United Liberty
Indiana Supreme Court nullifies the Fourth Amendment
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 1:02pm | posted by Tom Knighton
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.
From NWI.com:
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.
This is total nonsense, and irresponsible nonsense. The overreaction to this case has been stunning; I expect the ACLU to bug out, but this is precisely the kind of decision that you would expect from conservative judges. This is precisely the kind of decision for which we nominated Rehnquist, Scalia, Roberts, et al, and which they have routinely delivered since.
I explained why the reaction is absurd here. And I might emphasize, since you say that “it needs to be made clear by the other 49 states that this is intolerable,” that the horse is already out of the barn: Indiana isn’t the first state to make this move, see John Ferdico et al, Criminal Procedure 336 (10th ed. 2009) (“While some states continue to use the common law rule allowing resistance to an illegal arrest, an increasing number of states have … reject[ed] the … rule (emphasis added)).
Thanks for sharing nice information with us. i like your post and all you share with us is uptodate and quite informative, i would like to bookmark the page so i can come here again to read you, as you have done a wonderful job.
fastest paday loans
I appreciate everything you have added to my knowledge base.Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer.Thanks.
www.badcreditloancenter.com
Your website is really cool and this is a great inspiring article. Jocuri online
The information you have posted is very useful. The sites you have referred was good. Thanks for sharing… Take care Cap Credit
My thoughts on this case very much mirror the 2 dissents written on it.
It’s not that in the Barnes case the police didn’t have the right to enter the home. I would probably agree that they did. It’s that the court’s ruling goes far and away above that individual case and says that it doesn’t matter at all if it’s legal or not, if a cop wants in your house you must let them in.
An officer could randomly decide to come to my door right now and ask to enter my home. I ask for a warrant, there isn’t one. I ask for a reason, there isn’t one. I tell the officer no, they bust my door down anyway. According to this ruling I couldn’t do a single damn thing about it. That’s disturbing.
And many may say that my hypothetical example is just that, hypothetical and unrealistic. To them, I refer you to the Newton County, IN Sherriff, who has already stated that he sees this ruling as a way to allow random house-to-house searches. That’s REALLY disturbing.
Here’s the address of the actual ruling written by the courts. Quite an easy read, actually.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Looks like this case is bound for the United States Supreme Court as it sounds like Indiana is trying to circumvent the Constitution. They don’t want to test the waters with the 2nd Amendment so they are trying on one they view as a little less noticeable. The 4th Amendment. I wonder if the ACLU is going to sit on the sidelines like they do with the 2nd Amendment. Little do people realize. ALL the Amendments are important. That is what makes this country stand out above the rest. Every single one of them should be aggressively defended. Those that we put in to a position of authority that tray to defy the Constitution should be immediately removed from office. As they clearly do not comprehend the oath of office that they took.
Everything is very open with a really clear clarification of the issues.
It was definitely informative. Your site is very useful.
Thanks for sharing!
One more thing I forgot to add. I hope that this ruling gets aggressively protested in the Appeals process. Or the U S Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional. A funny thing about important things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No body knows how important they are until they wake up one morning and discover that their lives have dramatically changed for the worse. You never miss something important until you wake up and find that it isn’t there anymore. With regards to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That should be a very very scary thing to keep in mind.
The post is written in very a good manner and it contains many useful information for me.
lpg conversions
I mostly agree with what you discuss here. But I am going to go see what else I can lookup too.
university assignment assistance
Post new comment