What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay

from the thanks-Indiana-supreme-court dept

We've been covering a large number of situations and legal rulings lately that appear to suggest that the 4th Amendment is pretty much null and void for much of the US. With the news of a bad Supreme Court ruling concerning the ability of police to invade a home without a warrant, so long as they create circumstances that make it seem urgent, we're pointed to an even more ridiculous ruling in the Indiana Supreme Court that effectively legalizes the ability of law enforcement to enter any home without a warrant. Why? The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:
"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."
In other words, the gradual (and, at times, not so gradual) destruction of the 4th Amendment is used to destroy it even more.

It appears that law enforcement in Indiana is wasting no time in recognizing the power this gives them. Radley Balko points us to the news that one Indiana Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., from Newton County, has now stated that it's legal to conduct house-to-house warrantless searches (see update below). According to him, everyone should be fine with such an invasion of privacy, because it means they can catch criminals:
According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, 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.
It's as if they don't care that they're making a total mockery of the 4th Amendment and its important history.

Update: The sheriff in question has put out a statement contradicting the original story:
On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station. Her question concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random warrantless searches. I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she then asked how the Sheriff’s Office conducted searches of residences. I informed her that searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot pursuit. When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch. This reporter then asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights. This State Supreme Court ruling in my opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will be revisited.

When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee. I advised her that if people were aware of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission.

This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search without due cause. Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.

I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.
At this point it's the reporter's word against the sheriff's. It does seem odd that the reporter does not directly quote the sheriff, but does state that he "emphatically" said he would use such house-to-house searches...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    rw (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 8:28am

    WWII Germany?

    The Gestapo absolutely loved doing this. Why would anyone want to stop it. They might find a bootleg CD or DVD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 8:56am

    .....what?

    "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

    I love this concept. We took a shit before, so now we're enacting a law to make sure you have the smell wafted directly into your noses. What else can we do?

    This is getting ridiculous....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:22am

    What's next?

    Cameras in everyone's house would also help capture criminals. I'm sure citizens will welcome that, too.

    /sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:26am

    Re: .....what?

    This is getting ridiculous....

    This is getting worse than ridiculous - it's getting downright terrifying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    A.R.M. (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:26am

    As one who resides in Indiana...

    "It's as if they don't care..."
    No offense to the reporting of Techdirt, but this "didn't care" attitude started with those who actually reside in the state.

    I gave up years ago at trying to correct the issues the Indiana government has.

    I truly believe it's corrupt and this recent Constitutional bill passing clearly shows this.

    Remember, this is the same state which has a right to sell off its impounded goods based on trumped-up laws.

    The ruling for the law isn't a surprise.

    Neither will be the temporary infusion of rights defenders to sue the state... at our expense.

    Damned if we..., no, we're just damned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:26am

    Minor Nitpick

    Why? The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:

    Not technically accurate. Any fruits of an illegal search would still be (in a non-insane world like ours) inadmissible in court.

    The decision "only" said that the serfs can't resist during the time period that their rights are being violated, and must submit for their own safety in the face of any expected police brutality that is sure to come. Later, when the threat of being beaten to death by a police officer is no longer present, they can spend their life savings on a lawyer to bring a complaint forward against the officers that will then be heard and decided on by the friends of said police officers.

    But technically, officers still require a warrant if they want to use what they find in court. If they just want to keep any loot for themselves through civil forfeiture ("Can you prove that you didn't buy your wife these earrings with drug money? No? Great! Now I don't have to shop for an anniversary present!"), presumably that's okay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Mark, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:27am

    Re: .....what?

    Not to disagree with your main point that this is bad, however, technically they didn't enact any laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    DCX2, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    The outcry will likely be small

    I'm sure that these warrantless house-to-house searches will be largely focused in poor communities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:33am

    Re: WWII Germany?

    speaking of Gestapo...

    I'm absolutely sure the Tea Party/small government crowd will be rising up in abject horror at this shortly.

    tap tap tap....Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:35am

    Wow.. I'm dumbfounded. I'm not even sure where to begin much less end. Normally I would take a wait and see and hope the SCOTUS would knock it down faster then lightning strikes, but considering this move is in reply to the recent ruling.

    *sigh* once they put it in action, and other states see it going through unchecked I fear the practice will spread.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    DCX2, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Re: Minor Nitpick

    Any fruits of an illegal search would still be (in a non-insane world like ours) inadmissible in court.

    I doubt it. They'll unlawfully enter the premises based on the exigent circumstances created by knocking on the door.

    Later, when the threat of being beaten to death by a police officer is no longer present, they can spend their life savings on a lawyer to bring a complaint forward against the officers that will then be heard and decided on by the friends of said police officers.

    Some of your post includes a bit of excessive rhetoric...but this part is spot on. Your only hope would be to appeal the ruling and spend more of your life savings to get before a judge that is not friends with the officers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:39am

    I don't particularly like that Indiana Supreme Court ruling, but saying it "effectively legalizes the ability of law enforcement to enter any home without a warrant" is just a blatant misrepresentation.

    The only issue was whether the homeowner had a right to physically resist such illegal entry, not whether the entry was legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:40am

    As a current Hoosier (well, boilermaker, but still...)

    As a current resident of this state, I can easily say that there is absolutely no common sense in our state government. None. Zilch. Nada. That is why I believe our governor has a halfway decent chance at entering the presidential election...which genuinely scares me.

    Fortunately, as far as police go, the Sheriff you quoted is on the low end of the spectrum as far as average intelligence goes. At least in the parts of the state that I've been in (which, admittedly, do not go much further south than Indianapolis), the cops have been generally well-mannered and intelligent.

    Please excuse me now while I try to find a decent place to move to after graduation. I hear Antarctica is relatively nice, if you can live with cold...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: WWII Germany?

    I would, but I don't consider this at all surprising. I think we'll need a revolution to sort all this out; maybe it will come sooner than I'd expected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    ...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.

    Good screaming christ...

    I guess he'll think so until his officers are killed doing this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    DCL, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    Re:

    In a world where you are not allowed to physically resist a search (illegal or not) then you might as well give the police keys to your front door since a physical barrier like a door or window means nothing.

    Scary!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    DCL, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    Re:

    In a world where you are not allowed to physically resist a search (illegal or not) then you might as well give the police keys to your front door since a physical barrier like a door or window means nothing.

    Scary!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    Hrm....I've received a few calls recently from US companies asking me to interview with them. I think I shall just pass and keep looking here in Canada.

    Land of the free??? Not so much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Comboman (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    Indian?

    news that one Indian Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., from Newton County
    Is Don Hartman a Native American? or from India? I believe Hoosier is the correct term for someone from Indiana.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Minor Nitpick

    They'll unlawfully enter the premises based on the exigent circumstances created by knocking on the door.

    Using exigent circumstances to enter is not unlawful, of course, even it it might be wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:53am

    Re:

    It is every citizens duty to resist that which is unjust.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Grammar Police, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:54am

    Typo

    "Indian Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: .....what?

    True. They repealed an amendment, which is much worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Re: Indian?

    Don't be foolish. He obviously just missed the trailing 'a'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarian, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:57am

    3rd amendment next?

    At this rate I suppose i should fix up my basement for when they start quartering soldiers in my home...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Vincent Clement (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: .....what?

    The terrifying part is that most American's don't care.

    Congratulations America, you officially suck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re:

    Careful there, you might be declared a "lone wolf" "homegrown" terrorist for that sort of talk.

    Also, quoting Thomas Jefferson can get you classified as a terrorist...


    Anybody know of a nice English speaking country which is friendly towards American emigrants/immigrants?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    I wonder if hearing a weapon being loaded is exigent. If they bust down your door and you weren't doing anything wrong for them to enter, who's fear of mortal safety is more legal?
    Once again a parinoid schitzophrenic police officer can go anywhere and shoot anything legally. Only other person that can go anywhere like that is someone on fire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Rich, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    Re: Indian?

    If I were from Indiana, I would be insulted if some idiot called me a "Hoosier."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    so a cop wife is in the home of here boy friend
    Hmmmmm that will be fun to see

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re:

    AKA: the Second Amendment. Oh, I need to get my butt in gear and exercise that right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    Someone's going to end up getting shot when a homeowner defends his property. An officer, a resident, or maybe both.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    Re: 3rd amendment next?

    Too true. Eventually they are going to run out of really sexy amendments to tear down, and are going to have to start looking at tearing down some of the less-sexy ones too.

    "These men risked their lives for freedom; are you really going to deny them room and board for a couple months while they get back on their feet?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    HrilL, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Wonder if this qualifies us for asylum in a European nation

    Clearly this allows us to show fear of our own nation and government. The Police state is now officially upon us =/...
    Only problem is I doubt the Europeans would let us get away with the claim. I hate our government more and more every day it seems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    dev, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:10am

    dangerous

    “Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.” -Ronald Reagan

    and that's coming from a republican

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:10am

    A modest proposal?

    Wait, you mean that isn't satire?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous American, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:10am

    Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: WWII Germany?

    The Tea Party member are basically Republicans demanding (some) fiscal responsibility in the face of their party's shameful, ongoing complicity in our current budget disaster. Departing from Republican talking points on social issues was never their strong suit.

    The "small government crowd" encompasses many more people, including your average libertarian like me, and you can bet we're all over it. You did realize that Radley Balko (the guy Masnick hat-tipped in the post itself) writes for Reason magazine, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Hmm...I wonder if the Rapture is only Coming to America? If so, do you think Whoopi Goldberg would be pleased?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Steve, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    No.. They ruled that it's OK to INTERPRET that amendment (and presumably by precedence, the others as well) as doublespeak that would make Orwell take a double-take.

    I'm just glad the government is here to protect us.. I dont know what I'd do with all that freedom stuff..

    "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
    - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 7

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Hitler and SS would be proud what America is turning into. Citizens that aren't rich don't deserve any rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    A. Hitler, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:15am

    I love it!

    Let the goosestepping begin!

    Gestapo first... next... death camps!

    Welcome to the United Nazi States of America

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:15am

    Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    J0000, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Indian Sheriff? lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Suspicious story

    Checking out the original story, it's apparently based entirely on a single phone interview and does not even offer a direct quote from the Sheriff in question. Given the paraphrasing of the journalist, it sure sounds damning. But without a clear statement from the sheriff, or at least a better description of the phone interview (i.e., showing the Q & A that led to the alleged statement), I think it's more likely that this article is the byproduct of some journalistic biases, sloppy reporting and a irritated sheriff rather than an actual policy developed by the county.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Shawn, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: WWII Germany?

    And why wouldn't you be up in arms as well? Would you be the first one to step out your front door, start screaming at the sheriff to hurry up and search through your house for no reasonable search reasoning applied?

    I hope you enjoy what they can do to you, as anything and everything in your house will them be misinterpreted, so you will fit the elements of a crime, whether or not you actually committed one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Jan Bilek (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:25am

    OMG!

    I grew up in east-european totalitarian communist regime... and I always looked up to the paradise of freedom and respect to human rights - United States of America.

    It's kind of sad to see that my home country now seems to be better and much more free place to live than the USA - not because my country got so much better but because your country got so much worse. What is going on, guys? How come that now the land of freedom does not seem so much different than China when it comes to respect to human rights? When are you going to do something about it?

    I tell you... I remember one revolution and it felt really good;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: 3rd amendment next?

    Yeah that whole "women have the right to vote" thing needs to go....they can start tearing it down by declaring that women, during that time of the month, are not of sound mind to make important decisions that will affect the direction of the country.......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:28am

    I'm sorry I shot all the cops on the force. I didn't hear them yell 'POLICE!' before they barged in and didn't notice their badges with all the blood splatter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    bgillock, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:28am

    Well, then...

    Random shooting of people entering my house uninvited must be okay too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Re: dangerous

    Never mind that he was a Republican. It came from a Conservative. Liberals (at least those in power) want more control, like this sherrif, not less.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    Here...watch american gladiators! here is 56 channels of it1 Go back to bed america, your government is in control again...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re: Well, then...

    You really think they're going to let the serfs, er, citizens keep weapons?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Dear Law Enforcement Officers:

    If you ignore my 4th Ammendment rights there's a good chance you'll meet my 2nd Ammendment rights.

    Regards,

    AC

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re:

    That's just not true. If any evidence seized is inadmissible and you could sue the PD for violating your rights, there is a disincentive for the cops to enter illegally.

    I'm not saying that *should* be the only option for a homeowner, but this hysterical misinterpretation of the opinion doesn't help anyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Steevo, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:42am

    Local coverage

    Here's a link to a blog post from a local radio host. The host (Abdul) has a law degree and I believe he has passed the bar in Indiana. I'm not sure if he is a practicing lawyer, or whatever other minutia is required, but he at least has a pretty good idea of the law.

    http://www.wxnt.com/pages/1622896.php?itmBlogDomainUrl=http://abdul-wxnt.itmblog.com/2011/05 /18/4th-amendment-follies/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    No, they nullified it...in the judicial branch, which is there for the express purpose of upholding the law of the land, of which the Constitution is the supreme authority. Goodbye, liberty. Welcome to the Western Empire of the Americas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: dangerous

    Politicians want more control, like this sherrif, not less.

    Fixed that for you. We have only one party; the big government party. While the "Team Red" vs "Team Blue" myth persists, the leaders who keep that myth of political choice going are laughing their asses off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:49am

    New sign on front door:
    4th amendment - Enforced by Smith & Wesson

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Re: OMG!

    What is especially sad is that in the 1960s and 1970 the youth of this country stood-up for freedom. Now many of these same people are in positions of national leadership. Instead of using their leadership positions to foster freedom, the US is increasingly becoming a police state in the name of fighting terrorism, drugs, and piracy. Due process is vaporizing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re:

    That's fine, but it doesn't make the article any more accurate.

    Also, this is about what form such resistance takes. This opinion doesn't restrict the right to engaged in non-physical resistance or make the cops' entry legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, May 19th, 2011 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: dangerous

    Oh, please. The neo-con establishment condones virtually unlimited executive power, military expansionism, and corporate welfare. The problem is not Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative (in it's current neo-con form). The problem is that both sides see the federal government as the ultimate solution to a problem, whether foreign or domestic. Our two choices are really one: the authoritarian state.

    I generally would prefer to stump for principles rather than a specific candidate, but this time I will make an exception. There is actually a guy in the race that will make a difference. I won't tell you to vote for Ron Paul. I will tell you to listen to him, read him (in context!), and consider what he has to say. At that point, I won't have to tell you who to vote for. The choice will be obvious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:56am

    Re: Local coverage

    Maybe I should join the police force. I could be a member of the ruling class and it's a safe job.

    "The Court held the safety of the police trumps the individual’s right to privacy."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Rhiadon, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Indian?

    It's actually the most common thing to refer to a person from Indiana as a Hoosier. I've lived here (in Indiana) my entire life. I've heard some people say "Indianan" but that's just silly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Jon B. (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:03am

    The Kentucky ruling was broad and stupid, and SCOTUS was right to overturn it.

    This Indiana ruling is also broad and stupid, and SCOTUS should overturn it.

    The idea that you can't protect your property from trespassers as long as the trespassers are cops is wrong.

    I do agree that "common law" shouldn't be able to override written policy, but saying that's what happened here is plain wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: WWII Germany?

    When the full cavity search comes he'll just bend over and spread his cheeks. Don't know why this should only alarm Tea Partiers...it should alarm us all!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    cjstg (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:04am

    Re:

    i think i can hear sheriff joe arpaio shouting with glee. oh crap! is that a knock at the door? quick honey! hide the cd's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:16am

    Re: The outcry will likely be small

    Mr. Sheriff should start at the Indiana Supreme Court Justices houses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Is it still legal to kill trespassers in some states?

    I seem to recall that it used to be perfectly legal to kill trespassers if the homeowner felt 'imminent danger' to their person (or something similar).

    Don't injure them and let them get away (or they will sue, and they will win), and make sure they are completely in the window before you shoot, so they don't fall out of the house (their relatives will sue, and probably win)....

    What is this country coming to? Back in the USSR.... Would probably be better than here (if there still was a USSR).

    Oh well, off to make another tinfoil beanie...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:24am

    Sadly, this is why we need the second amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Mike, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:57am

    Re: OMG!

    Your "Home" country isn't the US ?

    If you're not living in your Home Country, and doing something about what the politicians are up to, do not question any further.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    DCL, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If you can't physically resist a search (I am not talking about a violent resistance... just a physical act such as keeping your door closed) then how do you resist a search?

    Where as the example is a bit of an extreme position down the slippery slope the base problem exists... when you give due process to those on the ground in the moment they tend to loose sight of the bigger picture. The framers were very explicit in the 4th amendment to prevent you from loosing your liberty.... didn't you ever see Judge Dredd movie?

    Now replace the word 'Door' with 'Locked safe' or 'Car' or 'hard drive' or 'sphincter'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Minor Nitpick

    My guns work really well, and they open fire on anyone illegally entering my home. Period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    TheStupidOne, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:05pm

    I wish I was

    I wish I was a police officer in Indianapolis ... I would begin by very throughly searching every judge's home, then every legislators, then the governor, and every other government official. I might get to make an arrest or two on some minor charges before I get fired, but with any luck they would reverse this ruling before long.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    benenglish (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    Update the Story, TechDirt!

    The sheriff in question has posted a statement on the department web site. In all fairness, a pointer to it would be reasonable. It's at: http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    They'll only invade there, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    chuck, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:25pm

    Wonder what Becky Stillman has to say about this? lmao
    Only the people of Indiana would elect someone named Becky.

    So Governor Becky, what is your.....no I cant go on its just making me laugh to hard...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:28pm

    Isn't entering without consent really Rape?
    These people are raping Indians!
    Or is it Indians raping homeowners?
    either way its a bad thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    anothermike, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

    Re: What's next?

    They wouldn't even have to hide the camera in my house; I'd have them put it right on the table. They'd get a daily goatse but they must've wanted that since they supplied the camera gear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, the case here was a violent resistance, in the sense that the guy started trying to push the cop out of his entry and they ended up wrestling (if I recall correctly).

    This case isn't about whether you open your door or not, and it's not about whether the search was legal or illegal.

    This case is only about whether your are allowed to assault an officer to prevent him from making an illegal entry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Update the Story, TechDirt!

    I am shocked, SHOCKED that a story on TD would be misleading in any way!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: dangerous

    That might be the most insightful thing I've read in awhile.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Suspicious story

    Nah, there was an update to one of the articles that you had to do a click through to read. The state's AG said the sheriff might be over stepping his bounds but that he has no plans to do anything about it right now. Which is pretty much the same thing as saying its perfectly fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    PRMan, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Update the Story, TechDirt!

    From the statement, for those who cannot get to it:

    "I informed her that
    searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot
    pursuit."

    "This State Supreme Court ruling in my
    opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will
    be revisited. "

    "Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context.
    I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches."

    "I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County
    Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or
    probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the
    United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:10pm

    Just give a formal declaration of martial law and get it over with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    Michael Ho (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Indian?

    fixed. It should be Indiana... just a typo, folks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 1:29pm

    Post updated

    Post updated with the statement from the Sheriff saying he was quoted significantly out of context.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:31pm

    When the soap box, ballot box, and jury box have all failed, it's time to bring out the ammo box.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Old Airman (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    worrying

    I find it kind of worrying that we have military volunteers sending themselves to prison over the validity of the President's authority, but not over our Government's apparent disdain for the Constitution that we swore to protect. I guess it's time to write some letters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Update the Story, TechDirt!

    The sheriff in question has posted a statement on the department web site. In all fairness, a pointer to it would be reasonable. It's at: http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/

    Updated...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Minor Nitpick

    Agreed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    nobody, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:41pm

    Response to: RadialSkid on May 19th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    It already happened in MN a couple years back. Police informant gave bad info, police raided innocent family's home, homeowner shot said police. Homeowner was cleared of any and all charges, as I remember.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Jake, May 19th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    You know, some of these comments have succeeded in creeping me out worse than the actual article. Illegal searches are unpleasant, demeaning and intimidating, but they do not justify the use of violence. If you fall victim of this, lawyer up and get your story in the papers; it'll work better and you won't have killed some poor bastard who was just trying not to get fired.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    DCL, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you have a cop in your entry and you want him off your property because he doesn't have a warrant how do you get him off your property?

    You can ask nice but cops are trained to be assertive and take the steps they perceive as being needed by the circumstances and available to them.

    Push can easily comes to shove... when one group is being assertive and the other feeling defensive and backed into a corner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Jan Bilek (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: OMG!

    Yes, I do live in my home country and no, it isn't the US. But...

    1. I've been to the US, I've spent important part of my life there, I've met many friends there and I love that country. That's why I am sad.

    2. The US still has the great power and can exercise its influence all over the world. There are many of us, who are not American citizens and have no influence over your politicians... but whatever you let them do will have impact on us. That's what makes me worried.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: dangerous

    To paraphrase Bill Hicks: "'I think the puppet on the left shares my values.' 'Well, I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking.' Hey, wait, they're both held by the same person..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    RadialSkid (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

    Re:

    Illegal searches are unpleasant, demeaning and intimidating, but they do not justify the use of violence.

    I disagree. There are things worse than violence, and being told to stand by like a coward while your rights are ignored is one of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    I wish we had 56 channels of nothing but American Gladiator.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

    public policy trumps the constitution, got it. Now if I can just get my free ice-cream and strippers policy passed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Post updated

    Well at least we got one guy in Indiana who doesnt seem like a complete D-bag

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Unfortunately, in Indiana, you ask him to leave, explain that what he's doing is illegal since he doesn't have a warrant, and if he doesn't, you sue the department after the fact.

    I mean, that's probably the best course of action even if you have a legal right to physically resist, since you would be risking your life and the lives of your family members if you start a physical confrontation with an armed police officer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Stan T., May 19th, 2011 @ 4:05pm

    Good Christian citizens do as they're told.

    If you don't allow a peace officer to enter your home when asked you are most likely a child molester, drug dealer, illegal immigrant, terrorist sympathizer or communist. Hopefully with some due surveillance you'll be caught slipping up and will be arrested.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

    Re: Good Christian citizens do as they're told.

    Well played, sir. +7

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 5:40pm

    While it may appear otherwise, this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is only an interpretation of Indiana law that does not have constitutional dimensions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    TS.Atomic (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:46pm

    Now, hang on a minute...

    The Sheriff said if they were after a suspect and they thought he might be in someone outbuildings/garage, they would SEEK PERMISSION to check them out. If a deputy knocks on my door and says a burglar/rapist/murderer was chased into my neighborhood, not only would I allow them to look in my outbuildings, I'd ask if they needed any help.

    The Sheriff went further and said this ruling would likely be revisited and that he stands by his oath to uphold the Constitution.

    How "Allison Bricker" came out of that interview with the Sheriff wanting to conduct warrantless, random, house-to-house searches without property-owners consent is a question I would like answered. It's crap reporters like Bricker that throw out some unfounded, inflammatory tripe that gullible rubes eagerly lap up and begin frothing at the mouth about.

    The ruling is bad enough. Purposefully deceiving/misquoting a chief law enforcement officer is just making it worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: dangerous

    We can't vote for him in every state...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Daffy, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    You're despicable

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 12:15am

    Re: Now, hang on a minute...

    Now, hang on a minute...


    Um. Yes, we had already updated the post hours before you added this comment. Kinda weird.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 12:18am

    Re:

    While it may appear otherwise, this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is only an interpretation of Indiana law that does not have constitutional dimensions

    I love how you think that because you *say* something is so, but refuse to back it up, that it must be so.

    Needless to say, you are incorrect. But since you won't explain your position, I won't explain why you're wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    onchu, May 20th, 2011 @ 3:25am

    Way to Sensationalize

    "The court basically says that it's 'against public policy' to require a warrant."

    No, it doesn't. Not even close. What the court said is that you don't have the right to assault or otherwise physically prevent an officer from entering your home illegally. That doesn't mean the 4th no longer applies.

    Any evidence found from such an entry would still be inadmissible in court, they still wouldn't be protected from a lawsuit, you can still file a complaint, and they can still be punished or fired.

    [A] right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, [The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942)] (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W. 2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Phillip Vector (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 5:31am

    Re: WWII Germany?

    I know... It's reaking of it.. But does Godwins law need to be the first post? Seriously?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, May 20th, 2011 @ 5:58am

    Re: Now, hang on a minute--- The Sheriff of a Small County

    I took the trouble to look Newton County, Indiana up, and found that it is a remote rural county with a population of 14,000, 2000 of them in the county seat, the rest spread out over several hundred square miles. Crown Point, the dateline for the article, is a suburb of Gary, Indiana (_not_ in Newton County), but the author's business address is in Indianapolis. If you are driving from Gary to Indianapolis on I-65, you go through a corner of Newton County for about three miles, out in the middle of nowhere, but you are never less than seventeen road miles from the county seat. One can see how there might be a joke about Newton County being Nowhere Land. Parenthetically, the disputed case, Barnes v. State of Indiana, originated from Vanderburgh County (Evansville, Indiana), at the other end of the state. There was no logical reason to consult the sheriff of Newton County about this case. He is not a big city police chief, or anything like that.

    What it comes down to is that the blogger Allison Bricker telephoned the sheriff of the smallest and most backwoods county she could think of, in the hope that he would be out of his depth and make injudicious remarks. I cannot say whether he made injudicious remarks or not, but it hardly matters. Ms. Bricker was writing for a national audience, betting that people would not know about Newton County, and that they would assume that this sheriff was someone of real importance. People from around the world would not know that Indianapolis and Gary are not in Newton County.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, May 20th, 2011 @ 7:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: dangerous

    I suppose if your state had neither a primary nor a caucas, you would be right. But if he wins the primary, I'm pretty sure every state has the ability to vote for him :).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re:

    Why not review analyses containted in legal publications before jumping the gun?

    Again, for emphasis, this is not a 4th Amendment case, though at first glance it may appear to be so. However, upon analysis it quickly becomes apparent that this case is about a matter of Indiana common law, and not the 4th Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment.

    It is the "holding" of a case that defines the true import of a court decision, and not "dicta" that may appear in the decision that is not germane to the "holding".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    Re: Suspicious story

    Can I get a holla?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 8:17am

    Re: Re:

    "I love how you think that because you *say* something is so, but refuse to back it up, that it must be so."

    Very well. Read the case. You already have the cite needed to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 8:54am

    My freedom is too big

    You see, this is a huge boon. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong.

    Imagine your freedom was a huuuuuge apple orchard. BIG FREEDOM! 500 acres of freedom. Sounds pretty good, right? But now think about protecting all that freedom - How would you even do that? You could spend all day patrolling your freedom, and it would still be easy for anyone to come in and start ruining it. Or just burn it down!!!

    You could build a wall around it, and install cameras and hire guards. That would take a lot of money. A lot.

    NOW, imagine your freedom is REALLY tiny. Like an apple seed! How easy would it be to keep that safe? SUPER EASY! Put it in your pocket, a safe deposit box or a locket! So simple, doesn't cost you a dime if you are clever.

    We should be grateful that we are saving a tremendous amount of time and money normally spent protecting our freedom now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re:

    Could you be any more pompous?

    Your description of this case is inaccurate on many levels, one of which I pointed out above, and this happens to be another one.

    The majority's opinion is about the common law right to physically resist an illegal search/entry into your home by a police officer.

    It doesn't change one bit what is or is not an illegal entry/search under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    One of the dissenting opinions claims that the case *was* about whether the entry was illegal in the first place, in language that does not make any sense to me, but since the majority's opinion (i.e., the law) makes no statements about whether the entry was or was not illegal (and seems to presume that it was for purposes of the argument), the opinion doesn't change anything w/r/t what is or is not illegal under the 4th Amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your final sentence appears to agree with what I have said...that this case is not about the 4th Amendment.

    It is a matter governed entirely by substantive law in the State of Indiana, no more and no less.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think all of my sentences agree with what you have said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Merely FYI, this case was presented a week ago by Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy site. Even among lawyers the comments were scattershot, so it is no surprise the same has taken place here. Orin did, however, try and keep the discussion on point by explaining in clear and consise terms why this is an Indiana law case, and not one under the 4th Amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not a particular fan of the holding, or the reasoning for it, but I agree it's irrelevant to the scope of the 4th Amendment or whether any particular entry/search/seizure is legal or illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am not a fan either, but I believe the majority did raise two points that were noteworthy.

    First, whether you are right or wrong, fighting the police is almost always not a wise idea given what they have as hardware and you do not. Throw hot tempers on both sides into the mix and the situation rapidly turns volatile, perhaps even deadly.

    Second, the common law arose at a time when citizens did not have any effective recourse for unlawful action by the police. That has changed markedly, though it is still an uphill struggle in many cases to ultimately prevail.

    I am not a criminal lawyer, so I found it of interest when the majority referred to the Model Penal Code that it stated has been adopted in the vast majority of states and which does not include the right at common law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 1:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    > No, they nullified it...in the judicial
    > branch, which is there for the express
    > purpose of upholding the law of the land,
    > of which the Constitution is the supreme
    > authority. Goodbye, liberty. Welcome to
    > the Western Empire of the Americas.

    It's worth pointing out that this ridiculous ruling was from the Indiana Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. Which means it only applies in Indiana, and only for as long it takes to be overturned on appeal to the federal system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    It will not go to the "federal system" because it does not involve a federal law or the US Constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    sherman, May 20th, 2011 @ 3:43pm

    sports

    We sell the best Sports Fan Gear such as Sports Memorabilia and other Gifts for a Sports Fan. Find the Sports Fan Gear You need for your next Sporting Event! Order today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 7:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    > It will not go to the "federal system" because it does not
    > involve a federal law or the US Constitution.

    Sure it does. Read the 4th Amendment: "secure in their houses, papers, effects..." Being told by the state that you have to allow police to force their way into your home means you are no longer secure in your home, papers, or effects.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2011 @ 2:21am

    Re: Suspicious story

    Hello thank you for linking to my article on SmArgus.com

    As it relates to the legal ramifications of this Indiana Supreme Court ruling, my analysis was validated by several law enforcement sources and a Constitutional attorney. Supreme Court Justice David in writing the MAJORITY opinion did so in a manner that went outside the matters presented in BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA.

    When he wrote "MODERN" legalese for (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence that Hoosiers may not resist UNLAWFUL entry, with the stroke of a pen he decreed the ability for law enforcement to conduct random house to house searches.

    In order to appreciate the full gravity of the ruling, we must understand exactly what UNLAWFUL ENTRY means in the legal sense.Telephone any police chief and ask what does UNLAWFUL ENTRY MEAN; you will get an answer that states an UNLAWFUL ENTRY is any search of PRIVATE PROPERTY without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT.

    Therefore if neither PROBABLE CAUSE nor a WARRANT must be issued, it is left to the arbitrary whims of the department or officer on the scene.

    Further as it relates to the inferences that this story is phony, all I can offer is that I have been publishing for 3 years, in that time never once have any of my articles ever received a LIBEL DEMAND RETRACTION LETTER from the facts presented therein.

    Furthermore, Mike Church who retained my services as a Contributing Editor & Publisher, would not risk Libel litigation (nor his contract with Sirius/XM) by allowing libelous news reports to be published anywhere on his site which directly tied to the Sirius/XM show. (The article was originally drafted for MikeChurch.com where it also currently resides.)

    Thus, you have my word as the author that the following is all true:

    a.) I telephoned the Newton County Sheriff's Department on May 16th, 2011 and asked his secretary to speak with Sheriff Hartman since he as Sheriff is the highest-constitutionally-elected law enforcement officer in the state.

    b.) Sheriff Hartman was asked if UNLAWFUL entry by law enforcement means entry without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT. He indicated that is the definition of UNLAWFUL ENTRY.

    c.) I then asked the Sheriff if he was familiar with the BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, to which he replied "yes."

    c.) When asked what would then stop police from conducting random searches, he indicated to me that he would "follow the law as decided by the Indiana Supreme Court."

    d.) I then asked again if this meant he felt he could conduct random searches without Probable Cause or warrant to which he replied, "if the Supreme Court has said Hoosiers cannot resist, I follow the law. If that means we can conduct random searches then we will if needed"

    e.) Sheriff Hartman was then asked about whether he felt his oath to the Indiana State Constitution Section 11. was superior to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling to which he responded in a annoyed fashion, "Ma'am, I have already told you twice, if the supreme court says Hoosier cannot resist, then that is the law."

    f.) I then asked if he saw any benefit to conducting Random Searches, to which he replied, "the people would be happy to have random searches if it means the capture of a criminal."

    I thanked him for his time we hung up the telephone and utterly astounded at what he told me, immediately began to draft the article.

    Allison Bricker

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2011 @ 3:54am

    Re:

    Wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    identicon
    bob, May 21st, 2011 @ 4:46am

    Re: Good Christian citizens do as they're told.

    Are you being sarcastic?....Surely you must be because "Good Christian Citizens" do not do as they are told...take Jesus for instance, he was executed for breaking the law. Good Christian Citizens have a responsibility to break unjust laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2011 @ 9:23am

    This case assumes that the 4th Amendment has been trampled upon and violated in the worst possible way. The cops broke the law and did violence to the 4th Amendment.

    However, violation of the 4th Amendment was not the issue presented to the Indiana Supreme Court. The issue was whether or not, even if police made a completely illegal entry, did Indiana state law countenance a person in the residence getting into a "fight" with the police?

    This is why I have stated that this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is, no more and no less, what actions may a person within a residence engage in in dealing with police once they have entered a residence, even illegally?

    Will there later be a price to be paid by the police at a later date for having illegally gained entrance? Yes, the 4th Amendment demands no less. Hence, the 4th Amendment remains unchanged.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, May 22nd, 2011 @ 9:35pm

    This is why I have stated that this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is, no more and no less, what actions may a person within a residence engage in in dealing with police once they have entered a residence, even illegally?

    So if someone is sleeping with a cop's wife and cop barges into this guy's house to assault him, he's not allowed to defend himself?

    Will there later be a price to be paid by the police at a later date for having illegally gained entrance? Yes, the 4th Amendment demands no less. Hence, the 4th Amendment remains unchanged.

    Yes, I'm sure it will be a really high price, like a one-week suspension! That'll teach 'em!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2011 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You seem to be under the impression that I have disagreed with you somewhere.

    Any way, as I stated further up in the comments, I agree it's not a good idea to get into a physical confrontation with an armed police officer, regardless of whether you have a legal right to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2011 @ 8:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nope...not saying there is any disagreement.

    Mine was just a couple of observations taken from the majority opinion that I thought were interesting, and particularly the part concerning the Model Penal Code.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    countycrusaders, May 25th, 2011 @ 6:52pm

    this guy is back peddling....the reprorter was to have asked the alleged sheriff 3 TIMES if what he told her was correct before ending the conversation adn he allegedly aggred. we do NOT believe in anyway sahpe or fomer that ANYTHING was taken out of context further more PLEASE look at this mans past REPUTATION:
    these two links help wrap it up! we believe there are Deputies who would arrest the “alleged Sheriff” only that jeff drinski the prosecuting attorney and the judge are in COLLUSION with Hartman! OTHERWISE why would'nt they just DO THEIR JOB! http://countycrusaders.angelfire.com/emergencyletter http://countycrusaders.angelfire.com/forcedentry
    this “alleged Sheriff” has a long History...along with the local legal staff.....bilking and pilfering money from VICTIMS OF CRIMES! read about it http://countycrusaders.wordpress.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Todd Slee, Jun 30th, 2011 @ 8:42pm

    4th Amendment

    People should be totally enraged about this. Anyone whom supports any ruling which undermines the Constitution should be arrested for treason. They want to take our guns, and then try to make us believe that warrantless searches are for our safety, when a long tom already ensures a homeowner's safety? The cops don't do their jobs right much of the time to begin with. If a criminal gets past my outside watchdogs, then my inside Dobe, then my 12 gauge, then I guess I'll be carried by six. I don't need big brother babysitting me. They're liars & nazis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Joe Momma, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 11:58am

    wanna hear a joke about my wiener?.....o wait! its to long!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Buck, Jun 6th, 2012 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re: .....what?

    WHERE IN THE HELL ,,,, Did -YOU- ever get the idea - that most Americans don't care about this ??????????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    back home in kentucky, Sep 20th, 2012 @ 2:38pm

    warrantless serch

    GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!! That is what this law abiding citizen did. I fell pray to the Jeffersonville police department and their nazi crimes. They totally fabricated a report and entered my home illegally. They found nothing so they had to make something up....... The case has been dismissed>..........Leave Indiana now of get new people in power to stop this unethical practice.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Roger, Oct 22nd, 2012 @ 9:22pm

    Re: As one who resides in Indiana...

    WAKE UP AMERICA
    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
    IT'S TIME FOR ALL AMERICANS TO STAND AND SPEAK UP
    MUST READ ARTICLES
    The Infallible Prosecutor: Google it
    10,000 innocent people convicted each year
    Scalia's death row lunacy: Google it
    Most registered sex offenders are innocent
    www.wikipedia.org
    Type censorship in the U.S. in the search box
    IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
    YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
    Jury nullification: A fundamental right!

    Indiana Constitution: Article1: Section 19:
    In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of the United States means the same thing.

    An unjust law is not a law at all and any person charged with violating an unjust law has not violated any law and should be found not guilty simply because the law is unjust!
    WE MUST PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This