Indiana now officially Police State

[ECSNorway]

The Indiana State Supreme Court has ruled, 3-2, that the Fourth Amendment no longer applies to Indiana.
According to the recent ruling, a police officer may demand entry into any private home, for any reason whatsoever explicitly including "no reason at all", and the homeowner and residents have no right to refuse, resist, or reject his entry.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pd ... 101shd.pdf for the actual text.
I quote:

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[nemonowan]

I do not reside in the USA, so this comes from an outside view (a country where, I mention as a relevant example of cultural differences,  shooting a robber that broke into your home/business and is threatening you with a weapon will definitely land YOU in for murder).
I read the PDF and all it seems to say is that what you do not have the right to do is use violence against a police officer to resist arrest, even if you think the arrest is improper. This sounds reasonable, given a proper legal framework for redress if the officer actually lacks grounds for the arrest. Also, you CAN refuse, even if only verbally (and I seem to rememeber from comments in some other forums that said refusal would even invalidate any evidence against you that the police might find on you or your property).
Please elaborate if I am wrong, but this seems like a storm in a teacup to me.
Also, given that this guy was by his own admission in process of permanently leaving the house, that his girlfriend was remaining there, that she called 911 because he was becoming violent, and that she gave the police permission to get in, I don't think that this defence would have applied in the first place, even if the ISSC had sustained this right to resist arrest/entry with violence.

[Dartz]

It amounts to little more than an admission of what has been a de-facto state of being for the entire US for the last couple of years. I'd actually be afraid to go to America.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ECSNorway]

In non-Indiana parts of the USA, a cop can come to your door and demand entry, and you have every right to refuse him.

If he has a warrant, he has a legal right to force entry, and to resist that entry is considered obstruction of justice.

If he does not, and there is no obvious evidence that a crime is in progress on the premises, then his entry is illegal and you have as much right to resist it, including use of lethal force, as you do that of a burglar. Judges and juries will generally be harsher on you for doing so and you will have a much harder time proving you were in the right, but it is, technically, legal.

Except in Indiana.

In the rest of America, a cop who forcibly enters a home without a warrant or obvious evidence of a crime in progress is guilt of unlawful entry and will face discipline and probable criminal charges.

In Indiana, a cop can forcibly enter your home at any time and for any reason, explicitly including "because he felt like it".
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Logan Darklighter]

To paraphrase Bruce MCQuain in his Hot Air blog: This Indiana Superme Court ruling would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.
Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Nope, sorry. Not anymore. Not in Indiana. 

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We aso find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

What the hell part of “unlawful” do you not get, "Justice" David?! What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to you in law school?? How the HELL did you become a judge when you don't even remember so BASIC a rule as this??

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the  Justice seems to be resistance “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons,houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store. Or how about simply make sure that you have a legal warrant to enter the home? 

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular. 

The justice system in Indiana has now abrogated all responsibility for protecting the rights of its citizen in their own homes by simply editing those rights out of existence. 

And check out this “analysis”:

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  Again I ask: What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier:

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

As McQuain indicates above, this needs to be stomped HARD.
(EDIT: Sorry. Meant to attribute McQuain better. Quote tags got buggered.)

[robkelk]

I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.
How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  Again I ask: What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

I'm not aware of any form of domestic violence that does not violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons... and I'm aware of many, many forms of domestic violence. If I was a US judge, I'd be willing to listen to arguments that entry without a warrant to protect someone being victimized is in support of the Fourth Amendment.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

It is, in fact, generally accepted precedent throughout the US that a police officer is able to force entry to a home if he has clear and obvious reason to suspect that a person's life is in jeopardy. (For example: Someone shouting for help, obvious sounds of violence, etc.)
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Glidergun]

If you want a story about the Fourth Amendment no longer applying, have we got news for you!
TLDR: Cops are trying to follow a guy who sold cocaine, lose track of him, smell the aroma of burnt pot in an apartment complex, knock on a door, hear "a reaction that sounded like the destruction of evidence", and bust in. It turns out to not even be the place the guy they were chasing went. And the Supreme Court rules 8-1 that this is legal, and all the evidence gathered by this is admissible  in a court of law.

[Foxboy]

Probable cause in that case, GG.

As long as marijuana is illegal with no possible medical exceptions, smelling the distinctive aroma of burning cannabis sativa gives a reasonable perception that something hinky is going on, even if it's not exactly what they were looking for.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Glidergun]

The thing about that is that "probable cause" is supposed to produce a warrant. Not cops suddenly bursting through your front door, unless there's extenuating circumstances.
The decision seems to focus on the more on the "sounds of destruction of evidence" part than the "smell of pot" part, mostly because you can't justify a warrantless break-in with just the latter. From another article on the decision:

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on
a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," Alito wrote. A
resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving
and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a
warrant.

Better hope you're not in the bathroom when the police decide to talk to you.

[Epsilon]

I'm very glad I don't live in a country where it is legal to shoot people who try to break into my house, and where if I did so (to a police officer or not) I would probably go to jail.
You don't live in the wild west anymore. 911 exists. Use it.
(And if it isn't working well enough, then perhaps raise your damn taxes and pay for more police)
----------
Epsilon

[Kokuten]

pigs have no responsibility to help any given person.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...8/politics/28scotus.html

http://www.firearmsandlib...m/kasler-protection.html

Epsilon, I hope you never need the cops immediately. One of my favorite catchphrases is "When you need help in seconds, the police are minutes away"Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Black Aeronaut]

I'm very glad I don't live in a country where it is legal to shoot people who try to break into my house, and where if I did so (to a police officer or not) I would probably go to jail.
You don't live in the wild west anymore. 911 exists. Use it.
(And if it isn't working well enough, then perhaps raise your damn taxes and pay for more police)

Taxes aren't the issue.  It's unwise spending on behalf of the politicians.  (School districts with superintendents that make more than US$150,000/year, anyone?)
And no, this isn't the wild west.  It's the modern age where people get shot just for the shoes their wearing.  When home invasions are commonplace, 911 just isn't fast enough.
Do home invasions happen where you live, Epsilon?  BTW: the definition of a home invasion in the USA is, where by force or trickery, one or more people get inside your home while your there and take whatever they want by show of force.

[Logan Darklighter]

Speaking as someone who has been robbed recently. I am VERY glad that I do in fact live in a country that allows the purchase and use of personal firearms. And particularly that I live in a state that (not the exact words, I'm sure, this is off the top of my head) allows for homeowners to defend themselves and their property by means up to and including the use of lethal force if they feel their lives are threatened. Basically - if you shoot the robber, call the police immediately and if the bullet holes are in the FRONT of the perpetrator, you're unlikely to go to jail. 

If I had a gun, and if I had been home-invaded rather than burgled while I was away, damn straight I would have shot to kill. 

I think that's why cops in Texas might be just a little more cautious about getting warrants and making sure they are authorized than in places like, say, Indiana. **

Which brings me to a point I want to make: Like the saying goes, it is MUCH better for the government to fear its citizens than the other way around. 

** (Not to say cops in Texas aren't still major assholes. A lot of them are. Redneck attitude plus badge - do the math! I have a friend who's a Fort Worth cop who has said, jokingly and not so jokingly, that his fellow police officers are almost uniformly TERRIBLE people! And he's self-deprecating enough to include himself in that number. I don't think he's quite that bad, myself. But then I'm a friend, so I'm biased and make allowances.)

[Epsilon]

blackaeronaut wrote:
And no, this isn't the wild west.  It's the modern age where people get shot just for the shoes their wearing.  When home invasions are commonplace, 911 just isn't fast enough.
Do home invasions happen where you live, Epsilon?  BTW: the definition of a home invasion in the USA is, where by force or trickery, one or more people get inside your home while your there and take whatever they want by show of force.

Dude, I live in a mildly bad part of town and if my doors didn't lock automatically when I closed them I would never lock my doors while home. I'm fairly certain home invasions happen up here, but according to statistics Canada has a lower incidence of violent crime than the States.
But hey, I'm certain your love affair with guns is not to blame. Other countries seem to have a handle on this whole deal, but American Exceptionalism ensures that sane solutions to your problems that work everywhere else just don't apply to you!
----------------
Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

In Canada the rule of thumb for self defense is that you don't use anything that someone else hasn't already brought to the party; up to and including grievous bodily harm or death.  (Sections 34-37)
(Example, if someone grabs your arm in a threatening manner (assault), you can use moderate force to dislodge them; not dislodge them in a manner that dislocates their elbow, pops their eardrum, shatters their knee and then takes their teeth out one by one on the curb.)
So if in course of the home invasion, if the suspect, through threat/action/armament placed you in fear for your life, a lethal response can be justified.  You have to be able to stand tall in front of the judge and justify your use of force.

[Bob Schroeck]

While the discussion is so far civil, I'd suggest the tangent about self defense in and out of Canada might be better served in its own thread, and retain this one strictly for news and views on the Indiana situation.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Jinx999]

While the discussion is so far civil, . ..

Which, given the hot button issue being discussed, is a fairly significant miracle.

[Kokuten]

Which, given the hot button issue being discussed, is a fairly significant miracle.

In the fullness of consideration of all things, I still believe we have a damn fine userbase.Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Bob Schroeck]

That we do.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Thesilentjackofalltrade]

This is insane, the whole reason the United States put up the 4th amendment was because the British at the time were using peoples homes to house soldiers, and they took advantage of them, and went though their stuff because they could.

(That, and everyone after a while was suspected of being the enemy, but at first it was not justified.)

This is going against the wishes of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court better get a haddle on this, and not let it go on for very long, or more states will do it, and once a liberty is taken away, its gone for good unless something dramatic changes.
_____________
Veni, vidi, vici. [I came, I saw, I conquered
Quote from Julius Caesar

[ordnance11]

Af far as the Indiana law goes, I'm betting it will go to the Supreme Court and get overthrown for precisely violating the 4th amendment. Federal law still trumps state law.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

And if it does, it'll probably be because of Sheriff Don Hartman of Newton County, who has apparently already eagerly embraced the freedom to discover new criminals that the ruling gives him.

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Black Aeronaut]

That man is gonna get a bullet place between his eyes if he's not careful. While Fourth Amendment Rights are there primarily for the protection of the Citizens, in a ways it also gives law enforcement officials some degree of protection, too (like keeping them from going off half-cocked).

[Bob Schroeck]

In my experience there are two kinds of cops: good decent professional law enforcement personnel, and uniformed bullies who get off on having a gun and authority over people. Hartman strikes me as the latter, and that type of cop never worries about going off half-cocked, because they're always certain they have the right do any damned thing they please. The piddling details of the law don't matter to them, except insofar as they can use them to make someone else's day worse.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.