What do you think about the law recently passed by the supreme court, in Indiana which recently went into effect, stating the police can enter your home illegally, and you can not resist. They further state, you can later hire a lawyer to sue them (of course it will be at your expense)
Is this not a fourth amendment violation?
But would it still be illegal if the law says it's OK?
According to what they are saying, no, they can enter your home an any time, without justifiable cause.. As a result, some of the Justices have come forth, and have stated, they do not agree with this law. They said, its violating the 4th Amendment, of the constitution.
As a result of this law going into effect as of last week, the police are now being threated, by emails and phone calls. They are now conducting a criminal harassment investigation. The people of Indiana are very angryl
Phew, I bet they are angry!
America, the land of the free, I can not see such draconian legislation being introduced in the UK, although the definition has been blurred by right wing governments over the years there is still some remnant of the police as servants of the public.
I live in Indiana and I am livid. It is a clear violation of legal rights that predate the Constitution. Rights that are rooted in English Common Law.
It is tantamount to making me a subject to a police state. It is my home. What right has a policeman to enter my home without warrant or a demonstrably strong case that something dangerous and illegal is happening in my home?
I am usually very measured in my attitude toward the police. It is a difficult and frequently thankless job but this goes too far.
Ron Paul is a 10-per-center. The best he could ever do is spoil an election. The primaries are going to be fun!
Ron Paul will not get my vote because he is just as foolish as the rest.
Yes it would still break Federal law. This case stemmed from a woman who called 911 to report her husband. Law enforcement had no choice but to enter the home where the husband blocked and shoved the officer. I think probable cause would merrit the entry and the 911 call would demand that the officers assure the woman's safety.
That puts a whole different spin on the OPs post. Surely if the police suspect a crime they have good reason to enter and shouldn't be distracted by a property owner denying them access.
I read the post as meaning that the police could enter property on a lose trawl, a suspicion or just plain harrasment.
yes, that is true, and the police came inside your home in the middle of the night, i"m sure they would be met with a shotgun!
Not in my house, I'm British
And anyway, I'd never own a shotgun.
lol, your funny!. I'm glad your in a country, where you don't need a shotgun! A lot of people hunt, thus almost every house in the countryside. usually has a shotgun or rifle!
He did not say he did not need a shotgun. He is a subject. We are citizens. He has few rights. We (used to ) have rights against our government. Rights that prevented the government from becoming too powerful, too intrusive, and too dangerous. Unfortunately that is largely gone now.
Oh yes, they are very angry! In a 3 to 2 decision written by state Justice Steven David, appointed by the Supreme Court las year, states We believe a right to resist an unlawful police entry is against public policy and is uncompatible with modern fourth amendment jurisprudence, David said We also find that allowing unlawful entry unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.
But is an entry to prevent a crime or apprehend a criminal really unlawful?
Usually a warrant is needed to enter someone's home.. in a dangerous situtation, when someone could be abused or killed then yes, that would be acceptable...
You cannot arrest a person for a crime that did not happen. You have to arrest them for an actual crime. This whole thing seems kind of " Minority Report " to me. As I understood it I thought the police entered the wrong house and the guy resisted even though he was protecting his home. So he got arrested for resisting even though he had not done a crime. And the judge said that he was in the wrong for resisting. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
On Thursday, the state's high court ruled that hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. This would eliminate a common law dating back to the English Magna Carte of 1215.
This is not a good thing, and they persist with this law, this could happen to all of us.. This reminds me of Nazi Germany... we all need to stand up for our rights in our country, as we are losing more and more of our rights as Americans.
I can understand that if the woman was being injured and that the police should go in, with justifiable cause, when there's domestic abuse..thats understandable.
That's what I clicked this hub to say! I now leave satisfied.
This is very interesting. But I need more information. First, the courts do not pass laws. So what is the name of the law that was before the state supreme court?
Is it possible that this is a lawsuit where the police entered a house without probable cause and someone got injured?
Hmm. Sounds like a question for Mark Levin. He is a Constitutional lawyer.
The law is that people can't resist when the police illegally enter your home, not that they can. If they make a mistake, enter the wrong house, you can't shoot them in the head. You have to protest it in the courts and let them in. That is what the law actually is. Never trust neocons to give you the full story...odd explaining that to a neocon who listens to a neocon psycho like Levin. You know what? I found it hilarious when Levin told us a year ago that the indians were better off for having been invaded and wiped out.
Understood. There is that pesky Bill of Rights. Darned 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.
That places a greater burden on the citizen than it does on the police. Generally the police have plenty of time to get it right. Illegal entry ought to be met with the appropriate level of force to repel the invader.
What is a neocon?
Whoa. I'm miserably out of touch these days. I didn't know anything about this law.....
Hi Brenda, I didn't either. I looked on the IndyStar website and found an article which I linked up above. I think that there's a lot of misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of information here in this forum thread - for instance, I have not found anything that says that a law has been passed that says what is alleged here. Basically, I believe what is being referenced is the interpretation of already existing laws. I'm not sure that makes it any better, though! But what surprised me the most was that a law professor said that this ruling was consistent with the laws in 40 other states! Now I'm curious to know which 9 states are not in that group. lol
I do have to throw in...out of 5 justices, 4 are conservatives. Awww....Brenda, you are on the liberal side on this one. How cute. Welcome aboard
This raises some interesting questions because here in Spain, your home is your sanctuary and the police cannot enter unless invited.
So if your grow grass they can't touch you unless you take it out of your home. They cannot come in and confiscate it, even if you are growing a forest, which explains why people using garages and other outbuildings get done but not those growing indoors in their home.
But it also means that if you call the police because your husband is battering you, they cannot prevent it happening if the house belongs to the husband, because it is within his home and if so chooses, he can prevent their entry.
I'm not sure what rights the householder has when it comes to causing grievous bodily harm to an intruder.
That is a strange law, that allows women to be battered if the husband owns the house..Has anyone thought of protesting this law?
No they have a 'paradox' - is that the correct word? - police cannot legally enter your home, yet women must be protected under European Law which the Spanish have embraced.
Nothing s ever clear cut, is it?
I'm confused here.
Isn't that exactly what you are arguing for, the right for a man to batter his wife unmolested by the police?
Remember what the thread is about, the police entering without the property owners permission?
The thread, is about police entering your home illegally..This is against our constitution!. Now if someone was screaming for help, being battered, or physically hurt in some way, then yes the police should be allowed to enter the home, only to protect someone's life.. In our country, the police usually knock first on your door, if no one answers, they don't come in unless there is violence! Otherwise no, they have to right to enter our homes...
The woman in question, was never injured by her husband. She called the police, after having an argument him. He shoved a police officer who came into his home, without a warrant.. After that this law, was passed, and approved by the Supreme Court. I was wrong about the Supreme Court passing the law. It frightened people by the statement that the police could illegally enter your home, at any time and a homeowner could not resist..Even the senators in Indiana were concerned.about this law.. and the way it was presented to the people of Indiana, scared them!
Here in Indiana, I hadn't heard about this, so I looked it up. An article with more information is here:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a … 1105190458
And here are some cogent portions of that article, with a portion bolded by me:
The article does also state, though, that there is an uproar about it on Facebook, and protests are being planned at the Statehouse.
Well I'm pretty sure the ACLU will be all over that law soon... It won't stand a chance if it goes in front of the Indiana Supreme Court. I wouldn't be to worried.
I was pretty stunned that 40 other states have this same law - or ruling - or interpretation of a law. It really does sound outrageous at first glance.
But what I think is easy to overlook is that it is not saying that police have the right to enter your home illegally. It says that if, in a high-stress/high-risk situation, they do enter it illegally, then the proper recourse is to take them to court rather than to fight them back by resisting.
Not saying that I like that, just that it is different from the way the thread title is worded.
I am sure this will be followed up very vigorously. IE, I believe you are quite right that the ACLU will weigh in on this.
The thread, was written the way it was stated, when I received the link to NWI on Facebook.
I too agree now, after reading the link you posted today , Aficionada, that this matter will be cleared up.. Thank you for your input.. I was surprised as well by this law also being passed in 40 other states...
This law has been in effect in many states for many years. It's just that the only time anyone is made aware of it is when the police enter the wrong house.
I speak from experience. Several years ago the police wanted the guy in the apartment downstairs from my son and I. They claimed they didn't know there were 2 apartments. They picked the lock, came in the bedroom and woke my son up at like 2 am. then he woke me -it was crazy.
This sounds more like it.
I'll still be very interested to follow the follow-up, i.e. to see what happens with the statehouse protest and all. This has certainly caught the attention of people outside of the state too.
It's probably naive of me, but I would only have an issue with the police entering my home if I had something to hide. I certainly wouldn't want them trashing my home or frightening my kids, but they're not going to find any underage hookers, kiddy porn, drugs, unregistered firearms, stolen merchandise or anything else illegal or that might be of interest to them at my house, so I would freely open my door, invite them in, tell them to feel free to browse, and have a look around, offer a cup of coffee and then send them on their merry way to look for the real criminals. Of course with my luck, they'd be after one of my idiot ex-husbands and arrest me for trying to bribe them with a cup of coffee.
But what if you were dead asleep like this guy was ? They did not knock on the door and politely ask to come in . They raided the house and it was the wrong house.
Would you open the door in the middle of the night? Your a woman, I would be scared to open the door, to someone I do not know.. Sometimes people dress as police officers... I remember growing up in Virgina and a off duty policeman, raped several women before he got caught.. One of my neighbors he tried to rape, read his license plate, as she took the trash out, her husband heard her screams, as he ran to her aid..because of her, he got caught!!
I object to the police entering my home, unbidden, without warrant on principle alone. It is my home reason enough to deny them entry.
I used to live in Lafayette, Indiana and nothing surprises me there. They have some screwy laws already. Can't say as I miss Indiana one bit. People do hit and runs, getting away with it, run over cops on bicycles, run red lights and stop signs, run into the back of school buses and it's just 'whoops' there no penalties. I wouldn't be a cop there, they get shot and killed with regularity. Mitch Daniels(who now wants to run for President) has privatized every single thing there making their services they offer just awful.
Police are human, and they make mistakes..but we still have to be careful, and remember our rights as humans.. Its terrifying when someone, breaks into your home..and tragedies could result...
I have an alarm system, can you imagine irony of the police showing up to arrest the police who have just broken into my home and set off the alarm?
Bobbi you sure you don't live in Southern California ?
Bobbi, I used to live in Owensburg, and Bloomington.. I understand how you feel, and I seriously doubt now, that Mitch Daniels will be running for President, after what has occurred in Indiana..
The court held that residents can't resist police who enter their home for whatever reason, and a civil lawsuit is their only alternative. The state Supreme Court said it would be safer for all concerned to let police proceed even with an illegal action and sort it out later in court.
So in Indiana you are at the mercy of the Police. They can enter your house illegally and YOU the individual have No rights!
If you don't like it...pay an Expensive Lawyer and cry about it to the courts.
"...it would be Safer!..."--in other words, Don't You Dare...go against the Police! They are the law and the Constitution is nothing!!!
States can pass unconstitutional laws that can be overturned in federal court. This law doesn't stand a chance.
I feel that this will just be another opportunity for some Police officers to abuse the system, and if they don't like you, can just set you up for problems and drama people don't need! They can get a search warrant if they need to go in your house. They always do!
Right! And IF there is a crime happening, they could already enter a home. And there is the "probable cause" rule that has already made it possible for law enforcement to enter any premise without a warrant, but they had better be right.
This takes away protection of Americans from those who abuse their power as a law enforcement official.
I also see this overturned eventually. I bet those in elected offices are really catching heat over this one. They should!
It is hard to tell but it looks like three of the justices were appointed by Republican Governors and two by Democratic Governors.
I think this should have been very narrowly decided. It is over broad.
by MikeNV7 years ago
Below is copied from another article comment section. It makes perfect sense. Why does the media insist on inflaming the public at large and not explain what is actually contained in the Arizona Law? ...
by Bibowen7 years ago
Christians, look at the recent threads....Christians are1. terrorists.2. advocating genocide in Uganda.3. committing child abuse by teaching their children the Bible.Do believers propagate these threads by arguing with...
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006,...
by tobey1007 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read...
by schoolgirlforreal5 years ago
I think this was the original post in "Say Anything 1 Word" then everyone didn't know the beginning of what it said. So here goes.
by CJ Simonelli3 years ago
Change - mutations, adaption, survival of the fittest, variations based on the environment, and perhaps even some speciation, as in a new "species" of flies - are undisputed facts that do NOT contradict the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.