4th Amendment abolished in Indiana

[Colonel Ronan]

While you were sleeping, Indiana abolished the fourth Amendment.

Paul Joseph Watson
May 17, 2011

Two recent Supreme Court cases have served to virtually abolish the Fourth Amendment in the United States of America, with citizens no longer being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In a precedent described by dissenting justices as “breathtaking” and “unnecessarily broad,” the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week in a 3-2 vote that doing anything to resist police busting down your door and conducting an illegal search is now a criminal act.

“[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,” the court ruled in the case of Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Dissenting Justices Brent E. Dickson and Robert D. Rucker made it clear that the ruling represented a total rejection of rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

“In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,” Dickson wrote.

“In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations,” added Rucker. “There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.”

The ruling was made under the justification that resisting a police officer had the potential to escalate and cause violence against the officer, meaning that the God-like status bestowed upon police officers now trumps both the 220-year-old Fourth Amendment and the 796-year-old Magna Carta on which it is based.

In a separate case, on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police can now also bust down a door and enter your property without a warrant if they smell marijuana or hear sounds that are suggestive of destruction of evidence. The case revolved around the warrantless search of an apartment in Kentucky, Lexington.

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

Of course, the fact that police officers have been known to habitually lie in order to justify illegally entering a property and violating the Fourth Amendment (which is apparently now null and void anyway), was not considered.

These two cases merely scratch the surface of America’s descent into an authoritarian tyranny, which has noticeably deepened over the last few weeks. Describing the United States as a “police state” is no longer a glib or alarmist use of rhetoric, because by every measurable tenet and in every context, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are now being completely ignored by government or simply abolished altogether.

The fact that Supreme Courts are now attacking the very Constitution they are supposed to uphold is proof that America has been hijacked by rogue criminal elements who are busy dismantling everything that once made the country a beacon of liberty for the world.

The debate is officially over. America has now entered the annuls of history as an authoritarian police state on a par with Soviet Russia, and as that virus spreads throughout all levels of society it will ultimately lead the United States to the same fate – the only question remaining is how messy the collapse will be, how many people will be incarcerated, and how many people the government will murder in the process.

Discuss.

 

[Ed O]

"The annuls of history"?

Hah.

Ed O.
P.S. Paul Wilson is my favorite columnist this side of Bill Pulsipher. Don't even get me started on Jason Isringhausen...

 

[bluefrog]

Worst decision in my lifetime. The smell of marijuana smoke and sound of evidence being destroyed is enough reason for police to knock down an apartment door and search the place without a warrant?!?!?!?! The war on drugs has turned our legal system into a joke.

I completely agree with Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.

An ironic side note: The man the officers were chasing that lead them to the apartment was arrested but got off on a technicality

 

[Natebishop3]

Pissing off the American public is a bad idea. Americans might be in a comfort zone right now, and in a hibernation of sorts, but if the people are pissed off enough, the government could very easily see an uprising. We have the blood of patriot rebels in our blood, and all it would take is the wrong move by the government to set it off. I hope they don't actually try to enforce this shit.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

And now we have Odd Future to fuel or Satantic rage.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The police still must have a legal reason to enter a dwelling. This doesn't give them cart blanche authority to simply break down a door and perform an unreasonable search. All too often by the time a search warrant is obtained the crime has either shifted away or the person fled. Anyone who thinks this creates a police state probably needs to adjust the antenna on their tin foil hat. All this really does is when the police have just cause to enter a dwelling and not the time to obtain a warrant, they can do so under limited circumstances.

 

[Natebishop3]

The police still must have a legal reason to enter a dwelling. This doesn't give them cart blanche authority to simply break down a door and perform an unreasonable search. All too often by the time a search warrant is obtained the crime has either shifted away or the person fled. Anyone who thinks this creates a police state probably needs to adjust the antenna on their tin foil hat. All this really does is when the police have just cause to enter a dwelling and not the time to obtain a warrant, they can do so under limited circumstances.

The whole point of the tin foil hat is so you don't NEED an antenna... gosh BP..... get with the program.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The whole point of the tin foil hat is so you don't NEED an antenna... gosh BP..... get with the program.

Sorry.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

NBA announces that the Indiana Pacers are moving to Anaheim.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Ha, somebody would try to defend this. Nice going, caps.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Ha, somebody would try to defend this. Nice going, caps.

Your antenna is out of adjustment.

Here, I found you home video:

 

[jlprk]

When they smash through your door and the wall around it, they won't pay for it later. They ransack your place, turning furniture upside-down and ruining valuables, and you have to pay for their destruction.

For many years, courts ruled that the victim had to pay, even if the police had broken into the wrong house. This happened many times per year, especially during the annihilation of the hippie counterculture in the 70s and 80s. Courts finally woke up in the 90s and now if it was a mistake, the City pays. But if it wasn't a mistake, they are still free to tear your house into smithereens. Not to mention sticking a gun into your mouth, etc.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ucky-drug-case/2011/05/16/AFHpSD5G_story.html

Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case

The Supreme Court on Monday gave law enforcement officers new authority to enter a home without a warrant when they have reason to believe that drug evidence is being destroyed.

The court ruled 8 to 1 that Kentucky police who smelled marijuana at an apartment door, knocked loudly and announced themselves, and then kicked in the door when they thought the drugs were being destroyed did nothing wrong.

(Note the vote was 8-1. Ironically, notice the title of the Forbes article on the same subject)

Supreme Court Erodes 4th Amendment Protections- Eases Ability For Police To Enter Your Home Without Warrant

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ucky-drug-case/2011/05/16/AFHpSD5G_story.html

Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case

The Supreme Court on Monday gave law enforcement officers new authority to enter a home without a warrant when they have reason to believe that drug evidence is being destroyed.

The court ruled 8 to 1 that Kentucky police who smelled marijuana at an apartment door, knocked loudly and announced themselves, and then kicked in the door when they thought the drugs were being destroyed did nothing wrong.

(Note the vote was 8-1. Ironically, notice the title of the Forbes article on the same subject)

Supreme Court Erodes 4th Amendment Protections- Eases Ability For Police To Enter Your Home Without Warrant

A couple of things stand out here, First, it was an 8-1 decision with only the ACLU attorney dissenting. The other liberals on the bench sided with the majority. Second, and as I said before, the police have to just cause. They have to justify their actions as to why they hadn't time to get a search warrant. If they don't, it becomes an unlawful entry. It's nice to see the US Supreme Court take a common sense approach to crime.

 

[Denny Crane]

A couple of things stand out here, First, it was an 8-1 decision with only the ACLU attorney dissenting. The other liberals on the bench sided with the majority. Second, and as I said before, the police have to just cause. They have to justify their actions as to why they hadn't time to get a search warrant. If they don't, it becomes an unlawful entry. It's nice to see the US Supreme Court take a common sense approach to crime.

For the most part, I don't like these kinds of rulings. The police should almost always be required to get a warrant first.

There are obvious exceptions, it's just a matter of how much leeway the courts are now giving the police. For example, if the police stumble onto a guy about to set off a nuclear bomb in his apartment, we don't want them to have to go get a warrant before stopping it from happening. Nor do we want the guy to get off for a 4th amendment violation. If a woman is being beaten on the other side of the door, I don't see why the cops should have to go get a warrant. Etc.

Smelling marijuana smoke or even destroying evidence hardly rises to the standard I'd like to see.

More from the Post article that explains it:

Generally, the Constitution requires police to receive permission or obtain a warrant before entering someone’s home, which Ginsburg called “our most private space.” But the court has recognized exceptions in “exigent” circumstances: For instance, when a life might be endangered, a suspect might escape or evidence might be destroyed.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

For the most part, I don't like these kinds of rulings. The police should almost always be required to get a warrant first.

There are obvious exceptions, it's just a matter of how much leeway the courts are now giving the police. For example, if the police stumble onto a guy about to set off a nuclear bomb in his apartment, we don't want them to have to go get a warrant before stopping it from happening. Nor do we want the guy to get off for a 4th amendment violation. If a woman is being beaten on the other side of the door, I don't see why the cops should have to go get a warrant. Etc.

Smelling marijuana smoke or even destroying evidence hardly rises to the standard I'd like to see.

More from the Post article that explains it:

Generally, the Constitution requires police to receive permission or obtain a warrant before entering someone’s home, which Ginsburg called “our most private space.” But the court has recognized exceptions in “exigent” circumstances: For instance, when a life might be endangered, a suspect might escape or evidence might be destroyed.

Well, we can debate what types of specific crimes constitutes a fair reason for not obtaining a search warrant, but that's a chicken & egg approach. It's also why we have the courts to weigh in on the mater and provide guidance. I'm comfortable with this decision in as much as it breaks down the absolute right for police to obtain a warrant. Let me put it this way- if a woman is being raped and potentially murdered in an apartment and it is pretty evident what's happening, I'm glad police don't have to wait a few hours to obtain a warrant before breaking down the door and taking care of the situation.

 

[jlprk]

You guys are giving examples of spontaneous decisions by police when they luck upon a crime scene, but the typical use of this new ruling will be when police are in the police station, planning a raid. They will decide that they don't need a warrant because an informer says that hours earlier, he saw destruction of evidence or smelled marijuana. Another more typical use will be when police don't like someone and need an excuse to arrest him, for example when arresting someone at home and they want a reason to take in the family members too.

 

[Denny Crane]

Who guys?

I wrote that there should be exceptions, but only when lives are in immediate danger. That's a very high standard. The rulings by these two courts clearly set too low a standard.

 

[jlprk]

You expect me to actually read your posts in detail?

What are you doing here anyway? Let's go to NASA TV. The crew go to sleep about noon PST and I'm missing the action.

 

[jlprk]

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/status.html

Damn, I missed the opening of the hatch an hour ago. They entered the space station.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do we still have a space program?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

You guys are giving examples of spontaneous decisions by police when they luck upon a crime scene, but the typical use of this new ruling will be when police are in the police station, planning a raid. They will decide that they don't need a warrant because an informer says that hours earlier, he saw destruction of evidence or smelled marijuana. Another more typical use will be when police don't like someone and need an excuse to arrest him, for example when arresting someone at home and they want a reason to take in the family members too.

Pure speculation.

You're assuming this ruling means that police have no need for a search warrant anymore. That they can target anyone they jolly well please on the flimsiest of excuses.

But I think you're wrong in your interpretation of the decision.

This decision means that when police are confronted with a crime (or have justifiable reason to think they are confronted with a crime) that they may not need a search warrant to abate the crime. But the litmus test is that they must have just cause AND they have to show they had not the time to obtain a search warrant in order to abate the crime. Those are difficult hurdles to overcome.

This decision just doesn't create the totalitarianism police state people think it does. Otherwise the decision would not have been 8-1 with only a fruit cake dissenting.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the concern, and it's valid, is that the police will be emboldened to search without warrants due to these rulings. Going to the courts after the fact to make a claim against the government is costly and time consuming, so too many people won't bother. I mean, unless the courts grant huge sums of penalties as remedy, and I don't see that happening.

In the exceptions I listed, we all benefit from the nuke not going off, no matter what the court decides later. In the case of smelling pot smoke, the cops will be violating the "home is one's castle" with little benefit to society and not a big deal what the courts decide later.

Even worse, the cops can simply hassle anyone they want and for whatever actual reason, simply by claiming they smelled pot smoke. A judge is likely to believe the cops if it's a matter of he said/he said.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think the concern, and it's valid, is that the police will be emboldened to search without warrants due to these rulings. Going to the courts after the fact to make a claim against the government is costly and time consuming, so too many people won't bother. I mean, unless the courts grant huge sums of penalties as remedy, and I don't see that happening.

In the exceptions I listed, we all benefit from the nuke not going off, no matter what the court decides later. In the case of smelling pot smoke, the cops will be violating the "home is one's castle" with little benefit to society and not a big deal what the courts decide later.

Even worse, the cops can simply hassle anyone they want and for whatever actual reason, simply by claiming they smelled pot smoke. A judge is likely to believe the cops if it's a matter of he said/he said.

I think I'm still going to disagree even with the concern. I think the kool aid needs to be put away now. You've all had plenty enough to drink. Oh wait, there's a knock at my door and I hear muffled voices. Golly, I wonder who it could be....

 

[MARIS61]

The police still must have a legal reason to enter a dwelling. This doesn't give them cart blanche authority to simply break down a door and perform an unreasonable search. All too often by the time a search warrant is obtained the crime has either shifted away or the person fled. Anyone who thinks this creates a police state probably needs to adjust the antenna on their tin foil hat. All this really does is when the police have just cause to enter a dwelling and not the time to obtain a warrant, they can do so under limited circumstances.

This doesn't create a police state. It proves we already live in one. These are state supreme court justices, deliberately attacking our most basic Constitutional protections against a police state.

It's clear you didn't read the ruling, as it is purposely so broad as to excuse illegal entry based on any flimsy reason offered.

I predict 4 results from this, all bad for Indiana.

1. Certainly some police will be killed by innocent citizens protecting their homes from armed intrusions.

2. Law enforcement levies will fail to pass in Indiana at a record level.

3. Citizens charged under this law will be defended for free by the ACLU and numerous high profile defense attorneys who will appeal to the Federal courts and win 100% of the time.

4. Indiana will suffer additional economic woes from the publicity as nobody is going to want to live there.

 

[MARIS61]

Pure speculation.

You're assuming this ruling means that police have no need for a search warrant anymore. That they can target anyone they jolly well please on the flimsiest of excuses.

But I think you're wrong in your interpretation of the decision.

This decision means that when police are confronted with a crime (or have justifiable reason to think they are confronted with a crime) that they may not need a search warrant to abate the crime. But the litmus test is that they must have just cause AND they have to show they had not the time to obtain a search warrant in order to abate the crime. Those are difficult hurdles to overcome.

This decision just doesn't create the totalitarianism police state people think it does. Otherwise the decision would not have been 8-1 with only a fruit cake dissenting.

Nonsense.

This ruling says if police say they heard a toilet flush as they passed a door, they can break the door down and trash the place searching for drugs and use deadly force if the terrified homeowner resists the assault on his castle.

The ruling is clearly the result of Alzheimers running rampant in our court system, which gives judges jobs for life without any mental fitness standard or review.

 

[MARIS61]

A couple of things stand out here, First, it was an 8-1 decision with only the ACLU attorney dissenting. The other liberals on the bench sided with the majority. Second, and as I said before, the police have to just cause. They have to justify their actions as to why they hadn't time to get a search warrant. If they don't, it becomes an unlawful entry. It's nice to see the US Supreme Court take a common sense approach to crime.

Again, you misread the decision.

It says that EVEN IF THE ENTRY IS UNLAWFUL, it's "okay".

 

[MARIS61]

A couple of things stand out here, First, it was an 8-1 decision with only the ACLU attorney dissenting. The other liberals on the bench sided with the majority.

What other liberals?

Ginsberg is the only remotely liberal judge on the court.

The others are generally all moderate to extreme right, except for some personal issues they support.

 

[MARIS61]

Pure speculation.

You're assuming this ruling means that police have no need for a search warrant anymore. That they can target anyone they jolly well please on the flimsiest of excuses.

But I think you're wrong in your interpretation of the decision.

This decision means that when police are confronted with a crime (or have justifiable reason to think they are confronted with a crime) that they may not need a search warrant to abate the crime. But the litmus test is that they must have just cause AND they have to show they had not the time to obtain a search warrant in order to abate the crime. Those are difficult hurdles to overcome.

This decision just doesn't create the totalitarianism police state people think it does. Otherwise the decision would not have been 8-1 with only a fruit cake dissenting.

You are naive.

The 8-1 decision merely confirms we are already in a police state.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, you misread the decision.

It says that EVEN IF THE ENTRY IS UNLAWFUL, it's "okay".

You misread the decision.

It doesn't say that it's OK if the entry is unlawful. And the state court didn't rule that unlawful entry is OK, either - it spoke to resisting arrest in the situation where there's unlawful entry.