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?
The government authorizing the entry and search of a home. Also permitting the confiscation of private property. This isn't even getting into the somewhat murkier area of probable cause.
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.
SCOTUS has authority for all cases arising under the laws of the United States. They may have to appeal to federal appeals first, but nothing says SCOTUS can't hear it if they want.
edit: and since it concerns common law no, it would apply to the entire U.S.
I.E. the new interpretation would apply to the 4th amendment, not to a specific statute in Indiana.
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.
SCOTUS has authority for all cases arising under the laws of the United States. They may have to appeal to federal appeals first, but nothing says SCOTUS can't hear it if they want.
edit: and since it concerns common law no, it would apply to the entire U.S.
I.E. the new interpretation would apply to the 4th amendment, not to a specific statute in Indiana.
If it's a question of interpreting the Indiana State constitution, then SCOTUS has no input. If it's a question of interpreting the federal constitution, then they clearly do, but I was under the impression that if it were the latter then it would already be in federal court right now, rather than state court.
edit: it's really stupid that the news article doesn't say the name of the case, but if anyone knows, it should be easy to look up the decision directly.
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?
the government deciding it has cause to enter your home?
Cause being the key word here.
If you look to the sad parent of this sad quote tree you'll see why he's wrong now I think.
The government already decides when it can enter your home without your consent.
If it's a question of interpreting the Indiana State constitution, then SCOTUS has no input. If it's a question of interpreting the federal constitution, then they clearly do, but I was under the impression that if it were the latter then it would already be in federal court right now, rather than state court.
Constitutional protections against wrongful search and seizure should still make this relevant to the SCOTUS
Now? Nobody. That's what this whole thing is about.
If they want to bust down your door, fuck you, there's nothing you can do about it. They don't need any warrant to justify it now.
Because everyone knows that it's really easy to get police convicted for overstepping their authority, or, you know, committing outright crimes. There's no double standard at all, so why worry? As soon as the officer breaks into your home, you can rest assured that the other police who show up will promptly take your side on the matter.
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.
SCOTUS has authority for all cases arising under the laws of the United States. They may have to appeal to federal appeals first, but nothing says SCOTUS can't hear it if they want.
edit: and since it concerns common law no, it would apply to the entire U.S.
I.E. the new interpretation would apply to the 4th amendment, not to a specific statute in Indiana.
If it's a question of interpreting the Indiana State constitution, then SCOTUS has no input. If it's a question of interpreting the federal constitution, then they clearly do, but I was under the impression that if it were the latter then it would already be in federal court right now, rather than state court.
edit: it's really stupid that the news article doesn't say the name of the case, but if anyone knows, it should be easy to look up the decision directly.
Just a couple points on this:
The fourth amendment applies to the states, regardless of what their constitutions say (Mapp v Ohio). State courts have the first crack at interpreting it (if the particulars of a case fall within their jurisdiction, that is), but the Supreme court has the ultimate say.
The reason this case began in state court was because the original jurisdiction was with officers of the state (i.e. the police).
As someone mentioned above, the Supreme Court can hear whatever case they please, though they do try to let things wind their way through the system. "Hearing" a case can mean that they take the case on for the sole purpose of saying that the case doesn't fall within their jurisdiction.
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
Yeah, I live in Mississippi, Fucks will get shot with a nice .45 ACP round, cop uniform or not...
Stay the fuck off my property unless your invited.
I really waffled on posting on this thread, but someone on page 2 mentioned the overall "meh" attitude, I find it incredibly alarming...
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
Yeah, I live in Mississippi, Fucks will get shot with a nice .45 ACP round, cop uniform or not...
Stay the fuck off my property unless your invited.
I really waffled on posting on this thread, but someone on page 2 mentioned the overall "meh" attitude, I find it incredibly alarming...
You can call the cops on him, hopefully. I doubt that would be effective, though, which is the problem.
If it's a question of interpreting the Indiana State constitution, then SCOTUS has no input. If it's a question of interpreting the federal constitution, then they clearly do, but I was under the impression that if it were the latter then it would already be in federal court right now, rather than state court.
State courts can interpret federal law, they can just be overturned.
It's kind of mind-blowing that a judge decided this is the precedent they wanted to set with this case instead of just citing exigent circumstances or something.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
If it's a question of interpreting the Indiana State constitution, then SCOTUS has no input. If it's a question of interpreting the federal constitution, then they clearly do, but I was under the impression that if it were the latter then it would already be in federal court right now, rather than state court.
State courts can interpret federal law, they can just be overturned.
Yeah, that was the part I didn't know (also thanks @jjbuck05 for the clarification).
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
You can still sue the shit out of the PD afterward.
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
You can still sue the shit out of the PD afterward.
For what? Not breaking the law?
EliteBattleman on
This is my sig.
There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
You can still sue the shit out of the PD afterward.
For what? Not breaking the law?
The ruling doesn't make it legal for the police to enter your house without a warrant. It makes it illegal for you to resist them when they do. You can still pursue judicial redress after the fact.
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
You can still sue the shit out of the PD afterward.
For what? Not breaking the law?
The ruling doesn't make it legal for the police to enter your house without a warrant. It makes it illegal for you to resist them when they do. You can still pursue judicial redress after the fact.
Basically, it means that you can't use extrajudicial means of prevention or recourse.
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
Yeah, I live in Mississippi, Fucks will get shot with a nice .45 ACP round, cop uniform or not...
Stay the fuck off my property unless your invited.
I really waffled on posting on this thread, but someone on page 2 mentioned the overall "meh" attitude, I find it incredibly alarming...
The thing is you can't get away with that in the urbanized population centers like Los Angeles and New York. Here in Southern California it's actually very easy for cops to trample all over you and the deck is pretty stacked against you if you want to persue criminal charges against them. If the complaint isn't "lost" in the bureaucracy it's usually shelved as a low priority case unless its fast-tracked to open court (which it usually never is), then if you actually do get a day in court the cases are often thrown out because, hey, he's a cop. Why would a cop break the law? It's a circular line of reasoning they use to justify acting like total dicks and abusing their power.
The sad thing is that the ammount of cops that do abuse their authority to justify their penis-sizes constitute a minority within all departments, but they drag down their fellow officers with their dickery. All the peace officers I've known are honestly good people, but there is a demographic of younger cops that think the badge magically turns them into Judge Dredd, and they're fighting an uphill battle not to be associated with that demographic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't some kind of search without a warrant count as an "unreasonable search"?
Let's say I'm walking down the street and some officer decides to just take my wallet from me. I'd assume that's an "unreasonable seizure".
No?
It is, but the likelyhood that a police officer would get penalized for his actions without video evidence is so low you'd be better off just not reporting it.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
seems to me that it is a terrible idea to "resist" in the manner they are describing, whether it's legal or not, when a police officer unlawfully enters your home
this is the problem with law enforcement
a cop could literally walk into your house and do almost whatever he wants, and if you try to take some kind of physical action, it is very dangerous for you even if you're in the right, legally and physically. cop could shoot you and say, oh, he was coming at me with a knife, or he could just beat the shit out of you for the same excuse, or you could get thrown in jail for assault against an officer, etc. the people working within and enforcing the system are not nearly as vulnerable to it.
god help you if you shoot a police officer whether it's legal or not, and whether it's justified or not. there's plenty of ways that cops are going to make your life fucking miserable unless that cop happened to be some unlikeable psychopath excluded from the blue fraternity.
So someone in a police uniform comes into my house uninvited in the middle of the night and I should just let him roam around my house, take my stuff, and abuse my family....because he's a cop?
You can still sue the shit out of the PD afterward.
For what? Not breaking the law?
The ruling doesn't make it legal for the police to enter your house without a warrant. It makes it illegal for you to resist them when they do. You can still pursue judicial redress after the fact.
Basically, it means that you can't use extrajudicial means of prevention or recourse.
Which means no means at all, in many cases.
The Founding Fathers clearly and obviously intended for the moral right, supplemented by legal rights that made it possible, to kill thousands if the government was consistently oppressive, so the idea that someone cannot forcibly escort a cop off his property seems fairly inconsistent with the way the Constitution was written.
Especially because cops destroy video evidence all the time, assuming it isn't a felony to make the evidence in the first place. Two party consent laws will punish people who film police abuse worse than the actual cops in many cases.
It's kind of mind-blowing that a judge decided this is the precedent they wanted to set with this case instead of just citing exigent circumstances or something.
That's what I'm wondering as well. It seems much easier than this, and much smarter. There is no way this won't be repealed or contested by someone. The amount of flagrant abuse that this opens up is horrible.
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.
yes, this
it is not overturning the 4th amendment or anything (ahem OP) though the judges didn't have to write the opinion in a way that could even be a possible interpretation
you don't have a right to resist police physically unless you are acting in self defense (i.e. they are acting unlawfully in the force they are using against you)
it doesn't matter if the arrest is lawful or not or the search is lawful or not, it's been pretty settled law for a while
you have the right to get shit suppressed and also to sue the shit out of the police dept, that's for sure
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't some kind of search without a warrant count as an "unreasonable search"?
Well, the way I've seen it explained by Cops to people at parties here in Gainesville is that if they smell marijuana, see anyone with alcohol that might be under the legal age to drink, or witness some "suspicious behavior" that is linked with certain criminal activity, they'll make the probable cause claim and demand entry to the house. Now, I was at a party where the marijuana thing happened, and the guy who owned the place managed to dissuade the officers from entering through vague legalese, so I have no idea how much police stick to that. The other times I've seen it happen generally end with cops coming in and leaving with a couple of people arrested (usually the underage drinking.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't some kind of search without a warrant count as an "unreasonable search"?
Well, the way I've seen it explained by Cops to people at parties here in Gainesville is that if they smell marijuana, see anyone with alcohol that might be under the legal age to drink, or witness some "suspicious behavior" that is linked with certain criminal activity, they'll make the probable cause claim and demand entry to the house. Now, I was at a party where the marijuana thing happened, and the guy who owned the place managed to dissuade the officers from entering through vague legalese, so I have no idea how much police stick to that. The other times I've seen it happen generally end with cops coming in and leaving with a couple of people arrested (usually the underage drinking.)
It's more that a search with a warrant is automatically 'reasonable'. Warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they meet one of a long list of exceptions. E.g., hot pursuit, imminent danger, 'no reasonable expectation of privacy, the automobile exception, and so forth.
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.
yes, this
it is not overturning the 4th amendment or anything (ahem OP) though the judges didn't have to write the opinion in a way that could even be a possible interpretation
you don't have a right to resist police physically unless you are acting in self defense (i.e. they are acting unlawfully in the force they are using against you)
it doesn't matter if the arrest is lawful or not or the search is lawful or not, it's been pretty settled law for a while
you have the right to get shit suppressed and also to sue the shit out of the police dept, that's for sure
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to use force against cops in virtually any circumstance. Them busting in your house in the middle of the night and shooting your kids might be one, or at least it was
It's kind of mind-blowing that a judge decided this is the precedent they wanted to set with this case instead of just citing exigent circumstances or something.
Yea, i was kinda shocked by that too. Especially considering this case seems like one where exigent circumstances were likely in play. I bet the defense caved on that point either on accident or by a statement of the officer at the scene.
Goumindong on
0
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
Well fuck. I guess that's another reason to get out of this state.
Maybe Vermont? I don't think anyone has told the Republicans that Vermont exists yet
Every other state right now has all of the constitution or at least until this stupidity spreads around.
It's like our state is the kid in class with lice.
We have a man as Governor that I swear has actively been trying to destroy us for years, and a huge surge in the popularity of the Tea Party. It was weird for me because as the Tea party thing started to really grow in 2009 and 2010 I was at college for a majority of it. It was unreal to come back and see how prolific the support for the Tea Party is in the South part of the state.
In a more on-topic manner, I'm still baffled by this. The ruling seems so unnecessary, considering all the other options a judge had in this case. Hell, even if one of the officers did something wrong the judge could have been "while officer McChuttlefuck was in flagrant disregard for law, in general an officer has the right to enter the house while on-call for a spousal argument if he or she feels their is a threat to the safety of either of the parties involved or any third-party in the house."
Is it unreasonable to call the United States a police state at this point? The fact that our country's incarceration rate is the highest in the world makes me question any definition of the term that doesn't include the US.
Is it unreasonable to call the United States a police state at this point? The fact that our country's incarceration rate is the highest in the world makes me question any definition of the term that doesn't include the US.
It's totally self imposed, the boomers love punishing people
Probably because the greatest generation beat their kids, i dont know
Nowhere in the decision do I see that a cop is allowed to enter your house for any or no reason. Nowhere in the 4th Amendment or the Magna Carta do I see that you are allowed to slam him against the wall if he does.
It seems to me that the decision fully acknowledges the illegality of the entry. They're just saying that it isn't illegal enough for you to get vigilante on them.
You know, like if someone saw another person painting graffiti, and punched them in the face, and the court said, "no, you can't punch him in the face," you don't then go telling everyone that the court has made graffiti legal. That isn't what the court said.
However, the problem here is that cops love to have "gotchas" to cover themselves. If they kick down your door and later realize that they totally broke the law and weren't supposed to come in, they can just claim you tried to stop them, slap a felony on you, and suddenly you've got a legal mountain to climb before you'll get a chance at justice. It is common practice for cowboys cops to go extra-legal and be a bully, all the while waiting for you slip up and commit some sort of infraction that suddenly gives them the legal upper-hand. This diddy in IN will be a nice tool for jerks like that.
This is a pretty shitty ruling. At the minimum it's way too damn broad, and at the worst it's almost a literal "fuck your Fourth Amendment right." Though less of the latter because the court never contests that the unlawful entry of an officer into your home is unlawful, rather they only deal with how you can respond to said unlawful entry.
The reasoning that the court uses here is that while previous common law allowed one to reasonably resist an unlawful arrest/entry, the times in which that would have been appropriate were dark, bad times. The King could whisk you away to a dungeon and hold you indefinitely or torture you or call your mom mean names and you had no recourse. Now, though, there's bail, a right to a speedy trial, a right to an attorney, and the ability to sue in civil courts, etc. So the court deemed that since you have all of these different recourses there should never be a need for an individual to do something like resist an illegally entering officer. 'Cause God knows the police, and our system of law in general, are absolutely devoid of any instances of impropriety.
Yeah, don't most or many states still allow you to shoot an unlawful intruder dead? How would that apply to a homeowner faced with a cop who, for better or worse, thinks he's doing his job?
Posts
the government deciding it has cause to enter your home?
The government authorizing the entry and search of a home. Also permitting the confiscation of private property. This isn't even getting into the somewhat murkier area of probable cause.
Cause being the key word here.
SCOTUS has authority for all cases arising under the laws of the United States. They may have to appeal to federal appeals first, but nothing says SCOTUS can't hear it if they want.
edit: and since it concerns common law no, it would apply to the entire U.S.
I.E. the new interpretation would apply to the 4th amendment, not to a specific statute in Indiana.
And what/who decides what constitutes sufficient cause to obtain a warrant?
If it's a question of interpreting the Indiana State constitution, then SCOTUS has no input. If it's a question of interpreting the federal constitution, then they clearly do, but I was under the impression that if it were the latter then it would already be in federal court right now, rather than state court.
edit: it's really stupid that the news article doesn't say the name of the case, but if anyone knows, it should be easy to look up the decision directly.
If you look to the sad parent of this sad quote tree you'll see why he's wrong now I think.
The government already decides when it can enter your home without your consent.
Constitutional protections against wrongful search and seizure should still make this relevant to the SCOTUS
Now? Nobody. That's what this whole thing is about.
If they want to bust down your door, fuck you, there's nothing you can do about it. They don't need any warrant to justify it now.
There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
They are talking about gaining entry to your home without a warrant. Without cause.
Do you understand context?
I am really perplexed as to why people think this is "meh"?
...Right, which is my point. The government couldn't do it before, so the original post in the quote tree is accurate.
Because everyone knows that it's really easy to get police convicted for overstepping their authority, or, you know, committing outright crimes. There's no double standard at all, so why worry? As soon as the officer breaks into your home, you can rest assured that the other police who show up will promptly take your side on the matter.
Just a couple points on this:
The fourth amendment applies to the states, regardless of what their constitutions say (Mapp v Ohio). State courts have the first crack at interpreting it (if the particulars of a case fall within their jurisdiction, that is), but the Supreme court has the ultimate say.
The reason this case began in state court was because the original jurisdiction was with officers of the state (i.e. the police).
As someone mentioned above, the Supreme Court can hear whatever case they please, though they do try to let things wind their way through the system. "Hearing" a case can mean that they take the case on for the sole purpose of saying that the case doesn't fall within their jurisdiction.
Yeah, I live in Mississippi, Fucks will get shot with a nice .45 ACP round, cop uniform or not...
Stay the fuck off my property unless your invited.
I really waffled on posting on this thread, but someone on page 2 mentioned the overall "meh" attitude, I find it incredibly alarming...
You can call the cops on him, hopefully. I doubt that would be effective, though, which is the problem.
State courts can interpret federal law, they can just be overturned.
Yeah, that was the part I didn't know (also thanks @jjbuck05 for the clarification).
You can still sue the shit out of the PD afterward.
For what? Not breaking the law?
There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
The ruling doesn't make it legal for the police to enter your house without a warrant. It makes it illegal for you to resist them when they do. You can still pursue judicial redress after the fact.
Basically, it means that you can't use extrajudicial means of prevention or recourse.
Let's say I'm walking down the street and some officer decides to just take my wallet from me. I'd assume that's an "unreasonable seizure".
No?
There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
The thing is you can't get away with that in the urbanized population centers like Los Angeles and New York. Here in Southern California it's actually very easy for cops to trample all over you and the deck is pretty stacked against you if you want to persue criminal charges against them. If the complaint isn't "lost" in the bureaucracy it's usually shelved as a low priority case unless its fast-tracked to open court (which it usually never is), then if you actually do get a day in court the cases are often thrown out because, hey, he's a cop. Why would a cop break the law? It's a circular line of reasoning they use to justify acting like total dicks and abusing their power.
The sad thing is that the ammount of cops that do abuse their authority to justify their penis-sizes constitute a minority within all departments, but they drag down their fellow officers with their dickery. All the peace officers I've known are honestly good people, but there is a demographic of younger cops that think the badge magically turns them into Judge Dredd, and they're fighting an uphill battle not to be associated with that demographic.
It is, but the likelyhood that a police officer would get penalized for his actions without video evidence is so low you'd be better off just not reporting it.
this is the problem with law enforcement
a cop could literally walk into your house and do almost whatever he wants, and if you try to take some kind of physical action, it is very dangerous for you even if you're in the right, legally and physically. cop could shoot you and say, oh, he was coming at me with a knife, or he could just beat the shit out of you for the same excuse, or you could get thrown in jail for assault against an officer, etc. the people working within and enforcing the system are not nearly as vulnerable to it.
god help you if you shoot a police officer whether it's legal or not, and whether it's justified or not. there's plenty of ways that cops are going to make your life fucking miserable unless that cop happened to be some unlikeable psychopath excluded from the blue fraternity.
Which means no means at all, in many cases.
The Founding Fathers clearly and obviously intended for the moral right, supplemented by legal rights that made it possible, to kill thousands if the government was consistently oppressive, so the idea that someone cannot forcibly escort a cop off his property seems fairly inconsistent with the way the Constitution was written.
Especially because cops destroy video evidence all the time, assuming it isn't a felony to make the evidence in the first place. Two party consent laws will punish people who film police abuse worse than the actual cops in many cases.
That's what I'm wondering as well. It seems much easier than this, and much smarter. There is no way this won't be repealed or contested by someone. The amount of flagrant abuse that this opens up is horrible.
yes, this
it is not overturning the 4th amendment or anything (ahem OP) though the judges didn't have to write the opinion in a way that could even be a possible interpretation
you don't have a right to resist police physically unless you are acting in self defense (i.e. they are acting unlawfully in the force they are using against you)
it doesn't matter if the arrest is lawful or not or the search is lawful or not, it's been pretty settled law for a while
you have the right to get shit suppressed and also to sue the shit out of the police dept, that's for sure
Well, the way I've seen it explained by Cops to people at parties here in Gainesville is that if they smell marijuana, see anyone with alcohol that might be under the legal age to drink, or witness some "suspicious behavior" that is linked with certain criminal activity, they'll make the probable cause claim and demand entry to the house. Now, I was at a party where the marijuana thing happened, and the guy who owned the place managed to dissuade the officers from entering through vague legalese, so I have no idea how much police stick to that. The other times I've seen it happen generally end with cops coming in and leaving with a couple of people arrested (usually the underage drinking.)
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
It's more that a search with a warrant is automatically 'reasonable'. Warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they meet one of a long list of exceptions. E.g., hot pursuit, imminent danger, 'no reasonable expectation of privacy, the automobile exception, and so forth.
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to use force against cops in virtually any circumstance. Them busting in your house in the middle of the night and shooting your kids might be one, or at least it was
Yea, i was kinda shocked by that too. Especially considering this case seems like one where exigent circumstances were likely in play. I bet the defense caved on that point either on accident or by a statement of the officer at the scene.
Maybe Vermont? I don't think anyone has told the Republicans that Vermont exists yet
Every other state right now has all of the constitution or at least until this stupidity spreads around.
It's like our state is the kid in class with lice.
We have a man as Governor that I swear has actively been trying to destroy us for years, and a huge surge in the popularity of the Tea Party. It was weird for me because as the Tea party thing started to really grow in 2009 and 2010 I was at college for a majority of it. It was unreal to come back and see how prolific the support for the Tea Party is in the South part of the state.
In a more on-topic manner, I'm still baffled by this. The ruling seems so unnecessary, considering all the other options a judge had in this case. Hell, even if one of the officers did something wrong the judge could have been "while officer McChuttlefuck was in flagrant disregard for law, in general an officer has the right to enter the house while on-call for a spousal argument if he or she feels their is a threat to the safety of either of the parties involved or any third-party in the house."
It's totally self imposed, the boomers love punishing people
Probably because the greatest generation beat their kids, i dont know
Nowhere in the decision do I see that a cop is allowed to enter your house for any or no reason. Nowhere in the 4th Amendment or the Magna Carta do I see that you are allowed to slam him against the wall if he does.
It seems to me that the decision fully acknowledges the illegality of the entry. They're just saying that it isn't illegal enough for you to get vigilante on them.
You know, like if someone saw another person painting graffiti, and punched them in the face, and the court said, "no, you can't punch him in the face," you don't then go telling everyone that the court has made graffiti legal. That isn't what the court said.
However, the problem here is that cops love to have "gotchas" to cover themselves. If they kick down your door and later realize that they totally broke the law and weren't supposed to come in, they can just claim you tried to stop them, slap a felony on you, and suddenly you've got a legal mountain to climb before you'll get a chance at justice. It is common practice for cowboys cops to go extra-legal and be a bully, all the while waiting for you slip up and commit some sort of infraction that suddenly gives them the legal upper-hand. This diddy in IN will be a nice tool for jerks like that.
Full decision (and two dissents) can be found here (link directly to in.gov PDF): http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
This is a pretty shitty ruling. At the minimum it's way too damn broad, and at the worst it's almost a literal "fuck your Fourth Amendment right." Though less of the latter because the court never contests that the unlawful entry of an officer into your home is unlawful, rather they only deal with how you can respond to said unlawful entry.
The reasoning that the court uses here is that while previous common law allowed one to reasonably resist an unlawful arrest/entry, the times in which that would have been appropriate were dark, bad times. The King could whisk you away to a dungeon and hold you indefinitely or torture you or call your mom mean names and you had no recourse. Now, though, there's bail, a right to a speedy trial, a right to an attorney, and the ability to sue in civil courts, etc. So the court deemed that since you have all of these different recourses there should never be a need for an individual to do something like resist an illegally entering officer. 'Cause God knows the police, and our system of law in general, are absolutely devoid of any instances of impropriety.