Goodbye Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution

[Cold_Zero]

So much for our Fourth Amendment rights in Indiana. With a ruling like this gettingbrid of the Fourth Amendment and Section 11 of our State Constitution can't be far behind.

News Article:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... 1105130380

Opinion:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pd ... 005pdm.pdf

And this is where it goes horribly wrong. You give an inch and officials take a mile.
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead- ... -will.html

he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal

No you wont be welcomed by the people you are charged to serve and protect. You might be out of touch with the county you live in, Sheriff.

[stebo0728]

Ugh, what kinda crap is that? And from the first link, what the hell does "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" even mean?!? IB, explain?

They very plainly state, and then proceed to ignore the word "illegal".

And again how are we supposed to know that someone entering our home without cause is in fact law enforcement?

Thats chock full of stinky stuff, lets hope Appellate Court does its job.

[Cold_Zero]

State Legislatorss have already said they will take on the issue. While this is not the most preferable method to deal with the situation (not having this ruling in the first place would be much better) at least we will have some recourse.

[AppleBonker]

Well, they're free to try to get into my residence. Simple fact is, law enforcement or not, if you enter my home without a warrant you should be prepared to be fired upon. I'll go to jail for it if needed.

[AppleBonker]

Additionally, I should point out I'm not terribly concerned about law enforcement illegally entering my house as they wouldn't be able to use any of that in court and I should be able to find recourse through the legal system. What concerns me is a random dude in a stolen uniform trying to enter my house.

[Cold_Zero]

Isnt Crown Point up near you? I am concerned that a Sheriff thinks this gives his department free license to random searches. I think the head of IMPD has a lot more to worry about than conducting illegal (random) searches in Indianapolis.

[AppleBonker]

Yeah, Crown Point is near me. I know a few people that live there as well. And I understand the point they are trying to make: keeping violence from being directed at officers. However, this is stepping on the rights of the citizens. What's weird is that it doesn't help the officers either. What do they gain? Anything obtained during an illegal search/seizure will be thrown out in court.

[Cold_Zero]

I would wager to say that violence towards law enforcement officials is much more prevalent in other aspects of everyday life (traffic stops, chasing criminals), so I don’t see the corollary between preventing people from resisting illegal searches and seizures and cutting down on violence towards law enforcement. I tend to look at it in a simplistic view. If I kick down your door and threaten your family, you would resist my efforts. Why then would it be any different if an agent of the local, state or Federal government did the same thing (without a warrant)?
I know, I know, this has to happen very seldom. But I think it sets a bad precedence. Especially in a day in age where officers don’t make the right decisions to live their lives above reproach (driving drunk/killing motorcyclists, robbing people at gun point, beating their wives and dealing drugs.) Yeah I am talking about actual cases in this state. I think it sends the wrong message and could be construed by some folks that you don’t have a right to defend yourself (at all) in your home.

[IBCoupe]

That's interesting. The Supreme Court ruled just this week, too, that cops don't need a warrant in drug cases if they think evidence is going to be destroyed. Lone dissent was Justice Ginsburg, who said the cops have plenty of time to get a warrant before they go up to the door and hear the destruction of evidence prompted by their arrival.

The Indiana ruling is pretty nifty; it tickles my brain-folds. The Fourth Amendment (incorporated to the State level) doesn't say you have the right to prevent police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. It says that the police aren't allowed to conduct them, and, presumably, the Courts are the proper check on that power. Any evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment gets thrown out, anyways, so I don't think this is really such a big deal. You do not have the right to interfere with police while they do their thing. That seems like a pretty decent rule.

If the police are doing something wrong, the thing you shouldn't do is confront them at the scene. It undermines them (when they might actually be in the right without you knowing it) individually and as an institution. Seems kinda crazy to think it's okay to do anything otherwise.

[R/T Hemi]

It's pretty well settled, at least in California, that you'll never win a constitutional argument with a cop. Right or wrong, they have the authority of the law on their side. You must comply and argue your case before a judge, where reason and ration resides. Besides that, resisting the lawful authority of a peace officer, even if it's applied incorrectly, albeit in good faith, is a ticket to the uncarpeted Hilton.

[AppleBonker]

Isaac, how do you feel about criminals disguised as cops executing an unlawful search? In Indiana you can no longer resist them. I'm sure the correct method would be to take the criminals to court, but that would then require finding them. That is my major concern with this law.

[Cold_Zero]

finding them.. or if you are dead.

Not to get into a 'what if' session...
So if a cop comes into your and does something grossly illegal. To threaten you or your family, you do not have the right to defend yourself? Just let the guy kill, rape or plunder and then take it to a judge?

[IBCoupe]

Isaac, how do you feel about criminals disguised as cops executing an unlawful search? In Indiana you can no longer resist them. I'm sure the correct method would be to take the criminals to court, but that would then require finding them. That is my major concern with this law.

In that case, if you suspected they weren't really cops, why wouldn't you just call the cops?

[Cold_Zero]

Wouldnt that be resisting? J.K

[IBCoupe]

finding them.. or if you are dead.

Not to get into a 'what if' session...
So if a cop comes into your and does something grossly illegal. To threaten you or your family, you do not have the right to defend yourself? Just let the guy kill, rape or plunder and then take it to a judge?

I think you guys are going beyond what the case actually entailed here. If the cop is going in and threatening you and your family with bodily harm - acting in a manner that a cop normally doesn't - I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor willing to go after you in the case that you defend yourself against those threats.

What's more likely is that, in Indiana, you can't stop a cop from arresting you in your home, even if you're darned sure that they don't have a warrant. From the article:

"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."

In these situations, you're going to be arrested. It's a foregone conclusion. Maybe that arrest will unfold to be unlawful, but you don't have an affirmative right to resist arrest because you think the arrest is unlawful. There are avenues of recourse available to you.

[Cold_Zero]

And I would imagine if the department does this too many times, it will be investigated by the DoJ.

I do find it ironic that your pat answer is to get a lawyer. Starting out early, eh? j.k.

[IBCoupe]

Haha. They train it in you quick.

Bob Woodward gave a speech at UConn Law a few weeks ago, and when the wife of a high ranking Nixon White House official offered, after the official had died, to give him access to secret tapes that she'd kept all these years, he said, "Well, what do you think I did?"

Someone in the audience shouted, "Called your lawyer!"

And then he continued his story, "When the lawyer said it was okay..."

[stebo0728]

Theres idealism, and then theres realism. Idealistically I'm with Cold and Apple here, the 5-0's shouldnt have free reign to barge in anytime they like, legitimate or not, and that should be upheld. Realistically I'm with IB, pick your battles, if the cops are doing legitimate police work, even if without a warrant, dont choose to stand ground there or you might not survive. Fight it out later. If they are doing illegitimate things, they arent operating under the confines of their duty, and should be met with resistance equal to the threat they are posing.

[IBCoupe]

Now I remember why I liked you, Stebo.

[Cold_Zero]

Apparently, in this state (or so State Legislators and attorneys are keen to point out) that you have the right to resist unlawful arrest in this state.
So you may think that Applebonker and I are off our rockers, but I think some of this line of thinking may come from certain expectations. Like that of Castle Doctrine, which is a view not always embraced on either coasts.

[IBCoupe]

Connecticut embraces the castle doctrine, except in the case that you're being attacked by someone else who resides in the castle with you. I'm not sure which states don't, but I'm not sure that it's a coastal thing.

[IBCoupe]

Checking Wikipedia, there appear to be no states that explicitly reject the castle doctrine. Many states place conditions on it (you may not have been the instigator). There are a number of states that don't explicitly protect it, but instead rely on common law, and that doesn't break down neatly between red and blue states at all.

It's something we brought over from England, so it exists pretty much everywhere.

[Cold_Zero]

I never implied it was a red or blue state issue.. There are certain blue states that are good on 2nd Amendment rights. But you are right, it is something that doesnt come down (conveniently) as being a blue or red state issue. Which is one of the reasons why I like the NRA. They dont bow to the alter of Republicans and have supported Democrat candidates because of their past voting records on such issues.