1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Indiana Supreme Court says cops don't need warrant

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by slic lee, May 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,026
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    WHY THE SUPREME COURT? FOUR MEMBERS OF THE SCOTUS DONT BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHY ARE WE ASKING THEM ANYTHING? Lee
     
  2. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    As a State Police Trooper and Investigator for 30 + years, I can tell you that there's something missing in this story.

    I can't believe any court would allow this. The 4th Amendment and anti-warrantless searches is one of the cornerstone's of our judicial system.

    If this be true, even with my background, I'm dead set against it (there are a few exceptions that I agree with however).

    Curt
     
  3. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    First of all any occupant of the house may allow the police in- in this case the woman that was being beaten said let them in.

    Women beaters will not like this decision but it is no different than the law in most states.

    Futher- if the police believe harm might be coming to someone inside a dwelling they have the right to enter without a warrant

    Now just because the police enter doesnt mean they may use anything they find- there will be hearings on this

    There may also be hearings and a cause of action of police were not allowed to enter but did. Constituitional claims might be made.

    There are litterally thousands of opinions on this stuff already.

    Looks like a yawner to me

    Regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  4. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,357
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    Most states allow defense against Law Enforcement if excessive force is used. This defense was successfully used in the Waco Incident.

    Things could go badly for cops if they try to illegally enter the home of someone who is trained and able to bite back.
     
  5. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Sooner or later someone is going to really light the cops up for unlawfully invading his home. Right now the usual scenario is the cops shooting the homeowner who thought criminals were breaking in.
     
  6. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    This issue is so complicated that you should seek legal advice if you have a question but dont expect that a defense against force used by law enforcement is going to be available if you should resist police arrest or entry into your home.

    A judge will make that determination if such an argument may even be presented to a jury.

    If you think you can use force against police you are going to have some real issues.

    This isnt to say, as pointed out above by Gary and myself, that you wont have legal courses of action available to you for police abuses if they should occur.

    Regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  7. short shucker

    short shucker TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,939
    Shoot first and make sure they can't testify against you! This is an appauling ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court. They are basically leaving it up to the courts to clean up whatever happens when the police come in uninvited.

    Just wait until the "home invasion" thugs start acting/dressing like police officers to gain entry into your home. How are you supposed to know whether or not they are legit. Once you realize what's going on, it'll be too late!

    ss
     
  8. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    Good idea short shucker, "Shoot first and make sure they can't testify against you!" Have your neighbors let us know how that works out for you...
     
  9. short shucker

    short shucker TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,939
    noknock1,

    I shoot handguns and rifles with a lot of the local LEO's and they are well aware of my shooting abilities. Besides, I don't play fare when it comes to home protection. I have an 870 loaded with 7 low recoil OO buckshot shells. The pattern that thing throws at 21' is awesome!

    ss
     
  10. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    "Sooner or later someone is going to really light the cops up for unlawfully invading his home. Right now the usual scenario is the cops shooting the homeowner who thought criminals were breaking in."

    True random thought, it has nothing to do with this case, but I don't disagree with you completely. I disagree that your comment which makes it seem that law enforcement on a routine basis violates citizen's fourth amendment rights...

    I believe these are EXTREMELY ISOLATED incidents, but on those extremely rare occasions where law enforcement truly without exigent circumstances, enters, search, etc... a residence are setting themselves up for a potential powder keg incident.

    We had three IMPD cops forge search warrants and illegally enter drug dealers stash houses and rob them.. They were set up by the FEDS and fellow IMPD cops and are serving long prison sentences.

    So no I do not disagree that there are bad apples in every single branch of society, but fortunately for us, most lawful gun owners are not wife beaters, drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, etc... and go their entire lives on this planet without negative contact by law enforcement other than a traffic infraction.

    It is disturbing to see the comments about biting back and lighting up law enforcement.

    If anyone on here is a true victim of law enforcement violating their rights, then please tell the story. Not really interested in third party accounts of law enforcement violating civil rights unless it is immediate family.

    Point is, again nothing to do with this original post, just commenting on the non-related comments… that probably 100% of the people on this site will never be in a situation that warrants (pun intended) law enforcement kicking in your door with OR without a court order…

    So why puff up your chests and say “this is what I would do, or this is what will sooner or later happen, etc…?

    This is a different world, a criminal element, if any gun owner on this site truly feels for this criminal element or can relate to this criminal element then yes, sooner or later you will probably be getting a visit from the guys in blue…

    Then you too can find an attorney to try and spin the facts and divert attention away from the fact that you were beating the shit out of a female, in the act of raping a female or child…. or that the drugs, child pornography found, etc.. should be inadmissible because the law enforcement violated your ‘rights.’

    Really?????? Different world, there are those that are turds and there are those that are not. The people on this website are not... I pray...
     
  11. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    short shucker, you said "I shoot handguns and rifles with a lot of the local LEO's and they are well aware of my shooting abilities. Besides, I don't play fare when it comes to home protection. I have an 870 loaded with 7 low recoil OO buckshot shells. The pattern that thing throws at 21' is awesome!

    ss"



    I no longer disagree with you. I did not realize you were such a good shot. I now believe you are correct in saying that you will take out seven LEO'S. You will probably then lay down your shotgun and the guys in blue that show up will in good faith arrest you and take you into custody without incident for the murder of officers that you just killed so they can not testify against you...

    I have no doubts that your 'loads' will kill 7 or more police officers.
     
  12. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    noknock1, the problem is, if you'd been paying attention for the last two decades, you'd find these are not, quote, <i>"EXTREMELY ISOLATED"</i> cases.

    And yes, it should disturb you that sooner or later someone is going to light up the cops. Because the cops should not be putting themselves, or innocent citizens, in that position in the first place. This gets back to the inherent problems with routinely using no knock warrants and bad intel.

    And this isn't just a case of "bad apples". It's worse. It's department policy. These type of actions are sanctioned.

    The really sad thing has been watching over the last two and a half decades as the cops morph from Officer Friendly into paramilitary Swatzis, with the attitude that it's them against "civilians". And somehow they're not citizens like the rest of us.
     
  13. unplugged

    unplugged Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    404
    http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/may/13/tucson_swat_team_kills_armed_hom
     
  14. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    Out of thousands if not tens of thousands or more of search warrants exectued eacy year, how many are:

    1) UNLAWFULL

    2) WRONG ADDRESS?

    As far as the para-military thing, if your son was an LEO would you want him wandering up to a house to serve a search warrant like Barney against a turd(s) who has mulitple weapons and as some on this site point out are "well trained and able to use them?" Or would you want him to come home to his family safe because he has better training then the bad guy?

    It is obvious, you or anyone that kicks a door for a living should be extremely well trained. The para-military appearance of SWAT, and various tac teams in a lot of cases are enough to intimidate a bad guy on the fence of shooting it out or giving up to give up. The bad guy knows that he can not win. That is good for everyone. In those cases where a turd is hell bent on shooting it out with the cops, then hopefully that turd misses and the cops don't...
     
  15. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    unplugged, I don't disagree that tragic mistakes happen, and ideally there would be a perfect record when it came to probable cause affidavits and execution of search warrants, however we do not live in a perfect world. I still say the overall percentages of bad search warrants are extremely low and isolated.

    Guess I will be convinced when I see reputable stats to prove otherwise just as some on here want to see stats from a reputable source that would ascertain my statement to be incorrect.
     
  16. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The problem is most of these cases, unless spectacular, do not get reported much outside of the local community. It's only when local people provide links to the local stories does the word get out. Heck, some of the local cases here didn't get much coverage by the local media. We only found out about the botched raids during the lawsuit phase.
     
  17. Don Steele

    Don Steele Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,539
    Location:
    Florida's beautiful E. Coast
    "Google"...Cato institute bungled police raids.
    They have created a map of the US showing quite a lot of information on the topic of police raids "gone bad".
    The most disturbing part of this decision is: "A right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, Justice Steven David wrote in his ruling"
    The idea that there should be "modern" jurisprudence (In Justice David's opinion) vs the wisdom of the Founders is why we're having our rights eroded.
     
  18. oz

    oz Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,817
    Remember the other side of the coin. There have been instances where a woman called and someone just entered my house and is raping/killing me. police get there and no one answers the door. they can't go in. Later the woman is found raped/murdered. (Illegal) entry could have saved her life and caught the criminal. It's a double edged sword. Police are wrong if they do and wrong if they don't. tough job to protect and seerve. oz
     
  19. SeldomShoots

    SeldomShoots Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Indiana
    Police have always had exceptions under the 4th amendement to enter a home in the case of an exigent circumstances or "hot pursuit" where a defendant runs into his or her house after committing a crime or running from police.

    While is sounds like Justice David's reasoning is flawed, and he is trying to stretch the limits for which an officer can enter a home. His decision could be supported based on the fact that a domestic argument was occuring and when Richard Barnes followed his wife Mary back into the appartment after their had been signs and evidence of domestic dispute and possible battery.

    It appears that Justice David's opinion and the media blew this out of proportion. Its the correct result, but flawed reasoning and theory for his decision, from the prior holdings and interpretation under the 4th amendment. Interestingly, I believe Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed Steven David to the Indiana Supreme Court. That may have been a mistake.

    John

    P.S. here is a link to the actual Court decision:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
     
  20. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    Luvs to Shoot- that is what you call a slippery slope.

    I dont agree with the entire decision either and do find it troubling. I would think the ACLU would take up this cause but lets see.

    The Court is also going to have a problem here by trying to apply their new theory as a law to previous conduct, which is what they are doing here.

    Regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.