4th Amendment vs 3rd World Police State

US Constitution, Amendment #4

“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.”

Does the statement above seem consistent with this court action?

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their 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.”

Story: No Right To Resist 

For the record, the opinion of that court is not consistent with the 4th Amendment as understood and practiced at this home.

RESIST

UPDATE: More about this at Smallest Minority

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DRenegade
Admin
DRenegade(@admin)
10 years ago

Maybe this is a good thing. Indiana is asserting their state’s rights against the federal government by overruling the Constitution. Do you think the Supreme Court will hear this case if someone will stand up and test this ruling?

Hans
Hans
10 years ago
Reply to  DRenegade

Been there, done that, doesn’t seem to matter …

The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535 (1900): “If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.”

The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) (“One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”)

Silence Dogood 2010
10 years ago

According to the Indiana State Constitution, Article I, Section 11:

“Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”

Source: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art1.html

It seems to me, (now granted I’m no expert on Indiana’s Constitution) that each justice on the Indiana State Supreme Court ‘Probably’ took an ‘Oath of Office’ similar to most oaths for public office that state something along the lines of;

“I [state your name] do hereby swear or affirm to defend the Constitution of the US & and the Constitution of the State of [Indiana in this case] to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

Since BEING in public office, ANY and ALL Actions/Decisions/Votes/etc., that an individual makes, while performing duties of the said office, they are “Under Oath of the Said Office”. Their “Actions”, by voting AGAINST Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, the 3 Justices that voted “FOR” this, have committed Perjury by not upholding their “Oath of Office”.

That’s MY 2 Cents worth on this issue.

Respectfully submitted by SD2010.

DRenegade
Admin
DRenegade(@admin)
10 years ago

just more trampling of the Constitution.

Randy’s Right

Larry Porter
10 years ago

The dissenting justices got it right. The police have a right in any case to enter a home if they observe or hear violence. In this case they saw a couple in a domestic dispute and were following an action to prevent violence. The husband did what so many demo. people do, he turned his violence on the police. They had every right to subdue him. But the majority opinion from Justice David shows where they are coming from. He stated in his opinion that the wronged parties have a right to correct the “illegal entry” in the courts after the arrest. But he made the entry legal with his ruling. There is no such thing as an illegal entry by police with that decision. What these justices have done and what is being done across the country, is the insertion of an absolute police state. Where is the restraint put on the police now in Indiana? The only answer left, if there will be any states totally standing up for the Constitution, is for people to move to those states. Our neighbor to the south, South Carolina, may again secede soon. Raise the stars and bars again, boys!

trackback

[…] Friday we chatted theoretically about the recent decision of the Indiana courts to enable felons police state-sponsored-thugs to […]

William Sterrett
William Sterrett
10 years ago

This ruling is cause for great concern. I would like to have the optimism of Hans in relying on case law. It seems the law is a double edged sword, reafirming the constitution in some cases, but yet diminishing the constitution in other cases where the courts base judgements on case law, and don’t seek original guidence from our founding document.

As a retired law enforcement officer I am greatly saddened by this ruling. I prided myself in always trying to obey the law, and follow the Constitution. I stll do. In Liberty always, Bill

Hans
Hans
10 years ago

Bill -- to clarify my prior comment on this post

My reference to Supreme Court “case” is not an expression of optimism, and I certainly will not rely on the judicial system to defend my rights.

My statement “…doesn’t seem to matter …” was intended to communicate exasperation.

William Sterrett
William Sterrett
10 years ago

Hans, I understand….thanks, Bill