• Indiana Supreme Court Declares 4th Admendment Void Since It 'Conflicts With Public Policy"
    79 replies, posted
[quote]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. 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." 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." 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. [/quote] [url]http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html[/url]
There's a difference between making it illegal to block the officer's entry and making it legal for the officer to enter. [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] Although the whole affair seems silly.
Honestly I think basing a society around a document written hundreds of years ago is just downright retarded. So this is good, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=1239the;29812583]Honestly I think basing a society around a document written hundreds of years ago is just downright retarded. So this is good, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Yes, don't take the stance that "it's good because it's old", take the polar opposite stance "it's bad because it's old". Because that's not the same fucking fallacy.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29812610]Yes, don't take the stance that "it's good because it's old", take the polar opposite stance "it's bad because it's old".[/quote] So then what's your opinion on it, captain enlightened?
[QUOTE=1239the;29812583]Honestly I think basing a society around a document written hundreds of years ago is just downright retarded. So this is good, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] When do you think the US constitution was written, last Tuesday?
[QUOTE=SBD;29812751]When do you think the US constitution was written, last Tuesday?[/QUOTE] The constitution was adopted in 1787, ratified 27 times (including one amendment simply to repeal another amendment), with the latest amendment being adopted in 1992. It is the oldest constitution still in use by any country in the world.
[QUOTE=1239the;29812674]So then what's your opinion on it, captain enlightened?[/QUOTE] "If it ain't broke don't fix it!"
[QUOTE=1239the;29812583]Honestly I think basing a society around a document written hundreds of years ago is just downright retarded. So this is good, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] In some ways, I can agree; in others, not so much. But I only agree to a limited extent because I think there are a few elements of these documents that need to be updated to reflect the concerns and issues of the times- to put it broadly.
[QUOTE=bravehat;29812834]"If it ain't broke don't fix it!"[/QUOTE] Does the U.S. Constitution do good? Yes. It's established equal rights, abolished slavery, and set standards of conduct for the U.S. government to follow. But there's not a single fucking chance that any founding father could have written it in foresight of the context of modern day society, so it is my opinion that it should be scrutinized and rewritten in a more up to date context. But apparently that's bad, so, pile boxes on me. All of them. Every single fucking box.
Yeah, thus the phrase If it ain't broke don't fix it, that means if something is broke you fix it, thus rewrite certain sections.
[quote=wikipedia]The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.[/quote] yea I love my house being searched without a good reason lets get rid of this!!
"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," But doesn't "unlawful" mean "illegal"? So people shouldn't have the right to stop a police officer from [b]illegally[/b] entering their property? Fucking backwards bastards.
[QUOTE=Jack Bryce;29813705]"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," But doesn't "unlawful" mean "illegal"? So people shouldn't have the right to stop a police officer from [b]illegally[/b] entering their property? Fucking backwards bastards.[/QUOTE] So if someone is stabbing their wife to death, the police shouldn't have the ability to force their way into their house to prevent them? What about people threatening suicide, and other countless precedents? Breaking into the property is still "unlawful" in those cases, but no court will indict a cop based on the fact they trespassed to prevent a greater crime. Therefore, the 4th amendment is obsolete.
[QUOTE=1239the;29812806]The constitution was adopted in 1787, ratified 27 times (including one amendment simply to repeal another amendment), with the latest amendment being adopted in 1992. It is the oldest constitution still in use by any country in the world.[/QUOTE] Britain's is older.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;29814234]Britain's is older.[/QUOTE] I was just thinking this, although the UK doesn't have a "proper" codified constitution. However I think the de facto constitution made up of various laws could be classed as older. To quote Wikipedia "it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution." (referring to the 1297 version of the Magna Carta)
[QUOTE=1239the;29814180]So if someone is stabbing their wife to death, the police shouldn't have the ability to force their way into their house to prevent them? What about people threatening suicide, and other countless precedents? Breaking into the property is still "unlawful" in those cases, but no court will indict a cop based on the fact they trespassed to prevent a greater crime. Therefore, the 4th amendment is obsolete.[/QUOTE] If the police have probable cause [and it's an exigent circumstance] (regarding stabbing) or if it's an exigent circumstance (regarding suicide) then it is neither illegal nor does it go against the fourth amendment. The fourth protects against [B]unreasonable[/B] search and seizure.
Old laws not always = good laws
[QUOTE=1239the;29814180]So if someone is stabbing their wife to death, the police shouldn't have the ability to force their way into their house to prevent them? What about people threatening suicide, and other countless precedents? Breaking into the property is still "unlawful" in those cases, but no court will indict a cop based on the fact they trespassed to prevent a greater crime. Therefore, the 4th amendment is obsolete.[/QUOTE] Wow, that was so stupid that there is no response. The police are allowed to enter homes in these situations. Its called exigent circumstances. [quote]There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.[/quote] [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RichardCQ;29814371]If the police have probable cause [and it's an exigent circumstance] (regarding stabbing) or if it's an exigent circumstance (regarding suicide) then it is neither illegal nor does it go against the fourth amendment. The fourth protects against [B]unreasonable[/B] search and seizure.[/QUOTE] There we go. [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=johan_sm;29814374]Old laws not always = good laws[/QUOTE] Yeah, like the right to resist unlawful search and siezure.
The nature of the amendment still leaves police who carry out break-ins under probable cause open to legal action.
[QUOTE=1239the;29815164]The nature of the amendment still leaves police who carry out break-ins under probable cause open to legal action.[/QUOTE] Except American police have more legal resources than a peasant citizen like you has
[QUOTE=1239the;29814180]So if someone is stabbing their wife to death, the police shouldn't have the ability to force their way into their house to prevent them? What about people threatening suicide, and other countless precedents? Breaking into the property is still "unlawful" in those cases, but no court will indict a cop based on the fact they trespassed to prevent a greater crime. Therefore, the 4th amendment is obsolete.[/QUOTE] If an officer sees someone stabbing their wife, they have a right to enter the home with valid suspicion. This is saying if the officer sees or hears nothing directly but just assumes that there's something bad happening, and then tries to search the home. You're acting like you know the law but you don't even know this.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;29815379]If an officer sees someone stabbing their wife, they have a right to enter the home with valid suspicion. This is saying if the officer sees or hears nothing directly but just assumes that there's something bad happening, and then tries to search the home. You're acting like you know the law but you don't even know this.[/QUOTE] I researched, turns out... ...you're right. Well nevermind. :v:
[QUOTE=1239the;29812883]Does the U.S. Constitution do good? Yes. It's established equal rights, abolished slavery, and set standards of conduct for the U.S. government to follow. But there's not a single fucking chance that any founding father could have written it in foresight of the context of modern day society, so it is my opinion that it should be scrutinized and rewritten in a more up to date context. But apparently that's bad, so, pile boxes on me. All of them. Every single fucking box.[/QUOTE] Did you even take a single US Government class, at all, b any chance? You do know that the prime reasoning behind leaving the initial wording of the constitution vague was so that it could be defined and refined, added to and removed from as time goes on to fit the times, society, and general acceptance of things within reason, to overcome obstacles that the founders could not see? Like seriously, they designed it as a living document that could be changed and morphed to deal with problems they knew they could not foresee. It isn't some 200 year old document that's statically remained the same that holds the nation back with its statue-esque wording and concrete hold on things, it's the opposite. It's been changed and revised and amended and removed from and interpreted to fit society and to overcome problems like this, and if you think that's not the case, and that that isn't happening, you really, really need to take a better look around you. Between states' rights and their reserved powers through the 10th amendment, supreme court judicial interpretation and judicial activism, new legislation amendment proposals, and various executive orders, the constitution is an actively changing document that forms to fit our needs and problems while retaining its structure and the basic necessities to run a country built on equality, liberty, and the needs of the people. It's being scrutinized and rewritten every fucking time a case makes it tot he supreme court, every time a bill modifying some wording in it comes up, and every time an amendment is proposed or one is proposed to be removed. I believe you, sir, have no clue what you're talking about.
I thought the Amendments overrule shit like this?
America is turning into a police state. [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] Does this also mean they can enter your property without a warrant if there is no probable cause for someone being in danger?
[QUOTE=1239the;29814180]So if someone is stabbing their wife to death, the police shouldn't have the ability to force their way into their house to prevent them? What about people threatening suicide, and other countless precedents? Breaking into the property is still "unlawful" in those cases, but no court will indict a cop based on the fact they trespassed to prevent a greater crime. Therefore, the 4th amendment is obsolete.[/QUOTE] Probable cause
neverminding the derailment, how does a state government have the right to overturn national law? fire them
Such is life in Indiana.
The rights in the constitution were written not as a means of limiting the power of government. The founders understood that government needed certain restrictions in territorials in which they should have no ability to touch. These are covered in the bill of rights, and no matter the circumstance, the rights ought to be protected. They are designed to keep government in check and there is no reasoning which can justify nullification. I find this issue a bit similar to the issues we face after 9/11. There was a lot of questioning about allowing the government to infringe upon the bill or rights because it is somehow justified. I'm willing to make the case that it is never justified and that government should have no ability to override any amendment for any reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.