GhostWriter16
Deity
NickyJ, RedRalph, and everyone in between on the Political Spectrum seem to agree that there is no way in the world that Indiana called it right...
Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
NickyJ, RedRalph, and everyone in between on the Political Spectrum seem to agree that there is no way in the world that Indiana called it right...
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Uhh...sieg heil?
/godwin
/godwin
Seen Kyle? He is about this tall. Anyone seen Kyle?
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I don’t think that this ruling is legit, and, in fact, I’m worried that since the ruling appears to be based on the federal Constitution and not the state’s, I would worry that other jurisdictions could potentially cite this ruling as precedent. I particularly worry since this illegal entry appears to have been because of a relatively benign incident; a couple arguing outside. It seems to me that any escalation of violence was committed by the police.
That said, please permit me to play devil’s advocate and present a hypothetical situation that makes my view questionable:
Let’s say there’s Joe Cop, who’s a police officer. He doesn’t like violence, but will use appropriate force to prevent harm to himself or another. For him, being a police officer is just a job. He’s not trying to make any sort of statement in his line of work, but instead executes the law and his orders to the best of his ability because that’s his job. He’s just an average guy with a job.
Joe Cop receives instructions to execute a search warrant at 23 Mockingbird Lane, the residence of Larry Lawbreaker, but there’s an issue with the Xerox machine used to make Joe’s copy of the warrant. The street number becomes smudged and reads 28 Mockingbird Lane, the residence of Jane Homeowner. Joe drives over to 28 Mockingbird, knocks on the door, and is met by Jane. Jane refuses Joe entry on the basis that no Larry lives at number 28, and she shuts the door in Joe’s face. Joe assumes that Jane is lying to him and breaks down the door, but Jane has since taken out and loaded her legally obtained handgun out of fear that an armed man is attempting to break into her house. This situation will likely end in serious harm to one or both parties.
Are one’s civil liberties sufficiently valuable that they justify such a situation?
--
Regardless, the lesson of this case is that if the cops come to your door, always step outside your door to speak to them and close it behind you. If you leave the door open, as the guy in this case did, you open yourself to in plain sight allowances for search. Not that it worked for Henry Louis Gates, mind you.
That said, please permit me to play devil’s advocate and present a hypothetical situation that makes my view questionable:
Let’s say there’s Joe Cop, who’s a police officer. He doesn’t like violence, but will use appropriate force to prevent harm to himself or another. For him, being a police officer is just a job. He’s not trying to make any sort of statement in his line of work, but instead executes the law and his orders to the best of his ability because that’s his job. He’s just an average guy with a job.
Joe Cop receives instructions to execute a search warrant at 23 Mockingbird Lane, the residence of Larry Lawbreaker, but there’s an issue with the Xerox machine used to make Joe’s copy of the warrant. The street number becomes smudged and reads 28 Mockingbird Lane, the residence of Jane Homeowner. Joe drives over to 28 Mockingbird, knocks on the door, and is met by Jane. Jane refuses Joe entry on the basis that no Larry lives at number 28, and she shuts the door in Joe’s face. Joe assumes that Jane is lying to him and breaks down the door, but Jane has since taken out and loaded her legally obtained handgun out of fear that an armed man is attempting to break into her house. This situation will likely end in serious harm to one or both parties.
Are one’s civil liberties sufficiently valuable that they justify such a situation?
--
Regardless, the lesson of this case is that if the cops come to your door, always step outside your door to speak to them and close it behind you. If you leave the door open, as the guy in this case did, you open yourself to in plain sight allowances for search. Not that it worked for Henry Louis Gates, mind you.
I do not understand how a court can rule in a way which completely disregards the 4th amendment.
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.
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.
civver_764
Deity
Wait what.
What.
I don't even get it.
What possible legal argument could there be for this.
In my home state nonetheless. I'm so proud of you Indiana.
What.
I don't even get it.
What possible legal argument could there be for this.
In my home state nonetheless. I'm so proud of you Indiana.
Clearly, it is not unreasonable for an officer to unreasonably break into your house. 
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Can a cop from MI come down and "crash" a party?
If you've done nothing illegal, you got no reason to fear of police breaking into your house for no reason.
I'm just gonna take this role here, because nobody else haven't yet.
I'm just gonna take this role here, because nobody else haven't yet.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, I live in New York, so I know how you feel (Note, my state isn't just liberal, they also have some of the dumbest laws on the planet.)
But, what legal argument? When's the last time that's mattered? Its "Constitutional" because we say so. No questions asked
civver_764
Deity
This is not a liberal measure at all. I don't care what definition of the term you're using.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I was talking about New York when I said liberal, not Indiana.
What was passed in Indiana was a statist measure, whatever definition you use, not conservative or liberal.
Though, if you use liberal in the usage sometimes used by Americans to mean "Big government anti-American" than by that definition, liberal applies
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Red, white, and fascism.
Berzerker
Deity
No right of self defense against government agents acting outside of the law? Gotta do some more reading, but at first glance it looks like the court went well beyond the actual case - cops dont need a warrant to investigate a domestic abuse call and I dont think the occupant can tell them to stick it when they show up to investigate. How did the court use that to tear down the castle walls for resisting unlawful/illegal searches.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
A decade ago, my response would have been that the Supremes would eventually hear the case and again remind the more backward states they had no right to violate the Constitution. But who knows nowadays?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I wouldn't consider it "Backward." This wasn't happening in the past. Its happening now because government likes power.
Similar threads
- Locked
