Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:
â€œThe 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.â€
This no longer applies in the state of Indiana.Â On Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Hoosiers have no right toÂ resist unlawful police entry into their homes. Any Hoosiers out there, I hope youâ€™re reading this because you just lost the right to safety and security in your own homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court saidÂ 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.” (emphasis mine)
So if a police officer wants to, they can walk through your front door any time they feel like it.Â They donâ€™t have to a reason.Â If you resist against this, YOU get arrested.
And no, they donâ€™t even have to knock.Â The same Indiana Supreme Court had thrown out that little piece of common courtesy earlier in the week.
I guess the â€œpublic policyâ€ thing is supposedly â€œwhatâ€™s best for society as a wholeâ€, right?Â Where have we heard that one before?Â And the â€œmodernâ€ jurisprudence translates into the â€œliving Constitutionâ€ interpretationâ€¦you know, that totally insignificant document on which the laws of our entire nation were originally structured that some modern-day intellectuals seem to believe is so archaic that they have to put their own new interpretations on it every time they get a chance.
This is unlawful entry that is being sugar-coated to make it seem lawful by the judicial branch in direct opposition to what was written in the Constitution.
I sure hope the good folks in Indiana are planning to take this through appeal and beyond if they have to.
Added Edit: Â I cross-posted this somewhere and apparently I wasn’t as explicit about presenting concerns that exist regarding this ruling as I should have been. Â So I’m adding this in to make it plain.
The 2 dissenting judges argued for qualifiers that would limit unlawful entry, such as saying that a police officer would have the right to entry in a situation where life might be threatened due to abuse, etc. Â This at least displays common sense in recognition of the 4th Amendment rights of citizens. Â It acknowledges that certain lines do exist.
The 3 judges making the final decision deliberately chose the broader application in this ruling, one that essentially condones unlawful entry by police. Â The judge acknowledges that it is unlawful entry in his statement, yet condones it all the same.
For me, personally, any time I see a situation of this sort where a choice is deliberately made to go in the direction of laws that are so broad as to violate rights under the Constitution, I question it. Â Why? Â What was the purpose? Â What was the line of logic and reason that was used?
There are specific mechanisms that progressives have been using for years on end to undermine the Constitution. Â Presenting claims of what is in the best interest of society as a whole via “public policy” can be a mechanism that is used to promote collectivism over individual citizens rights. Â Saying that the Constitution is “outdated” and has to be modernized is a just a smoke screen to justify whatever changes to the Constitution are being made. Â And I do question this to the hilt. Â I question whether or not it is genuine necessary. Â I question whether or not those making these decisions had other options. Â I question what kind of impact it might have, not only for the present but also for the future.
It’s all part of learning what we are up against, how to guard against moving even more in the direction of socialism than we already have, and trying to protect and preserve the rights that have been granted to us under the law.