The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
4th Amendment now Void in Indiana
Taramoor
StorytellerRegistered User regular
StorytellerRegistered User regular
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
Allow me to reiterate:
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.
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
0
Posts
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.
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)
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
Even if Scalia and Thomas uphold it who cares, its not like the others will.
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.
Also this sorta thing can be appealed.
How do you figure?
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/
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.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
BARTA shooting.
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?
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.
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.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
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'.
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.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
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).
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?
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"
people down there value their castle doctrine even more than their bbq or cattle
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.
let's not go too far
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?
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?
I don't know if I'm just a paranoid asshole, but this is the first thing I think of:
(Image)
There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
But seriously, this is incredibly alarming. We have a very corrupt police force, so let's...give them more control?
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.
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.
...do you understand what a warrant is?
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.
Well the government does get a monopoly on violence, yes.
Do you?