Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

This isn't good for us common citizens


Recommended Posts

You may not care...but I don't like it. A little bit of freedom gets taken away for our Indiana pards IMHO

 

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's a black day for the 4th amendment in Indiana. Usually the State of Indiana is very conservative in it's approach to law and constitutional rights but anytime you get judges involved in an area where they think they can legislate by making controversial decisions you just never know what you'll get. It's a crap shoot, legal but a crapshoot none the less!!! These judges don't even know what they've done to open the door to some real nasty business.

 

Hope this doesn't go real sour real fast, Wahoo Kid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the ruling is overly broad. It should have been a much narrower ruling. In this one it seems that the man was telling the cops that they can't come in, but the woman was telling him to let them in. So it could easily be argued that LE had permission to enter.

 

But for a court to rule that citizens have no right to oppose any entry by LE and the only remedy is to file a complaint that will likely take years and lots of money wend its way through the system pretty much does away with our 4th Amendment protections.

 

I'm also very leery about the increase in the "no-knock" raids that seem to be growing in popularity. Someone yelling "POLICE! WE HAVE A WARRANT!" then breaking down a door and storming in doesn't seem to go along with our BoR limits on the government. If a LEO asks for my ID, I can't just tell him 'Yeah, I have it' or wave it in front of him. I must hand it over and wait while he looks it over and maybe calls it in to verify it. Why should a citizen be expected to accept a shout of "We have a warrant!" without a chance to inspect and verify it? How is a citizen to know what is in the warrant and what LE is allowed to do without a chance to read it?

 

I know, I know, "Cops lives at stake!" "Criminals with guns!" "Time to destroy evidence!" Well, sorry, there have been a lot of good people who gave their lives so the Constitution and its protections for We, the people, would still be around. If we just toss aside its protections by pleading the expediency, then what good is it, and what meaning their sacrifice? The Constitution, including the BoR is supposed to hinder the government and its agents. From the Preamble to the BoR:

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here is the text of the ruling on KENTUCKY V. KING

 

From the syllabus:

 

They smelled marijuana outside anapartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent andothers. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequentsearch.

 

Seems that now any noise a cop hears after knocking on a door can be construed as "destruction of evidence." Washing dishes, flushing a toilet, hiding sex toys, anything, can now create a cause for forced entry. My question on that one is, if they found drugs in plain sight, and one of the people still smoking pot, how the heck can anyone support the destruction of evidence argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is worse than that;

 

http://www.time.com/...2071763,00.html

 

Possible scenario: Police knock when I'm on the toilet. I get up and flush before I head to the door. They burst in on grounds that they think I'm destroying evidence. My response, "Well, the septic tank is there, get a warrant and bring a truck to suck it dry." It's time it got cleaned out anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible scenario: Police knock when I'm on the toilet. I get up and flush before I head to the door. They burst in on grounds that they think I'm destroying evidence. My response, "Well, the septic tank is there, get a warrant and bring a truck to suck it dry." It's time it got cleaned out anyway.

 

And you would still have the broken door to replace, maybe a dead dog to bury and mourn, maybe other personal property damaged or destroyed, and maybe a few hours or days in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I am an assistant prosecutor, I have to agree. We are at a stage in jurisprudence where I would like to ask members of SCOTUS what, exactly, are our rights under the Fourth Amendment? That is, what rights are left to us as citizens? As Joe pointed out, we may have "recourse" through the court system, but it will cost us in money, time, headache and frustration. We will likely also be out money for property and personal belongings, as well as the possibility of injury to life and limb or even just reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more step towards a police state !

 

Big question now is will this case make it to the SCOTUS?

Has 4th ammendment been incorporated?

if it has, then the question is; "is this ruling consistent with federal interpretation?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question would be, "If I heard someone yell police!" and start kicking in the door, then how am I to know if it the police and not some criminals that are now taking advantage of such a ruling?

No time to verify badges, warrants or anything?

Sounds like a good way for some good LEOs to get shot along with some civilians and in the end only enriching more lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question would be, "If I heard someone yell police!" and start kicking in the door, then how am I to know if it the police and not some criminals that are now taking advantage of such a ruling?

No time to verify badges, warrants or anything?

Sounds like a good way for some good LEOs to get shot along with some civilians and in the end only enriching more lawyers.

Yep! :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me one bit. TSA is exempt from the 4th Amendment at airports. The precedence has been set. And many on this forum support the warrantless searches of the TSA and the police state you enter when traveling by air. It's good for the security of the American traveling citizen.?! Well, warrantless search and seizure of the American home today now considered good enough for the security of the American citizen.?! Don't like it; take it to a court. Where do we find our rights being eroded? The courts. Do you have confidence in the American courts?

 

It's time our lawmakers craft constitutional laws that correct overreaching court decisions. However, if Americans agree that we need to give up rights for security like we have at our airports, I doubt lawmakers will do anything to insure the American citizen to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birdgun, you seem to be forgetting most of those yahoos are Lawers and former Judges by profession anyway. I'm thing the last thing they want to do is step on the toes of their buddies. Then again if they make the laws the bench will rule them unconstitutional anyway. Starting to regret bring my kids onto this stinking, er sinking ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed emotions on this. As an Officer who's served dozens of warrants and has a son currently doing the same, Officer safety is priority one. No Knock warrants came into being after dozens of Officers were gunned down at a front door by a heavily armed suspect and/or evidence was flushed down a toilet while gaining entry with the 3 knock and announce rule. What I will address is the misconception of how easy it is to obtain a no knock warrant. You don't simply call a Judge and ask for one, mounds of documented evidence must be presented for the Judge to review before it is granted, and even then the warrant is usually very specific what or who can be searched. Even with a no knock, the entry team upon entering the residence begins yelling "Police, search warrant" and their tactical gear is plastered with large and often reflective lettering saying POLICE. Around here anyway the no knocks are reserved for the worst of the worst, and I doubt it would impact any of my pards here, but it's definitely a hot topic. :blush:

 

BSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got this from a friend after my othe post.

 

"…There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. … Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." - Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed emotions on this. As an Officer who's served dozens of warrants and has a son currently doing the same, Officer safety is priority one. No Knock warrants came into being after dozens of Officers were gunned down at a front door by a heavily armed suspect and/or evidence was flushed down a toilet while gaining entry with the 3 knock and announce rule. What I will address is the misconception of how easy it is to obtain a no knock warrant. You don't simply call a Judge and ask for one, mounds of documented evidence must be presented for the Judge to review before it is granted, and even then the warrant is usually very specific what or who can be searched. Even with a no knock, the entry team upon entering the residence begins yelling "Police, search warrant" and their tactical gear is plastered with large and often reflective lettering saying POLICE. Around here anyway the no knocks are reserved for the worst of the worst, and I doubt it would impact any of my pards here, but it's definitely a hot topic. :blush:

 

BSD

 

Duke, I understand what you are saying, and I hope you can see where we are all coming from. I don't think you would disagree that the use of no-knock is on the rise. And we hear at least once every few weeks of a home invasion by thug wearing "tactical gear (is) plastered with large and often reflective lettering saying POLICE." How is the citizen supposed to know the difference? Even with the mounds of evidence, mistakes still get made and the wrong places get searched.

 

And, as I mentioned above, even if LE yells "We have a warrant!" before entering and searching, how is the citizen able to know what the warrant says if not given the chance to read it? If you, as a LEO, asked for my ID, would you have been satisfied if I just told you my name? Or would you demand some sort of state issued ID be handed over to you so you could look at it, maybe make a call to verify that information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution of the United States is too hard for the common American rabble to understand. That's why we need highly educated lawyers and judges to tell us what is obviously too hard for us rabble to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, I understand what you are saying, and I hope you can see where we are all coming from. I don't think you would disagree that the use of no-knock is on the rise. And we hear at least once every few weeks of a home invasion by thug wearing "tactical gear (is) plastered with large and often reflective lettering saying POLICE." How is the citizen supposed to know the difference? Even with the mounds of evidence, mistakes still get made and the wrong places get searched.

 

 

There's the problem right there. If the markings would be POLICIA, everybody would throw their hands in the air and surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed emotions on this. As an Officer who's served dozens of warrants and has a son currently doing the same, Officer safety is priority one. :blush:

 

BSD

 

at what point does the safety of the law abiding citezen become "priority one"? it seems to me that the average law abiding citezen should have the same right and the same expectations of safety as law enforcement personel. having to submit to forced entry because it is safer for the police means that now the bad guys can force entry into the home and the citizen can no longer protect themselves because it MIGHT be the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question would be, "If I heard someone yell police!" and start kicking in the door, then how am I to know if it the police and not some criminals that are now taking advantage of such a ruling?

No time to verify badges, warrants or anything?

Sounds like a good way for some good LEOs to get shot along with some civilians and in the end only enriching more lawyers.

 

Good point Hannie.

 

All it's going to take for one warrantless kick-down-the-door entry to turn into a gunfight, and then there'll be screams for more gun control.

 

Bit by bit they're going to keep chipping away at our rights.

 

Then again, look who's in charge. The same guy who said, as a candidate, that The Constitution was outmoded because it limited what the government could do to the citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key wording here is with a warrant. That gives them the right to enter and therefore makes their entry legal.

 

 

Sorry folks. But that has been the law as long as I was a Lawdog...

 

BTW, at least in Illinois, you cannot resist arrest for any reason, even if you believe that it is illegal or improper. That is decided in court. I'd bet that most States have similar laws...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question would be, "If I heard someone yell police!" and start kicking in the door, then how am I to know if it the police and not some criminals that are now taking advantage of such a ruling?

No time to verify badges, warrants or anything?

Sounds like a good way for some good LEOs to get shot along with some civilians and in the end only enriching more lawyers.

And it is all being done by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key wording here is with a warrant. That gives them the right to enter and therefore makes their entry legal.

 

 

Sorry folks. But that has been the law as long as I was a Lawdog...

 

BTW, at least in Illinois, you cannot resist arrest for any reason, even if you believe that it is illegal or improper. That is decided in court. I'd bet that most States have similar laws...

 

Right. Washington has a similar rule re resisting, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! The Indiana Supreme Court takes its orders from the White House.

 

I'm glad it's by design, though. Otherwise it would mean that nobody was in charge....

 

:lol: 'in charge'....

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key wording here is with a warrant. That gives them the right to enter and therefore makes their entry legal.

 

 

Sorry folks. But that has been the law as long as I was a Lawdog...

 

BTW, at least in Illinois, you cannot resist arrest for any reason, even if you believe that it is illegal or improper. That is decided in court. I'd bet that most States have similar laws...

 

 

When does the citizen get to read and verify the warrant? Seems like only after the fact. In which case, what is the point of the warrant? LEOs yelling "POLICE! WARRANT!" shouldn't cover it. How is the citizen to know who issued it? Or what it covers?

 

Again, if you as a LEO ask me to identify myself, would you be satisfied if I just told you my name? Or would you demand some sort of state issued photo ID be produced and delivered into your hands for you to check?

 

I find it very disturbing that so many are so willing to toss aside the protections in the BoR because it is expedient to do so and makes it easier for the State to arrest citizens. The whole idea was to throw roadblocks up to prevent the State from using its overwhelming power this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why we got onto the subject of warranted searches; as the original post cited an article that was about a entry WITHOUT a warrant.

It was cited as an "illegal cop entry" (full title of "No right to resist illegal cop entry into home".)

The article didn't even mention warrants until the ruling was being analyzed.

 

I too share the concerns about the erosion/elimination/degradation of our constitutional rights by the courts on behalf of cops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why we got onto the subject of warranted searches; as the original post cited an article that was about a entry WITHOUT a warrant.

It was cited as an "illegal cop entry" (full title of "No right to resist illegal cop entry into home".)

The article didn't even mention warrants until the ruling was being analyzed.

 

I too share the concerns about the erosion/elimination/degradation of our constitutional rights by the courts on behalf of cops.

 

Kind of a natural segue, I guess. The decision in the OP pretty much said that citizens have no right at all to prohibit entry by LE. The case, I think, was nebulous at best. The guy who lived there denied them entry, the woman who lived there was saying to let them in. In situations like that were you have a domestic violence call, and conflicting desires of the residents, then yes, LE should be allowed to enter. But for a State Supreme Court to use that situation to basically throw out the 4th Amendment protections is overly broad.

 

Talking about the 4th Amendment naturally led to discussion about no-knock warrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more important, the 'right' of the government to prevent citizens from consuming products the government deems to be unacceptable, or the right of a citizen to be secure in his home?

 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for law enforcement and appreciate the risks they take every day, BUT if my door gets kicked in I'll go with 'it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more important, the 'right' of the government to prevent citizens from consuming products the government deems to be unacceptable, or the right of a citizen to be secure in his home?

 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for law enforcement and appreciate the risks they take every day, BUT if my door gets kicked in I'll go with 'it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.'

 

The only thing is, you would likely be carried by 6. If you were lucky, you might get to be judged by 12 after a lengthy stay in the hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption you're making Joe is that the intruders would be law enforcement, not home invaders. The problem for citizens in my neck of the woods is that there have been way to many home invasions by thugs dressed up as LEOs. At least a half dozen in the last year, if not more. The honest, law abiding citizen, faced with his door being broken down in the middle of the night is then faced with a horrible choice, are they legit and just at the wrong house, or are they illegitimate, and there to rape, rob, kill, whatever. I've given it considerable thought, way before this thread popped up and decided the best course of action is to protect me and mine and let the chips fall where they may.

 

If I somehow knew they were legit, I would submit and then sue their a$$e$ off later, but how do you know when it's a no knock in the middle of the night?

 

Which takes us back to my original question, should a citizen be potentially faced with that choice just to ensure the government can procure evidence?

 

To me the answer is clear. But then, my students would tell you I'm an old school relic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many Monday mornen wanna be cops, Monday mornen wanna be judges on this one fer me. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.