Login System 
IMPORTANT: Please note that you must now log in with your email address and not your username!
ARCHIVED
 POLYTHENEPAM 
Member
Joined: May 2005  IN, USA
 Posts: 8604 Feedback: 100% (1) |
Posted: 5/12/2011 8:22:41 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT The decision was 3-2 with Justices Dickson and Rucker dissenting. Remember this decision when the other 3 come up for a retention vote! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2011 8:53:32 PM
Does that include if you didn't know it was the police? Most people still don't really want to shoot an officer, even if justified. Besides, smile while your face down on you floor, you just got rich anyway.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2011 8:57:17 PM
Does this mean that they can just go into any house they feel like now? Or do they still need a warrant? Pretty shitty about the cops not having to knock if they have a warrant. The Porter County Swat Team has a pretty spotty record of raiding the wrong house when looking for people. I wonder if they break a door down and it is the wrong house, do they have to pay for it?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2011 10:06:22 PM
In theory the court system will compensate you when the police break into your house, beat you and wrongfully arrest you.
According to the Indiana Supreme Court, that makes it all better, just like when Mom kissed your boo boo when you were a child. Of course, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the .gov check, unless you look good with a blue face. Welcome to Amerika, Hoosier style. Kiss the 4th Amendment good bye. |
|
|
|
ricksrifle
Squib Tester
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 USA
Posts: 228 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/12/2011 11:32:08 PM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
In theory the court system will compensate you when the police break into your house, beat you and wrongfully arrest you. According to the Indiana Supreme Court, that makes it all better, just like when Mom kissed your boo boo when you were a child. Of course, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the .gov check, unless you look good with a blue face. Welcome to Amerika, Hoosier style. Kiss the 4th Amendment good bye. Explain in your own words the difference between a "good faith" mistake and an "illegal" warrant. |
|
|
|
Bringer_of_Fire
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2007 IN, USA
Posts: 304 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/13/2011 2:53:29 AM
[Last Edit: 5/13/2011 2:54:21 AM by Bringer_of_Fire]
Originally Posted By BigPumpkins:
Does this mean that they can just go into any house they feel like now? Or do they still need a warrant? Pretty shitty about the cops not having to knock if they have a warrant. The Porter County Swat Team has a pretty spotty record of raiding the wrong house when looking for people. I wonder if they break a door down and it is the wrong house, do they have to pay for it? Pretty dramatic jump of logic you have there, Skippy. I'll answer your questions with small words. 1. No. 2. Yes, unless meeting one of exceptions. 3. Yes. If they refuse to pay civil court will be your solution, and you can blame the jury if you don't get paid. This ruling is not going to suddenly lead to cops booting doors left and right just because they feel like it. I know one department that pays for any door they boot, regardless of whether they were justified or not. ETA the word "pay" between the words "to" and "civil" |
|
|
|
Bringer_of_Fire
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2007 IN, USA
Posts: 305 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/13/2011 3:03:45 AM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Welcome to Amerika, Hoosier style. Kiss the 4th Amendment good bye. Very melodramatic of you. This decision does not make it okay for cops to wrongfully enter your house. It doesn't make them immune civilly for making illegal entry. It makes it illegal for you to shoot the cops just because you THINK the entry was illegal. Remember: The 4th even says "probable cause", not "certain cause". The cops could be legally justified even if you aren't guilty. It could be that they were operating in good faith based on probable cause from information they had developed. It's a tricky decision for the court to have to decide. I think it fell this way because a decision in the opposite direction could lead to people shooting up the cops on any (legal) door entry and claiming that they thought it was an illegal entry when it comes time for the trial. I expected a 3-2 decision, I just didn't know which direction it was going to go. Again, for all the rhetoric here, I will be completely unsurprised when the cops DON'T go around kicking all our doors in because of this decision. This is hardly an abolition of the 4th. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2011 11:09:11 AM
Originally Posted By Bringer_of_Fire:
Again, for all the rhetoric here, I will be completely unsurprised when the cops DON'T go around kicking all our doors in because of this decision. So it's OK as long as they don't kick everyone's doors in? They came for the Jews and I didn't object, because I wasn't a Jew ...  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2011 12:17:12 PM
[Last Edit: 5/13/2011 12:28:03 PM by ekg98]
This is how I read it.
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. Any officer can enter your home for any reason or no reason. A COMMA! In the course of that you cannot block his entry. This opens the door (Pun Intended) for random searches. Not like anything has changed however. http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09101002tac.pdf TROTTER v. STATE, No. 29A02-0910-CR-974, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2010). A person has the right to point a firearm at an intruder in his residence until he is able to confirm the intruder’s identity and purpose, even during a warrantless intrusion in the middle of the night by persons claiming to be police officers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2011 4:14:02 PM
So some of you think you should be able resist in they try to enter? If it turns out they did not have just cause to enter, nothing they find will be admissible in court. I do not see what the big deal is. It does not change the process of obtaining a warrant. They still need probable cause. If they kick your door in without it, you do not have to flush your stash. It would be inadmissible in court.
|
|
|
|
Doctor_Chicago
ARFCOM LIFER!
Life Member
Joined: Jan 2003 IN, USA
Posts: 2572 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/13/2011 8:06:07 PM
I think this is a major violation of our rights. I hope it goes to the US Supreme Court.
We have the Castle Doctrine - but police can come and go as they plesae - Hmmm - NOT RIGHT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2011 8:29:31 PM
Originally Posted By AR-50:
So some of you think you should be able resist in they try to enter? < This way to the "showers". Don't resist, it's unlawful. |
|
|
|
DaFuzz62
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2006 IN, USA
Posts: 568 Feedback: 100% (47) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:22:15 PM
[Last Edit: 5/14/2011 1:23:55 PM by DaFuzz62]
Curious as to where you obtained this info?? Is this speculation or something you have first hand knowledge of?
Crap...this was a question ref BigPumpkins post. "Does this mean that they can just go into any house they feel like now? Or do they still need a warrant? Pretty shitty about the cops not having to knock if they have a warrant. The Porter County Swat Team has a pretty spotty record of raiding the wrong house when looking for people. I wonder if they break a door down and it is the wrong house, do they have to pay for it?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2011 7:09:21 PM
Originally Posted By DaFuzz62:
Curious as to where you obtained this info?? Is this speculation or something you have first hand knowledge of? Crap...this was a question ref BigPumpkins post. "Does this mean that they can just go into any house they feel like now? Or do they still need a warrant? Pretty shitty about the cops not having to knock if they have a warrant. The Porter County Swat Team has a pretty spotty record of raiding the wrong house when looking for people. I wonder if they break a door down and it is the wrong house, do they have to pay for it?" What info are you asking about? The Porter County Swat Team? |
|
|
|
DaFuzz62
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2006 IN, USA
Posts: 569 Feedback: 100% (47) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/15/2011 7:39:37 AM
Originally Posted By BigPumpkins:
Originally Posted By DaFuzz62:
Curious as to where you obtained this info?? Is this speculation or something you have first hand knowledge of? Crap...this was a question ref BigPumpkins post. "Does this mean that they can just go into any house they feel like now? Or do they still need a warrant? Pretty shitty about the cops not having to knock if they have a warrant. The Porter County Swat Team has a pretty spotty record of raiding the wrong house when looking for people. I wonder if they break a door down and it is the wrong house, do they have to pay for it?" What info are you asking about? The Porter County Swat Team? Yes |
|
|
douglasmorris99
CHEF
Team Member
Joined: May 2005 TX, USA
Posts: 13215 Feedback: 100% (152) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/15/2011 8:31:37 AM
Originally Posted By AR-50:
So some of you think you should be able resist in they try to enter? If it turns out they did not have just cause to enter, nothing they find will be admissible in court. I do not see what the big deal is. It does not change the process of obtaining a warrant. They still need probable cause. If they kick your door in without it, you do not have to flush your stash. It would be inadmissible in court. Are all your shirts brown, or do you have some black ones with the little skull tabs on the collars 
this is a HUGE Step in the Wrong Direction..where is your former Governor with Presidential dreams??? why isnt HE screaming about this??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2011 9:14:18 AM
[Last Edit: 5/15/2011 9:14:40 AM by POLYTHENEPAM]
Originally Posted By douglasmorris99:
where is your former Governor with Presidential dreams??? why isnt HE screaming about this??? That would be the current governor. I suppose he's not "screaming" because criticising another branch of government is considered bad taste. Remember the reaction to the President's jab at SCUOTUS over a decision he didn't agree with? |
|
|
|
DaFuzz62
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2006 IN, USA
Posts: 570 Feedback: 100% (47) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/15/2011 9:58:28 AM
I think the "spirit" of the decision is to reduce the chance of injury to officers. The two dissenting judges said they would be on board if they narrowed the scope of their decision. They cited an example of a domestic battery call where the male battered the female and then refused the officers entry into the home. When they forced their way in, an officer was injured and the suspect was tazed. I can think of an example or two where that is beneficial, but the ruling needs to be narrowed. I think its just saying, "screw the 4th Amendment". As a Police Officer, I would much rather abide by the constitution and protect people rights than to violate them and risk losing everything in civil court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2011 11:45:07 AM
Originally Posted By DaFuzz62:
Originally Posted By BigPumpkins:
Originally Posted By DaFuzz62:
Curious as to where you obtained this info?? Is this speculation or something you have first hand knowledge of? Crap...this was a question ref BigPumpkins post. "Does this mean that they can just go into any house they feel like now? Or do they still need a warrant? Pretty shitty about the cops not having to knock if they have a warrant. The Porter County Swat Team has a pretty spotty record of raiding the wrong house when looking for people. I wonder if they break a door down and it is the wrong house, do they have to pay for it?" What info are you asking about? The Porter County Swat Team? Yes Back around early 2000 they did a bunch of arrest warrant raids. Easily a quarter of the people they were looking for didn't even live in the houses they raided anymore. You trying to tell me that a little bit of recon wouldn't have told them that? Since then it is only more of the same. I understand why they do it, but come on at least get your facts sorted out before you do it. It used to be reported in the paper, but seems they are not doing it so much anymore. Whenever they have the big arrest warrant sweeps there are always houses where the people they are looking for haven't lived there for months. Just some poor new homeowner, or renter, awakened at gun point at 6 in the morning. |
|
|
|
DaFuzz62
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2006 IN, USA
Posts: 572 Feedback: 100% (47) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/15/2011 12:23:38 PM
Ok, I think I know what you are talking about. If we are talking about the same thing, that was a multi-jurisdictional event. Info and warrants were all passed down by the Feds on that one. There were several SWAT Teams involved as well as Patrol. It sounded like you were saying they were going to the wrong address from what was listed on the warrant. They are one of the most professional teams you will find around. I know each one of them personally and they are a great bunch of guys. (Not on the team, but I am their armorer)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2011 8:23:40 PM
Originally Posted By DaFuzz62:
Ok, I think I know what you are talking about. If we are talking about the same thing, that was a multi-jurisdictional event. Info and warrants were all passed down by the Feds on that one. There were several SWAT Teams involved as well as Patrol. It sounded like you were saying they were going to the wrong address from what was listed on the warrant. They are one of the most professional teams you will find around. I know each one of them personally and they are a great bunch of guys. (Not on the team, but I am their armorer) No this was just local. No Feds involved. No the warrants had the right addresses. Just the guys they were looking for hadn't been there for a few months. Since you work with them some may seem professional, but to the rest of us some of them are far from it. Just like any other job. Some good and some bad. |
|
|
|
WIZZO_ARAKM14
Woods rider
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 IN, USA
Posts: 12108 Feedback: 100% (6) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/15/2011 8:46:43 PM
So, wait...
This means that if the police read "Apt 48" as "Apt 46" and kick my door in intead of the doper they're looking for, it's illegal to protect myself (since I'm a law abiding citizen and NOBODY has a good reason to kick my door down) and I'd be prosecuted for it? That's just.....groovy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:46:29 PM
This means that if the police read "Apt 48" as "Apt 46" and kick my door in intead of the doper they're looking for, it's illegal to protect myself (since I'm a law abiding citizen and NOBODY has a good reason to kick my door down) and I'd be prosecuted for it?
Worse than this, Brother. This Indiana Supreme Court decision turns "common law" on its head existing from 1215 onward. In 1215 the Magna Carta required King John of England (translate: Federal state or local government) to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no free man could be punished except through the law of the land,( a right enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights today.) Short version: now an Indiana police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any way with the officer's entry. The ruling is a blatant assault on the U.S. Fourth Amendment, which states: "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." I am a "law and order" person and highly respect all LEO. However, there are always bad apples in any barrel. Worse: a lot of state and municipal sheriffs and police department have been sucking on the Federal government's tit for funding. So...we have a can have a Federal politician or LEO say: "Hey! You officers in Ft. Wayne––we want to know what that guy on Third Avenue is up to; what's in his house; etc.––go search his place, you won't have any legal problems in Indiana..." NOT MY CUP OF TEA! This sign is no longer applicable in Indiana:  |
|
|
|
Bringer_of_Fire
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2007 IN, USA
Posts: 306 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/16/2011 7:06:56 PM
I really think a lot of you responding have not read the dicision the OP was referring to. Here it is: Link
I am not, in fact, in agreement with the decision. My personal opinion more closely mirrors one of the dissenting opinions. It's ludicrous, however, to claim that this decision abolishes the Fourth. It's funny to me that some of you think that it's even in the power of the Indiana Supreme Court to do so. There are still lots of consequences for officers violating the Fourth. The majority opinion essentially states that it is exactly because there are so many other remedies that physical resistance is outmoded. Evidence still gets suppressed, departments still get sued, officers still get disciplined or fired. The majority opinion also goes on to point out that lots of other states made the same decision years ago. This is not a radical new abolition of a constitutional right. This is something that public opinion seems to be supporting and other states have already done the same. I don't know the specific decisions for the other states, so I haven't read them myself. I wonder how many of you expressing outrage have lived in other states where this has been the norm for decades. Did you express outrage in that state at that time? Or were you completely unaware? Also, please read the specific facts of this case. This was not officers kicking in the wrong door. This was a case of officers trying to investigate a domestic disturbance and they entered a gray area of the law. The fact that it is a gray area is obvious by different courts having different opinions of it. As officers were trying to enter the house to investigate the disturbance with the female occupants apparent permission the plaintiff shoved an officer. I personally think (from the limited information I have) that the entry was fine and in keeping with currently recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. I still think that the majority opinion paints with too broad of a brush. When you're discussing this decision, though, please actually talk about the pertinent facts. The people who are fearmongering and claiming that the Fourth no longer exists should be ashamed for spreading such misinformation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:30:20 PM
Originally Posted By Bringer_of_Fire:
I really think a lot of you responding have not read the dicision the OP was referring to. Here it is: Link I am not, in fact, in agreement with the decision. My personal opinion more closely mirrors one of the dissenting opinions. It's ludicrous, however, to claim that this decision abolishes the Fourth. It's funny to me that some of you think that it's even in the power of the Indiana Supreme Court to do so. There are still lots of consequences for officers violating the Fourth. The majority opinion essentially states that it is exactly because there are so many other remedies that physical resistance is outmoded. Evidence still gets suppressed, departments still get sued, officers still get disciplined or fired. The majority opinion also goes on to point out that lots of other states made the same decision years ago. This is not a radical new abolition of a constitutional right. This is something that public opinion seems to be supporting and other states have already done the same. I don't know the specific decisions for the other states, so I haven't read them myself. I wonder how many of you expressing outrage have lived in other states where this has been the norm for decades. Did you express outrage in that state at that time? Or were you completely unaware? Also, please read the specific facts of this case. This was not officers kicking in the wrong door. This was a case of officers trying to investigate a domestic disturbance and they entered a gray area of the law. The fact that it is a gray area is obvious by different courts having different opinions of it. As officers were trying to enter the house to investigate the disturbance with the female occupants apparent permission the plaintiff shoved an officer. I personally think (from the limited information I have) that the entry was fine and in keeping with currently recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. I still think that the majority opinion paints with too broad of a brush. When you're discussing this decision, though, please actually talk about the pertinent facts. The people who are fearmongering and claiming that the Fourth no longer exists should be ashamed for spreading such misinformation. Thanks for the post of the ruling. I share pretty much the same opinion as you concerning the case. Dealing with the particular case in which the decision is based, I feel that the officers within their right to attempt to detain and arrest the man. I feel the decision doesn't do away with 4th, but curtails it. Though with SCoI deciding for the allowance of no knock warrants without the permission of judge sets a precedent that I feel is grossly affecting our civil rights. http://www.wthr.com/story/14622673/indiana-court-upholds-no-knock-warrants With the combination of the these two rulings, it allows law enforcement too much power. Now most officers of the law are good & honest people that would do their best not to abuse their fellow citizens rights but there is always a bad minority that would abuse their power. Lets all be honest there are dirty cops out there and these rulings give them a better chance to continue their crimes. It is the not also that bad minority of cops that worries me, but also enterprising criminals posing at police now have a better chance of subduing their victims without a fight. In all honesty, if a police officer/officers break into my house in the middle of the night without announcing their identity for no cause how am I to tell the difference from someone trying to break in to my home to commit a crime. The decision was to based on a effort to help protect our law enforcement, but with the combination of the two rulings you could possibly be putting officers in bigger danger. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2011 1:20:44 AM
LancerMc post is spot in regards to this. How many law abiding folks are going to have the presence of mind to INSTANTLY ID someone kicking in their door in the dark of night ?? This kind of law is stupid and pointless in that criminals planning on doing harm to LEO are going to continue to do as they please, while the law abiding folks get shot to shit by the LEO's for resisting what they believe to be a home invasion. Works pretty well for covering the LEO asses though. And for the record all the fucking lawsuits you'd ever win, or cops careers that are ended, are not going to replace the loved ones lost to this degree of stupidity, But as long as all the officers make it home all right and the Dept. can't be held liable since the act of resisting them is illegal, who gives 2 shits and a fuck if the Cleaver family is now without Ward and June and Wally and the Beaver are marched off into foster care or some other such shit, right ??
|
|
|
ARCHIVED
