Indiana Supreme Court nullifies the Fourth Amendment
Indiana. What a unique state. For example, few states are more thought of when it comes to basketball than good old Indiana. Now, we can even thank them for being the one of the first states to overturn the Fourth Amendment. Congratulations Indiana. I never thought that one was even possible, but you proved me wrong.
In case you missed it, Indiana has ruled that you have no right at all to stop a police officer trying to enter your home illegally. Now, I’m not talking about shooting the guy or anything either. I’m saying you can’t physically hold him as he tries to enter your house without a warrant.
INDIANAPOLIS | 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.
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.
“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 also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”
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.
The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Of course, there’s always the statist morons who support this kind of thing as well. Just a little below this excerpt:
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.”
Now, first let’s keep in mind that the man didn’t “beat the hell” out of anyone. He pinned a man who was entering his house illegally. There’s a huge difference between the two. Second, while I’m a big supporter of using civil action rather than criminal action, this is crazy.
Preventing violence is a noble goal and all that, but since when does it depend on me taking whatever a statist master wants to dish out? Would Professor Bodensteiner argue that the correct action would have been for the patriots to have sought redress from His Majesty’s courts rather than dump tea into Boston Harbor? Probably.
Keep in mind, I don’t have a problem with law enforcement. I was raised by a cop. I have a great deal of respect for good cops, and there are plenty of them. However, I also don’t support giving them the keys to the castle either. A man’s home essentially is his castle. This is a case of going far and above that.
By arguing that you must permit a man to enter your home without a warrant and then go to the courts may sound reasonable, but it’s not. You see, legal action can be pretty expensive. You, an individual, will have to take on the government which has a lot more money than you, in hopes that you can get some form of satisfaction. Good luck. The deck is currently stacked against you.
Of course, while they’re in there, perhaps they find something that you would rather they not find. I’m not talking about illegal either, but perhaps a bit embarrassing. Maybe you enjoy an “alternate lifestyle” of some type. In a small town, that can be ruinous. But, you have no right in Indiana to bar their entry into your home anyways. Not good.
So what does this have to do with anything outside of Indiana? Nothing. Except that it needs to be made clear by the other 49 states that this is intolerable. I pray Georgia never has to live with a decision like this.