Fourth Amendment to Constitution eliminated in Indiana

[Andy A]

There is no "modern fourth amendment jurisprudence", IMO. You either accept the Constitution as written or amend it accoringly in the manner set forth by law. This is one of the things that irks me about our jurists. They can't read and understand the English language. They are only able to interpret it...badly.

 

[scooterbug44]

I still think the case is a crock - IMO the officers were legally allowed to enter the house.

 

[futurebeachbum]

I still think the case is a crock - IMO the officers were legally allowed to enter the house.

Actually, they didn't. Once they arrived and determined that there was no domestic violence, only a domestic dispute, they didn't have probable cause to enter the home. The last time I checked, domestic disputes are legal.

Meanwhile, last month SCOTUS dealt the Fourth Amendment another blow (death by a thousand cuts seems like the appropriate phrase.)

Its covered many places, including here in "Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment ruling gives police too much discretion".

Effectively, if the Police knock and identify themselves then they can come on in. All they have to do is say that they feared that evidence was being destroyed.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling fragments the force of the Fourth Amendment. The ruling leaves the Constitution's protection against warrantless searches as a symbolic right, easily sidestepped in practice by police.
...
The Fourth Amendment once emphasized the right to the security of one's home. The U.S. Supreme Court now confirms that police who smell drugs, knock loudly and listen may find the circumstances necessary to enter a home before obtaining a warrant.
...
Rather than placing more pressure on police to stay in line with the Constitution, the court places the weight of proving constitutional rights on citizens.

That does not translate well for poorer communities, where mistrust of police is high. People in these communities may not find the sound of the police knocking on their door to be the inviting call the Supreme Court majority described.
...
In a solo dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rightly recognized the danger of allowing the Fourth Amendment to crumble to police discretion. Requiring police to acquire a warrant should be the rule, not the exception.

I expect this behavior out of the more liberal jurists (although thankfully not from Justice Ginsburg in this case), but I can't understand what the so-called conservative Justices on the Court were thinking. Maybe someone should have knocked, ID'd themselves as cops and entered their offices to see what the heck they were smoking during the deliberations.