreme Court rather than the 7th circuit, I presume that this is a state case and not a federal one. So, as far as I understand, it cannot be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and even if it did get there eventually, the Supreme Court ruling would only be testing the Indiana law for constitutionality, not forcing other states to adopt the same.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Does anybody know if senators can be tried for resisting arrest if the altercation happened while the senator in question was attempting to attend a vote?

    All members of Congress are immune to prosecution for their official duties, because people were worried about pretty much that exact thing being abused. And they have a lot more pull than Joe Blow anyway.

    Spoiler:
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Shawnasee wrote: »
    You're talking about letting the government decide when it is and isn't ok to enter your home.

    ...do you understand what a warrant is?

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    The only way I can see this being remotely sensical is if it's meant and interpreted similarly to how the right to not be arrested for no reason doesn't preclude resisting arrest being a crime.

    Does anybody know if senators can be tried for resisting arrest if the altercation happened while the senator in question was attempting to attend a vote?

    Senator's have limited immunity in the process of discharging their duties. Like, they can't just outright murder somebody and then go offer a rider or something but it would be unlawful to arrest a Senator/Representative for jaywalking to the Capitol, say.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Lorek wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is nothing new, as Than pointed out. You basically never have the right to use force against an officer, period, unless they are unlawfully assaulting you. And better be sure, in that case.
    Isn't breaking into your house some kind of unlawful assault? At what point does it go from checking in on the situation to breaking and entering?
    At the same point where it goes from cold-blooded murder to "he was just doing his job:" at the point the person isn't a cop.

    Well the government does get a monopoly on violence, yes.

    sig.jpg
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Shawnasee wrote: »
    You're talking about letting the government decide when it is and isn't ok to enter your home.

    ...do you understand what a warrant is?

    Do you?

    JKKaAGp.png
«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.