Indiana Supreme Court OKs police entry for any reason, or without reason

[Bob Riebe]

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana police can enter any home, at any time, WITHOUT a warrant, for ANY reason.
The judge wrote that this will prevent violence if the home owner does not want police to enter (formerly legal) without a warrant or if the police have the wrong house.

IF the U.S. Supreme court does not flush this down the toilet where such legal decisions belong, it will just magnify the fact t he U.S. is quickly heading into the ****ter.

[Daniel]

well at least you can't video them :)

http://www.dailytech.com/Law+Enforcement+Tape+Us+Go+to+Prison/article21633.htm

[billiaml]

What? You mean this part:


"Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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."

[Bob Riebe]

Got a link to that? I find it hard to believe that any state Supreme Court would hand down a decision that far removed from the Constitution.
Look it up, I got it off of the radio.

[Rollo]

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana police can enter any home, at any time, WITHOUT a warrant, for ANY reason.

Did they?

More importantly how did this story?

http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-05-14/news/29544649_1_search-warrant-high-court-police-officers
The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld police use in the state of so-called "no-knock" warrants.
The court ruled this week that there are many circumstances in which police officers may enter homes without knocking, including concerns for officer safety, that a suspect may escape or that evidence may be destroyed.

Turn into this?
http://nation.foxnews.com/indiana/2011/05/16/court-no-right-resist-unlawful-police-entry
People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

When it is itself a highly warped version of this"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-police-unlawfulen,0,6950521.story
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

If there is indeed a Fourth Amendment violation then this needs to be dealt with immediately, but if there isn't and the actual facts tell a different story, then that also needs to be addressed.

The point is that I don't know where the truth lies exactly and the media had done their part not to help.

This reads something very different on the 11th:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/90bf478229e64a0a8a4b4259ac8ab7c3/IN--No-Knock-Warrants/
The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld police use in the state of so-called "no-knock" warrants.
The court ruled Tuesday that there are many circumstances in which police officers may enter homes without knocking, including concerns for officer safety, that a suspect may escape or that evidence may be destroyed.
The Times of Munster reports the court recommended police still ask a judge for a "no knock" warrant ahead of time if the facts of the case justify entry without knocking.

To what is here on the 16th:
http://nation.foxnews.com/indiana/2011/05/16/court-no-right-resist-unlawful-police-entry
People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

So then, where does the actual truth lie? And if this story does contain truths, half-truths and untruths, what does that say about the media itself who is prepared to lie to you in order to manufacture outrage?

[airshifter]

It seems there may be some truth to both stories, though it's made clear that the intent isn't to allow police to enter without warrants. The intent is to ensure that even if a cop does wrongfully enter, you would be breaking the law to confront them in a physical manner, and should deal with it in the courts.

I suspect that the whole idea was if a cop responds to a call and enters a wrong house or such, they don't want a fight.



Below taken from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-police-unlawfulen,0,6950521.story

"The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner told The Times that the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Thursday's decision was the court's second ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking. "


The stories still contradict each other on the "no knock warrant" issue, but the above is talking about entering a house after a call.

[veeten]

Hmmmm... been delving into that whole 'Soverign Citizen' thing again, eh Bob? ;)

[Bob Riebe]

I have a gut feeling this case influenced the current decision: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov22/0,4670,ElderlyShootout,00.html

[janvanvurpa]

Oh it gets better:
Court sides with police in warrantless search
AP

*
o
Share
o
retweet
o Email
o Print

* Today in History May 15 Play Video U.S. Courts Video:Today in History May 15 AP
* Ariz. Immigration Law Battle Going to High Court Play Video U.S. Courts Video:Ariz. Immigration Law Battle Going to High Court FOX News

Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
BA 76.68 -1.09
^GSPC 1,328.98 -0.49
^IXIC 2,783.21 +0.90
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Mark Sherman, Associated Press – Mon May 16, 6:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment.

The court said there was no violation of King's constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Officers knocked on King's door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.

But Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame."

In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases.

"Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant," she said.

The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home.

The issue was whether warrantless entry was justified after the officers' knock on the door triggered a reaction inside that sounded like the destruction of evidence.

An odd set of facts led to Monday's ruling.

Police were only at King's apartment building because they were chasing a man who sold cocaine to a police informant. The man entered King's building and ducked into an apartment. The officers heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors.

They didn't know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left.

In fact, the suspect had gone into the apartment on the right. Police eventually arrested him, too, but prosecutors later dropped charges against him for reasons that were not explained in court papers.

In other action Monday, the court refused to revive a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons. The appeal asked the court to examine two much-disputed aspects of the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, "the extraordinary rendition" program that sent the suspects to secret prisons and the "state secrets privilege."

The high court has refused several other appeals based on the government's invocation of state secrets to derail lawsuits.

The case involved five terrorism suspects who were arrested shortly after 9/11 and said they were flown by a Boeing Co. subsidiary to prisons around the world where they were tortured. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco cited national security risks in dismissing the men's case last year.

The justices also turned aside a challenge from atheist Michael Newdow to the use of the words "so help me God" in the presidential oath of office.

In a case involving the federal whistleblower law, the justices voted 5-3 in ruling that information acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request cannot be used to trigger a False Claims Act lawsuit.

___

Associated Press writer Jesse J. Holland contributed to this report.


Now it seems the Supreme Court believes cops are clairvoyant and can tell by mere noise, thru a door, what a persons intent is.
Criminal law is all about the perp---or now, any innocent persons state of mind is about what they are doing IE that they are aware that what they are doping is illegal.

Now you could be sweeping the kitchenette floor and some Sgt. Muldoon could sneak upto your door , listen---claim he heard things that made him feet that you were destroying evidence and instantly decide to destroy your door and stick a gun in your face...shake you down.
More and more, it's clear police in USA have simply become a gang wearing blue.

There needs to be serious harsh antidotes to the police running wild as its clear they're doing more and more.

[Bob Riebe]

I never ever thought I would agree with Ginsburg.

Get rid of the asinine drug laws for heavens sake.

[Roamy]

we are going to hell in a lead sled =

[markabilly]

we are going to hell in a lead sled =

and can NOT get off.


Never beleive anything about what some reporter writes or says about a case.

THEY NEVER GET IT RIGHT.... NOT EVEN CLOSE

Read the actual case.

[Mark in Oshawa]

and can NOT get off.


Never beleive anything about what some reporter writes or says about a case.

THEY NEVER GET IT RIGHT.... NOT EVEN CLOSE

Read the actual case.

Oh so true. Reporters are infamously clueless at really understanding what is happening......