Fourth Amendment to Constitution eliminated in Indiana

[futurebeachbum]

The story is here: Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Short version: You cannot resist an illegal invasion of your home by anyone who might be a member of law enforcement.

Reminder: Here's what the Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

Some info from the story:

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."

Interesting concept "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence". This sounds like doublespeak for it doesn't apply in modern times. I suppose that the Founders never envisioned this Amendment as protecting the citizenry from the government. After all, they'd never really experienced mistreatment at the hands of a government.

I hope that the voters of Indiana have a mechanism for removing Justices from the state court. I also hope that this doesn't survive a challenge in federal court.

 

[scooterbug44]

Completely wrong IMO.

That is why we have warrants............and rules about police being allowed to enter w/o permission in an emergency.

 

[LuciferSam]

Completely wrong IMO.

That is why we have warrants............and rules about police being allowed to enter w/o permission in an emergency.

There will always be that rogue cop who oversteps his bounds and tries to circumvent the legal process. I think the Indiana law is saying that when this happens, you don't have the right to [try to] knock the crap out of the police officer. In practice, submitting to the illegal search and and then letting the courts sort it out later is probably the best move. I don't think the ruling is trying to make warrantless searches legal. I think it is just saying that if a policeman insists on it, you need to stand back.

 

[30ashopper]

There will always be that rogue cop who oversteps his bounds and tries to circumvent the legal process. I think the Indiana law is saying that when this happens, you don't have the right to knock the crap out of the police officer. In practice, submitting to the illegal search and and then letting the courts sort it out later is probably the best move. I don't think the ruling is trying to make warrantless searches legal. I think it is just saying that if a policeman insists on it, you need to stand back.

That's the same way I interpreted it based on the description of what happened. But it seems the guy, despite being the stupidest human in Indiana, may have a good Supreme Court case.

http://volokh.com/2011/05/13/no-rig...unlawful-indiana-supreme-court-holds/?amp&amp

 

[scooterbug44]

You never have the right to assault a police officer.

Here's my question - this was a domestic violence call, the wife was in in the home, and she repeatedly stated that she wanted the officers to enter the home. Therefore, didn't they have the legal right to do so?

 

[wrobert]

This is no different, imho, than resisting an unlawful arrest. You can always do so without violence, but do so with violence and you are in trouble, if you do not get the crap beat out of you.

 

[futurebeachbum]

So, in Indiana all someone has to do is tell you that they are a police officer as they break into your home. (Especially since the ruling placed no burden of identification or circumstance on the officers.) If they really are cops and you resist you are probably in trouble. If they aren't and you don't stop them from breaking into your home then you are probably in trouble as well. Hmmm? Sounds like it should be a pretty straightforward situation to sort out....

 

[LuciferSam]

So, in Indiana all someone has to do is tell you that they are a police officer as they break into your home. (Especially since the ruling placed no burden of identification or circumstance on the officers.) If they really are cops and you resist you are probably in trouble. If they aren't and you don't stop them from breaking into your home then you are probably in trouble as well. Hmmm? Sounds like it should be a pretty straightforward situation to sort out....

That's not so much of a fourth amendment issue. That's more about the possibility that somebody is impersonating an officer. First thing I would do get on the phone and call the police.

 

[idlewind]

I guess the Indiana Supreme Court is smarter than 700 years worth of courts who ruled the opposite way.

 

[Bob Wells]

Venture to guess that there will be plenty of law suits and possibly a death or two, although I hope not, that will make the Republican legislature to change that ruling.