Indiana Supreme Court Throws 4th Amendment Out the Window—Allows Police to Illegally Enter Your Home
Gee, after all the administration’s hoopla about Arizona’s immigration law supposedly being unconstitutional and the supposed unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, why isn’t Obama and Eric Holder screaming bloody murder concerning Indiana’s clear violation of the 4th Amendment? Could it be that they are in favor of a police state? Could be.
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
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.
Um… Yeah, right… Do you really think that a court system which allows for illegal search and seizure is going to rule in favor of the victimized citizen? Not likely! This is just a big, “F-U, Hoosiers!” by the courts.
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.
Hm. Yup, Probable Cause is the camel’s nose into the tent. Sure, Americans have made allowances to help the police help them, but Indiana’s Supreme Court has overstepped those bounds and let the entire camel into the tent. I really feel sorry for the police. After all, they are the ones who are going to get shot when they illegally enter a home, not the justices.
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.”
[…]Explore posts in the same categories: Abuse of Power, Law Enforcement, Orwellian