Indiana Supreme Court stomps on the 4th Amendment

@dragon54u (31636)
United States
May 16, 2011 1:52pm CST
So now you're not allowed to resist if a police officer enters your home, invited or not. Says the ruling in part: "a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 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." Essentially, "A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with the officer's entry." You can see the entire op-ed at http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/indiana-supreme-court-citizens-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry This is pretty scary stuff. Just because it's only in one state is no reason not to be alarmed. It might be your state next! And it was approved by Mitch Daniels, a presidential hopeful--things just keep getting worse and worse in elections, we can't even get a good candidate that will uphold the constitution.
3 people like this
13 responses
@yoyo1198 (3643)
• United States
16 May 11
I think Mitch is looking toward becoming president. This isn't the first thing he's brought down the tube. I moved from Indiana about 3 years ago and am now glad of it. Probably there is more to come.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
16 May 11
He won't get my vote, not after pulling this stunt. Herman Cain for president!
@yoyo1198 (3643)
• United States
16 May 11
I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm one of those Independents that the candidates spend so much time trying to court. Probably won't make up my mind til a month before the election date.
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
17 May 11
I LIKE CAIN, TOO! Let's see if he & Thomas Sowell could team up for a really solid ticket! And just let them try to play that frazzled old race card, then! Bring it, you Leftist liars! At least Trump & Huckabee had the sense to bow out. Now if we can just get Gingrich to show the same sense! Maggiepie “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep & bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
17 May 11
WTF? This is too ridiculous for words. There's got to be more to the story. Can 3 judges really be this stupid? I'd like to see a link to the full ruling.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
17 May 11
I have read this in several papers. It is in fact fact. Indiana is down the tubes.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
18 May 11
I would have liked to read the ruling, too, but have not been able to find it. However, I looked at several sources to verify the story's legitimacy before starting the discussion. I see today that there are people gearing up to protest the ruling so perhaps it won't stand. I hope not.
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
18 May 11
Taskr36 was kind enough to post the link to the ruling in the 10th response to this discussion. I've just now read it and it's both appalling and astonishing. Justice Rucker in his dissent is quite passionate and clearly upset by the ruling, as is Justice Dickson so there are 2 at least who know and honor the constitution and may be of help in fighting this abhorrent travesty of justice.
@GreenMoo (11842)
17 May 11
that certainly sounds scary, and what I would call the thin end of the wedge.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
17 May 11
It is setting a precedent
1 person likes this
@GreenMoo (11842)
18 May 11
Exactly Adoniah.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
18 May 11
Yes, and once that precedent is set it can be used to build on the theft of our God given rights. Luckily, people are getting wind of this travesty and there will be challenges to the ruling.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
17 May 11
Well I hope that this ruling gets Appealed as well you can't get much clearer than the Constitutional Stance on this and well I am already voting for someone who has so far stood by the Constitution when his party has gone and violated the whole thing leaving very little in the way of constitutionality in any of it. Oh and here is the 4th Amendment as it reads. 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. Hence why when a Police shows up to my house I close the door behind me and then talk with the police officers making sure to keep and use my 4th Amendment. Well Mitch Daniels isn't getting my vote period we can't have a President that is either a Party Shill or a Constitutionally Uneducated dim wit. Ron Paul 2012!
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
17 May 11
I think the 4th amendment is very, very clear and there is no wiggle room. I don't see how anyone can understand it differently. I was thinking of voting for Daniels if he was nominated but I don't want to now. However, if it means saving us from 4 more Obama years I will hold my nose and do so because Obama has violated more constitutional rights than Daniels ever will--we hope! Personally, I would like to be able to vote for Herman Cain or Ron Paul and have that vote count. But unless you vote for the nominee, your vote effectively is one for Obama. It's too bad we have such a screwed up voting system.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
18 May 11
Well I will have to disagree on that one my vote would be for neither Obama or the Nominee if it isn't someone I want in office I won't waste my vote on them period.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
18 May 11
I used to think that way, too. And I still would prefer to cast my vote to a candidate that I think is truly deserving of it. But this next election is so important that I can't afford to give my vote to someone who has no chance of winning. Third parties don't win presidential races, they only suck votes away from the other two front-runners, usually the conservative. But good luck! I surely hope we get a president that will uphold and honor our constitution, a presidential trait that has been missing for more than a dozen years.
@owlwings (39611)
• Cambridge, England
16 May 11
The Constitution, however, gives you the right to "to keep and bear Arms" and was formulated "out of Antifederalists' fears about the oppressive potential of a central government protected by a standing army." ( http://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-bear-arms#ixzz1MXmdoLp0 ) If a police force is not in the nature of a 'standing army', then I'd like to know what else it could be described as. A State Government is, of course, as 'central' to the State as a Federal Government is to the whole country. In my country, police need a search warrant or a court order to enter someone's property without authorisation and woe betide them if they don't have one or the other!
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
16 May 11
In my country the police need a search warrant or court order to enter someone's property, too, unless they are invited in. Now Indiana has pretty much negated that right and protection for the citizens. The Antifederalists' worse fears are coming true, our government is becoming more oppressive and our rights are being eroded.
@owlwings (39611)
• Cambridge, England
16 May 11
I looked up your 4th Amendment and it is much the same as the law here (in fact it was probably inherited from British law dating back to the 13th Century). I see that a citizen still has the right to protest but only after the alleged trespass.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
17 May 11
owlwings The second amendment traces it roots back to England in about the 600. A kind declaired that every father was REQUIRED to teach his sons to use a bow and arrow so that they can defend the Kingdom(country). This was to be done once the son reached age 7.
@savypat (20246)
• United States
18 May 11
I'd be surprised if some group doesn't jump on this right away. Sounds like a good thing to take up the court system. Maybe all the way to the surprime court.
@savypat (20246)
• United States
18 May 11
I mean the court in DC
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
18 May 11
I read about an hour ago that the TEA party is going to challenge it. I suspect a lot of others will jump on board. I don't think anyone should have the right to physically assault an officer of the law but our homes should be sacred and only entered with a warrant unless someone's life is in immediate danger.
@stephcjh (32327)
• United States
17 May 11
Wow. Are you serious? I have not heard anything about this until now. I live in Indiana and I do not think that is right at all.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
17 May 11
I'm serious as a heart attack. There were numerous sources, I checked it out before I decided to spread the word. Tell your friends and neighbors, people at work, everyone that you can--you can't let this go unchallenged or soon the entire country will be a police state. Please call your Congressman and register your protest at this violation of your constitutional rights.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
17 May 11
Just to help you out, here is the official court ruling from the indiana.gov website. I know this ruling is so offensive it's hard to believe, but it really happened. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
17 May 11
What we need to do is reign in the court system. This ruling is a judges opinion of how to protect the police. The problem is that that the judge ruled not based on what the law said but what he wanted it to be.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
17 May 11
The real problem here is that the police are making so many mistakes that they need to be protected from this. They get addresses wrong and go busting down the wrong doors...More and more citizens are armed because their neighborhoods are becoming dangerous and they are not being protected because the cops do not want to go into them. So when they get it wrong, their lives are endangered. Instead of fixing the crime problems, the judges decide to lay in on the good citizens and take away their rights and endanger them...Makes sense to me...we always lose.
1 person likes this
@bunnybon7 (37166)
• Holiday, Florida
16 May 11
and yet the president wants to sue Arizona for something much less threatening to citizens? geesh. Big Brother just keeps getting bigger. thats the end times coming. for sure. we have no good candidates any more for anything it seems. only the rich and powerful can apply any more and most have no heart. just a lust for more power and riches.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
16 May 11
I'm going to keep following this story and see how the citizens react. Surely the TEA party people there will take up the cause for constitutional rights. If not, it will spread and we are sunk.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
16 May 11
Yup, not a word from the president on this because he's made it clear he opposes the 4th amendment every time people complain about the government violating it.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
17 May 11
If someone does not do something about this really fast, it is going to set a precedent and spread from state to state like wild fire. Indiana is like France...it is wishy washy. It will not stand up for its states rights. Our Constitution is in rags!!!!!!!!!!!!
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
18 May 11
Not quite, Adoniah! I read this morning that there are groups gearing up to challenge the ruling, and that's good news. I was very discouraged yesterday when I did not see any news items citing protests or challenges. I did, though, find an article about another state that had the same ruling but I can't remember which one it was and can't find it this morning. However, the fact that one state successfully made such a ruling means we'd all better be on watch--it's spreading, as evidenced by this news item I cited. I'd not heard of it prior to yesterday so I have to assume that it was done with minimal publicity or public scrutiny and that in itself is dangerous and alarming.
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
17 May 11
Polish up yer pistols, & keep yer powder dry. They are forcing us into a revolution, by blocking off all legal means of objecting to their high-handed, unconstitutional dirty deeds! Not a day goes by now that we don't see another freedom fall. In certain cases, not even an hour! Maggiepie “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep & bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
17 May 11
My sentiments exactly. Which is why I brought this up in a public forum--if we don't get busy and fight these things in the courts now, we'll have no other option than violence or capitulation in the future. I'd much rather do court battle now than actual battle later. I've written to my representatives, the letters went in the mail yesterday. If everyone does the same, perhaps we can head this off before it spreads.
@Rollo1 (16686)
• Boston, Massachusetts
16 May 11
Scary stuff indeed. They passed a similar law in Massachusetts during the swine flu hypermedia scare. The idea being that police could forcefully remove infected people who might pose a danger to others by reason of being infected. That to me was pretty apocalyptic. Of course, they didn't manage to turn the swine flu into a pandemic even though they tried hard to whip up hysteria about it. We must not forget that non-crisis because the next available crisis is all they are looking for to help them strip citizens of all their rights. We seem to move closer to a police state every day. One where average citizens will be powerless but illegal immigrants will be able to vote and the only rights anyone gets will be those the government allows, at its discretion. Scary stuff.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
16 May 11
I didn't know about the MA law but I'm not surprised. They were trying to get everyone in a panic so they could exert more control but luckily, it didn't work very well. Plus, they were really pushing that vaccine. I know I sound paranoid, but I wonder what was in it that they were so insistent that every need it? Yep, police state is on its way unless some drastic measures are taken. I hope we can do it through the ballot box, peacefully.
@KrauseHome (35522)
• United States
6 Jun 11
Wow!! Not sure this is a Good thing for sure, and could be the right for more Police brutality to continue to happen especially for Police who might be a little prejudice or have a grudge against certain type of people as well. I would also think this would increase the chances of someone retaliating later against the Police force as well. Personally I think there are a lot of times Policemen should be more vigilent but to allow something like this just does not seem right.