<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;indiana&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:00:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Police Send SWAT Team, Break Into Wrong House (With TV Film Crew) In Response To Internet Troll</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14493419440/police-send-swat-team-break-into-wrong-house-with-tv-film-crew-response-to-internet-troll.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14493419440/police-send-swat-team-break-into-wrong-house-with-tv-film-crew-response-to-internet-troll.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've heard of police very frequently overreacting to things and sending in SWAT teams when they aren't necessary.  We've also heard of them sending SWAT teams to the wrong place.  But this latest story, found via <a href="https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/216233062432903168" target="_blank">Radley Balko</a> (who tracks these things like no other) may be the most insane yet.  It involves police <a href="http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/22/swat-team-enters-home-people-inside-arent/" target="_blank">sending a SWAT team and breaking into the wrong house (whose front door was open)</a> in response to some internet trolls.  I'm not kidding.
<br /><br />
The issue was that on a Topix community forum for Evansville, Indiana, someone claimed that a list of police staff had been "leaked."  Some trolls in the comments spoke out against the police -- and one certainly went too far, suggesting that a certain officer's house was going to be shot up.  Rather than <i>investigating</i> the issue, the police got some info on where the comment came from (or, rather, where they thought the comment came from) and sent the SWAT team <i>and a TV news crew</i> to the home of Ira and Louise Milan -- whose <i>front door was open</i>.  Now, they could have rang the doorbell and spoken to them.  But, instead, they broke down the screen door, broke the front window, and tossed a flashbang into the living room.
<br /><br />
And... all for naught.  While they seized a bunch of computer equipment, it turns out that no one in the house had anything to do with anything.  Something they could have ascertained by, you know, talking to people in the house.  The police are defending their massive overreaction because.... <i>the internet!!!!</i>
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;This is a little more difficult that a traditional crime scene, because we&#8217;re dealing with the Internet. They definitely weren&#8217;t expecting (a SWAT team at the door). The reason we did that is the threats were specific enough, and the potential for danger was there.
<br /><br />
&#8220;This is a big deal to us,&#8221; Cullum said. &#8220;This may be just somebody who was online just talking stupid. What I would suggest to anybody who visits websites like that is that their comments can be taken literally.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
Yes, so because the police might overreact, you should watch what you say online. And also always be ready for a SWAT team to show up, in case a stranger you know nothing about says something bad online. After all, it's "the internet."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14493419440/police-send-swat-team-break-into-wrong-house-with-tv-film-crew-response-to-internet-troll.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14493419440/police-send-swat-team-break-into-wrong-house-with-tv-film-crew-response-to-internet-troll.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/14493419440/police-send-swat-team-break-into-wrong-house-with-tv-film-crew-response-to-internet-troll.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120622/14493419440</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:36:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Indiana Court Says Anonymous Commenters Deserve High Standard Before Being Exposed, But Aren't Necessarily Protected By Shield Laws</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/02092517861/indiana-court-says-anonymous-commenters-deserve-high-standard-before-being-exposed-arent-necessarily-protected-shield-laws.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/02092517861/indiana-court-says-anonymous-commenters-deserve-high-standard-before-being-exposed-arent-necessarily-protected-shield-laws.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few months ago, we wrote about a case in Indiana involving an attempt to unmask an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website who effectively accused someone of embezzlement.  There were a few legal questions involved in the case, and the one we had focused on involved the newspaper itself trying to protect that commenter <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected-journalism-shield-laws.shtml">under Indiana Journalism shield laws</a>.  At the time, we'd argued that the shield law should probably be limited to cases where the individuals actually were acting as a source... and that basic First Amendment case law could handle the anonymity question outside of the shield law.
<br /><br />
It looks like the court effectively agreed with <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/indiana-court-of-appeals-embraces-dendrite-standard-but-declines-to-apply-state-shield-law.html">just about everything we said</a>.  The court rejected the shield law argument, but not in a broad way saying that commenters aren't protected under the shield, but that this comment wasn't really a "source" in any meaningful way, and the newspaper didn't use the comment as the basis for any additional reporting.  However, the court pretty clearly suggests that in other cases, commenters could be considered sources and could be protected by shield laws.
<br /><br />
However, perhaps more importantly, the court set a relatively high bar for unveiling the anonymous commenter -- adopting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrite_International,_Inc._v._Doe_No._3" target="_blank">Dendrite rules</a> that give the anonymous person a chance to respond <i>and</i> which require the plaintiff to present a significant amount of evidence that the comments violate the law before any unmasking is ordered.  While the Dendrite rule still is not standard, it is spreading, and it's nice to see Indiana adopt it as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/02092517861/indiana-court-says-anonymous-commenters-deserve-high-standard-before-being-exposed-arent-necessarily-protected-shield-laws.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/02092517861/indiana-court-says-anonymous-commenters-deserve-high-standard-before-being-exposed-arent-necessarily-protected-shield-laws.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/02092517861/indiana-court-says-anonymous-commenters-deserve-high-standard-before-being-exposed-arent-necessarily-protected-shield-laws.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seems-reasonable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120224/02092517861</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:43:11 PST</pubDate>
<title>Should Online Newspaper's Comments Be Protected By Journalism Shield Laws?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected-journalism-shield-laws.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected-journalism-shield-laws.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having just discussed whether or not journalism shield laws <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/17495617002/should-shield-laws-protect-journalists-journalism.shtml">should apply</a> to random bloggers, it's worth noting an interesting case going on in Indiana, where the key question is whether or not such a law <a href="http://www.theindianalawyer.com/coa-to-consider-journalistic-shield-protections-for-anonymous-online-comments/PARAMS/article/27708" target="_blank">applies to comments on a newspaper website</a>.  The paper, the Indianapolis Star, is arguing that Indiana's shield law protects anonymous commenters in the same way that it protects sources.  After all, anonymous commenters can be sources.  Of course, it may come down to the specific language in Indiana's shield law.  A more interesting question is <i>should</i> such laws protect anonymous commenters?  I'd argue that the First Amendment should, generally speaking, protect most anonymity, so I'm not sure a specific shield law provides much more that's useful beyond that.  However, if you were definitely applying such shield laws to comments, perhaps it should just be limited to cases or individuals who actually are acting as sources (i.e., providing news) in the comments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected-journalism-shield-laws.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected-journalism-shield-laws.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected-journalism-shield-laws.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-they-sources?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111212/04045017044</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 09:17:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/12313814301/4th-amendment-what-4th-amendment-supremes-say-police-can-create-conditions-to-enter-home-without-warrant.shtml">Supreme Court ruling</a> concerning the ability of police to invade a home without a warrant, so long as <i>they</i> 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 <a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/15/barnes-v-state-of-indiana-2011/" target="_blank">enter any home without a warrant</a>.  Why?  The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:
<blockquote><i>
"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></blockquote>
In other words, the gradual (and, at times, not so gradual) destruction of the 4th Amendment is used to destroy it even more.
<br><br>
It appears that law enforcement in Indiana is wasting no time in recognizing the power this gives them.  <A href="https://twitter.com/#!/radleybalko/status/70657220307718144" target="_blank">Radley Balko</a> points us to the news that one Indiana Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., from Newton County, has now stated that it's <a href="http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html" target="_blank">legal to conduct <i>house-to-house warrantless searches</i></a> (see update below).  According to him, everyone should be fine with such an invasion of privacy, because it means they can catch criminals:
<blockquote><i>
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.
</i></blockquote>
It's as if they don't care that they're making a total mockery of the 4th Amendment and its important history.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: The sheriff in question has <a href="http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/" target="_blank">put out a statement</a> contradicting the original story:
<blockquote><i>
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&rsquo;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&rsquo;m sure this state ruling will 
be revisited.  
<br><br>
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.  
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County 
Sheriff&rsquo;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.
</i></blockquote>
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...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thanks-Indiana-supreme-court</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110518/17015914326</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:51:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Indiana County Decides Not To Charge Redbox After Public Outcry</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100308/0152598460.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100308/0152598460.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week we wrote about how prosecutors in Indiana were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1053438392.shtml">threatening</a> to file <i>criminal</i> charges against Redbox execs unless the company agreed to remove R-rated movies from its kiosks.  The whole thing was instigated by brick-and-mortar video stores who didn't like competing with Redbox's $1 video rentals.  However, as news spread about this threat, it seems that the residents of that county raised their voices and <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/03/indiana-county-wont-prosecute-stores-with-redboxes.html" target="_blank">let the prosecutor know they wanted to keep their Redbox</a> and its R-rated movies.  The prosecutor noted that the standard for whether this was a problem was "community standards," and the community made it loud and clear to him that they wanted the Redbox kiosks to stay:
<blockquote><i>
"It's not an exact barometer -- I didn't take a poll -- but it just seemed pretty clear to me that the community would not be behind the prosecution of this," Stan Levco said during Friday's news conference.
</i></blockquote>
While it's good that he's backed down, I'm still not sure which is more troubling, that he initiated the threats at the behest of competitors, or that public outcry alone was enough to get him to back down.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100308/0152598460.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100308/0152598460.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100308/0152598460.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lawsuit-by-public-opinion-poll</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100308/0152598460</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:45:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>Indiana Prosecutor Threatens Redbox With Criminal Charges If It Doesn't Remove R-Rated Movies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1053438392.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1053438392.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Brandon alerts us to the news that an Indiana prosecutor is <a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20100303/ENTERTAINMENT/3030336/Movie-rental-kiosk-firms-could-face-criminal-charges" target="_blank">threatening to bring <b>criminal charges</b> against Redbox execs</a> if they don't remove R-rated videos from the kiosks.  The claim, of course, is that this makes it easier for those under 17 to access those movies.  Of course, that doesn't explain what's actually <i>criminal</i> about it.  Indiana is among the handful of states that should know this -- seeing as politicians there tried to pass a law stopping retailers from selling "mature" video games to kids -- but <i>every</i> law of that nature has been thrown out.  The current movie rating system is not, in fact, enforced by the government as that would be a restriction on free speech.  Instead, it's a voluntary agreement within the movie industry.  In other words, there is no legal issue with these kiosks.
<br /><br />
And, of course, the true story behind this threat is found early on in the article.  It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" at all.  Instead, this is a bunch of independent video rental stores trying to shut down the competition:
<blockquote><i>
"I'm not on a crusade," said Paul Black, an Evansville attorney who says he suggested the inquiry to Levco's office on behalf of a client who operates several video store locations. "We're just looking for a level playing field here."
</i></blockquote>
That's not leveling the playing field.  It's trying to block competition -- and doing so with bogus charges of criminal behavior.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1053438392.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1053438392.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1053438392.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let-me-introduce-you-to-the-constitution</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100303/1053438392</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Indiana Senators Rush To Put In Place Sexting Law When They Clearly Don't Understand Sexting</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0424477914.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0424477914.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the more recent "moral panics" that we've seen is around this concept of "sexting," where people (often youngsters who might not fully recognize the consequences of what they're doing) send either naked or at least revealing images of themselves to others.  In the last year or so the press has written about it quite a bit, and while it seems like it's really just a situation that requires more education for kids to recognize what a bad idea this is, once you get a moral panic going, it's never long before politicians feel the need to "help deal with" the issue, "for the children," of course.  Mark sends in the news that some politicians in Indiana have <a href="http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=11878069" target="_blank">decided to tackle the issue with new legislation</a>, though it's not at all clear that the state Senators debating the subject even understand what sexting means:
<blockquote><i>
"Until some terrible tragedy happens where a child or teenager commits suicide because they have been bullied by e-mail, texting or sexting," said Rep. Sandra Blanton.
</i></blockquote>
Bullied by sexting will lead to suicide?  How?  And how do you create a law to prevent that?  Then there's the politician who wants to ban mobile phones in schools to deal with this issue:
<blockquote><i>
"Keep them in lockers and not allow them in the classroom or on school property to do the sexting," Rep. Blanton said.
</i></blockquote>
Really?  The sexting happens on school property?  If that's the case, then wouldn't the issue be public nudity -- for which I would imagine there are already laws -- rather than "sexting"?  If he just means that the sending of these photos continues on school property, I'm not really sure how keeping the phones in lockers fixes anything.  It just means those messages will be sent after school when there's even less supervision of what the kids are doing.  I guess that's the head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with things, but I'm not sure how it helps any.
<br /><br />
Certainly the issue of sexting is one worth educating kids about, so they recognize the dangers of passing on such photos which can quickly multiply and be spread further in amazingly embarrassing ways.  But I don't see how any law helps the issue at all -- but plenty of ways laws can make things worse -- especially when the politicians writing and voting on the laws don't even seem to understand what the issue is beyond "sexting = bad!"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0424477914.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0424477914.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0424477914.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>moral-panics!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100127/0424477914</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>