Friday, September 24, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesThe Indiana Supreme Court Did What??

The Indiana Supreme Court Did What??

Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:

“The 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.”

This no longer applies in the state of Indiana.  On Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. Any Hoosiers out there, I hope you’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 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.” (emphasis mine)

So if a police officer wants to, they can walk through your front door any time they feel like it.  They don’t have to a reason.  If you resist against this, YOU get arrested.

And no, they don’t even have to knock.  The same Indiana Supreme Court had thrown out that little piece of common courtesy earlier in the week.

I guess the “public policy” thing is supposedly “what’s best for society as a whole”, right?  Where have we heard that one before?  And the “modern” jurisprudence translates into the “living Constitution” interpretation…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:  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.  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.  This at least displays common sense in recognition of the 4th Amendment rights of citizens.  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.  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.  Why?  What was the purpose?  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.  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.  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.  And I do question this to the hilt.  I question whether or not it is genuine necessary.  I question whether or not those making these decisions had other options.  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.

 

 

9 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

9 COMMENTS

    • Uggghhhh!!!! Yeah, I’m having big problems with this one too, Texasgalt. I’ve been assured by someone who knows more about the law than I do that this really isn’t a threat, and a part of me what to believe that. I genuinely do. We just have so many different threats to our freedoms coming at us from so many different angles right now.

      I’m hoping that this will be appealed and walked back a bit, just to keep some lines in place.

  1. Indiana could be a case study. I am a Hoosier. For decades, Indiana high school basketball was a respected, admired, wondrous thing. There was one state tournament – all schools entered and winner take all. Then a bunch of ‘progressive’ “educators” and “administrators” took it and divided it into four classes, so there are four ‘state champions’ every year. Fairness; equality; and all that rot. Indiana high school basketball is still pretty good, but it has never been the same. You recall the movie Hoosiers?
    I could give other examples – politics, religion, education, the ‘environment’. Indiana used to be a pretty conservative state. Sometimes the D’s took the statehouse, sometimes the governorship. And we had our share of unions. But still, it was a traditional, common sense state, with ‘shall issue’ 2nd Amendment laws. And small, local schools were cherished, fiercely guarded. No way in helll a socialist like Barack Obama would ever carry Indiana…….but he did.

    • bobmontgomery, I’m sorry. I can almost hear your voice, and a certain amount of pain in it. It makes me feel guilty in some ways, because I went at this pretty close to no-holds-barred.

      Don’t give up hope, not just yet. What you have described Indiana to be still exists. It’s just been buried under the surface for a while. “Frog-in-the-pot” syndrome can be overcome, bob. Keep believing in them and let them know what is going on, particular in this case.

  2. Sorry for my absence from the discussion for two days. I have been busy with actual legal clients! Some final thoughts:

    First, this “right” in the Magna Carta has never been part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the US except in very rare and obscure cases of Common Law in a few states and in only one state statute. So any suggestion that the rejection of it by a court due to a clever legal argument somehow changes what the 4th amendment has meant in the past or will mean in the future is inaccurate.

    Second, the warrant requirement in the 4th amendment is quite vague and subordinate to the main requirement of “reasonableness”. The case law has carved out so many exceptions to the warrant requirement under the exigent circumstances that even lawyer owners of homes subject to a warrantless search would not be expected to be so confident as to the legality of a proposed search to justify a resort to violent resistance to a cop even with all the facts, and of course a suspect could not possibly know all the facts that a cop would have.

    So even if one accepted the premise of the Magna Carta property owner/tenant “right”, you would be empowering citizens to stand on equal ground with a officer of the law. You would be making him a judge and jury or a Texas standoff everytime a warrantless search was executed.

    Police will always make mistakes. Our system of trial by jury and appeals has proven the envy of the world. Do we really want to carve out a portion of the law and assign private citizens the role of equality with a cop? Especially when we have the exclusionary rule and civil damages remedies that this case affects not an iota? It would be asking for trouble where it doesn’t exist and with the result being no fewer illegal searches than there are now…which is few. Moreover, it would lead to more confrontations that would increase the deaths of cops and home denizens.

    As a criminal defense lawyer for 3 decades, one of the best pieces of advice I give clients that want to argue with the police of the streets is that they understand that the issues will be decided in court and not on the streets. To send a message to people that they have the right to confront cops with force if they think the cop is acting wrong would be an invitation to anarchy. Remember that we are talking about the defense of property. The right of self defense against violence to persons remains.

    If a cop doesn’t show a badge and tries to break in your home, the right of self defense and the reasonable person rule would still protect you.

    I would say that the exigent circumstance doctrine re searches of homes and vehicles must be kept in check.

    • Mike: First you talk about resistance on the streets, as well as at the residence, I think you would agree there is a big difference in what happens on the streets vs. in ones private esidence. Second, I think you would agree that a person has a reasonable expectation to be secure in his person and his property, and as such his privacy, i.e. the castle doctrine. It disturbs me when I see news accounts of “Man barricades sel in his house – SWAT team called out” Why don’t I have right to barricade myself in my house? Finally, the lnaguage of the opinion is what is most egregious. We all understand the no-knock deal for drugs, or rushing in to save someone, etc. But the language PRESUPPOSES that the police action is UNLAWFUL, the judge says so in plain English, and says public policy is against resisting something that the judge concedes is unlawful. Therefore, how can you say someone still has the right to fight off a deranged policeman when the judge says it is against public policy to do so?

    • Uggghhhh!!!! Yeah, I’m having big problems with this one too, Texasgalt. I’ve been assured by someone who knows more about the law than I do that this really isn’t a threat, and a part of me what to believe that. I genuinely do. We just have so many different threats to our freedoms coming at us from so many different angles right now.

      I’m hoping that this will be appealed and walked back a bit, just to keep some lines in place.

  1. Indiana could be a case study. I am a Hoosier. For decades, Indiana high school basketball was a respected, admired, wondrous thing. There was one state tournament – all schools entered and winner take all. Then a bunch of ‘progressive’ “educators” and “administrators” took it and divided it into four classes, so there are four ‘state champions’ every year. Fairness; equality; and all that rot. Indiana high school basketball is still pretty good, but it has never been the same. You recall the movie Hoosiers?
    I could give other examples – politics, religion, education, the ‘environment’. Indiana used to be a pretty conservative state. Sometimes the D’s took the statehouse, sometimes the governorship. And we had our share of unions. But still, it was a traditional, common sense state, with ‘shall issue’ 2nd Amendment laws. And small, local schools were cherished, fiercely guarded. No way in helll a socialist like Barack Obama would ever carry Indiana…….but he did.

    • bobmontgomery, I’m sorry. I can almost hear your voice, and a certain amount of pain in it. It makes me feel guilty in some ways, because I went at this pretty close to no-holds-barred.

      Don’t give up hope, not just yet. What you have described Indiana to be still exists. It’s just been buried under the surface for a while. “Frog-in-the-pot” syndrome can be overcome, bob. Keep believing in them and let them know what is going on, particular in this case.

  2. Sorry for my absence from the discussion for two days. I have been busy with actual legal clients! Some final thoughts:

    First, this “right” in the Magna Carta has never been part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the US except in very rare and obscure cases of Common Law in a few states and in only one state statute. So any suggestion that the rejection of it by a court due to a clever legal argument somehow changes what the 4th amendment has meant in the past or will mean in the future is inaccurate.

    Second, the warrant requirement in the 4th amendment is quite vague and subordinate to the main requirement of “reasonableness”. The case law has carved out so many exceptions to the warrant requirement under the exigent circumstances that even lawyer owners of homes subject to a warrantless search would not be expected to be so confident as to the legality of a proposed search to justify a resort to violent resistance to a cop even with all the facts, and of course a suspect could not possibly know all the facts that a cop would have.

    So even if one accepted the premise of the Magna Carta property owner/tenant “right”, you would be empowering citizens to stand on equal ground with a officer of the law. You would be making him a judge and jury or a Texas standoff everytime a warrantless search was executed.

    Police will always make mistakes. Our system of trial by jury and appeals has proven the envy of the world. Do we really want to carve out a portion of the law and assign private citizens the role of equality with a cop? Especially when we have the exclusionary rule and civil damages remedies that this case affects not an iota? It would be asking for trouble where it doesn’t exist and with the result being no fewer illegal searches than there are now…which is few. Moreover, it would lead to more confrontations that would increase the deaths of cops and home denizens.

    As a criminal defense lawyer for 3 decades, one of the best pieces of advice I give clients that want to argue with the police of the streets is that they understand that the issues will be decided in court and not on the streets. To send a message to people that they have the right to confront cops with force if they think the cop is acting wrong would be an invitation to anarchy. Remember that we are talking about the defense of property. The right of self defense against violence to persons remains.

    If a cop doesn’t show a badge and tries to break in your home, the right of self defense and the reasonable person rule would still protect you.

    I would say that the exigent circumstance doctrine re searches of homes and vehicles must be kept in check.

    • Mike: First you talk about resistance on the streets, as well as at the residence, I think you would agree there is a big difference in what happens on the streets vs. in ones private esidence. Second, I think you would agree that a person has a reasonable expectation to be secure in his person and his property, and as such his privacy, i.e. the castle doctrine. It disturbs me when I see news accounts of “Man barricades sel in his house – SWAT team called out” Why don’t I have right to barricade myself in my house? Finally, the lnaguage of the opinion is what is most egregious. We all understand the no-knock deal for drugs, or rushing in to save someone, etc. But the language PRESUPPOSES that the police action is UNLAWFUL, the judge says so in plain English, and says public policy is against resisting something that the judge concedes is unlawful. Therefore, how can you say someone still has the right to fight off a deranged policeman when the judge says it is against public policy to do so?

Must Read