News Indiana Supreme Court: No Right to Resist Illegal Police Entry Into Your Home

[CAC1001]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

 

[drankin]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

That's just too broad a ruling and wrong. Basically, cops can just crash your home for no reason whatsoever in Indiana now. That opens the gates to all sorts of abuses of power.

A cop could even bust into his ex-girlfriends house now and her only recourse is after the fact. I call BS on this ruling.

 

[WhoWee]

That's just too broad a ruling and wrong. Basically, cops can just crash your home for no reason whatsoever in Indiana now. That opens the gates to all sorts of abuses of power.

A cop could even bust into his ex-girlfriends house now and her only recourse is after the fact. I call BS on this ruling.

Considering that any evidence gained would still be thrown out (apparently) it sounds as though their intention is to stop bad situations before they escalate? You do make a good point about the possibility for personal abuses.

 

[drankin]

Considering that any evidence gained would still be thrown out (apparently) it sounds as though their intention is to stop bad situations before they escalate? You do make a good point about the possibility for personal abuses.

You're right, it will have to happen first. Eventually something will because there is no check against it now. I've had personal a situation where a cop was going to rush into my house about something that had nothing to do with me. I shut the screen door on him and he stopped. He was being very aggressive but he didn't come through. And we were able to discuss his situation. Freaked me out though. A case of a misunderstanding on his part. But if he would have come into my home I don't know what he would have done being as jacked up as he was.

In Indiana, your home is no longer your haven whether you are a bystander in a misunderstanding or not.

It's a bit too much IMO.

 

[CAC1001]

What if a criminal dresses as a cop and demands to come into your home with this ruling in place?

 

[drankin]

What if a criminal dresses as a cop and demands to come into your home with this ruling in place?

LOL, that's kind of far out but yeah, if it became a common thing for a cop to demand or simply force entry...

 

[QuarkCharmer]

That is garbage.

Suppose the police bust into your house without cause and find a huge stash of <something illegal>, could they not just say "hey we smelled it from outside" to justify. Worst case scenario, they leave and go bust down your neighbors door, eventually they are going to get a bite on this fishing trip.

(That's not to say I condone any drug use or anything, it was the simplest example I could think of)

 

[drankin]

That is garbage.

Suppose the police bust into your house without cause and find a huge stash of <something illegal>, could they not just say "hey we smelled it from outside" to justify. Worst case scenario, they leave and go bust down your neighbors door, eventually they are going to get a bite on this fishing trip.

(That's not to say I condone any drug use or anything, it was the simplest example I could think of)

What's to stop them searching an entire neighborhood? Breaking down doors willy nilly because they can.

 

[CAC1001]

That is garbage.

Suppose the police bust into your house without cause and find a huge stash of <something illegal>, could they not just say "hey we smelled it from outside" to justify. Worst case scenario, they leave and go bust down your neighbors door, eventually they are going to get a bite on this fishing trip.

(That's not to say I condone any drug use or anything, it was the simplest example I could think of)

Well actually, in this such instance, that might be an exception. If a cop is outside your house for example and sees through your window what looks like a huge pile of cocaine sitting inside, they can enter your home without your permission in that instance I believe. But it has to be something really obvious and specific like that. So if the neighbors complain of a funny smell coming from your house and the cops pull up and it smells to them like a drug lab, they probably could come in.

But that's the only scenario I believe (or one of the only). As for criminals dressing like cops, it has happened before.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights)

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.

 

[Jack21222]

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights)

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.

Right, but that can just mean that the court can compensate you after the fact for a breach of your rights... It doesn't necessarily authorize you to use violence to resist an unlawful search.

Regardless of whether it should be criminal or not, can we at least all agree it's a bad idea to physically assault a police officer, whether or not they have a warrant?

 

[drankin]

Right, but that can just mean that the court can compensate you after the fact for a breach of your rights... It doesn't necessarily authorize you to use violence to resist an unlawful search.

Regardless of whether it should be criminal or not, can we at least all agree it's a bad idea to physically assault a police officer, whether or not they have a warrant?

If a cop forces his way into your home and assaults you unnecessarily, you have no recourse. It's his word against yours. The courts side with the cop.

Now, without a warrant a cop can enter your home in Indiana.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Right, but that can just mean that the court can compensate you after the fact for a breach of your rights... It doesn't necessarily authorize you to use violence to resist an unlawful search.

Regardless of whether it should be criminal or not, can we at least all agree it's a bad idea to physically assault a police officer, whether or not they have a warrant?

Yes. The best advice is to withdraw if you can. However, hidden cameras with remote storage might be necessary for people to be able to secure justice against rogue cops.

 

[drankin]

Yes. The best advice is to withdraw if you can. However, hidden cameras with remote storage might be necessary for people to be able to secure justice against rogue cops.

There is at least one city/state (forget where exactly) that does not permit footage of cops doing their job. I forget where that was but it was discussed in a post a few months ago. Couple that with being able to invade your home without a warrant sounds like a bad combination. Ultimately it wouldn't hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny as it is now but it would take awhile to get there. Not good.

 

[Jack21222]

Now, without a warrant a cop can enter your home in Indiana.

That's not what this ruling says. At all. A cop could always enter your home without a warrant, just like a burglar could enter your home without a warrant. All this ruling says is you cannot attack the cop in the way you could attack the burglar.

If a cop forces his way into your home and assaults you unnecessarily, you have no recourse. It's his word against yours. The courts side with the cop.

This is provably false. I don't have time to do your research for you (I leave for class in a few minutes), but if you google a bit, you will find numerous instances where the court does not side with the cop.

Oh heck, I might as well do a little work for you, here you go:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27861142/detail.html

Dozens of drug and robbery cases have been dropped due to the allegations, which have prompted the Police Department to put eight plainclothes officers on administrative duty.

Ok, in that case it looks like it was the prosecutor who drops the cases, not the court, but there are plenty of instances where police misconduct is punished.

 

[WhoWee]

You're right, it will have to happen first. Eventually something will because there is no check against it now. I've had personal a situation where a cop was going to rush into my house about something that had nothing to do with me. I shut the screen door on him and he stopped. He was being very aggressive but he didn't come through. And we were able to discuss his situation. Freaked me out though. A case of a misunderstanding on his part. But if he would have come into my home I don't know what he would have done being as jacked up as he was.

In Indiana, your home is no longer your haven whether you are a bystander in a misunderstanding or not.

It's a bit too much IMO.

It's unnerving - but I think abuses will be quite obvious.

 

[WhoWee]

That is garbage.

Suppose the police bust into your house without cause and find a huge stash of <something illegal>, could they not just say "hey we smelled it from outside" to justify. Worst case scenario, they leave and go bust down your neighbors door, eventually they are going to get a bite on this fishing trip.

(That's not to say I condone any drug use or anything, it was the simplest example I could think of)

Again, they could seize the drugs - but not charge you - apparently?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is at least one city/state (forget where exactly) that does not permit footage of cops doing their job. I forget where that was but it was discussed in a post a few months ago. Couple that with being able to invade your home without a warrant sounds like a bad combination. Ultimately it wouldn't hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny as it is now but it would take awhile to get there. Not good.

Some states have fairly stringent "wiretapping" laws and that was what they were using against people. It would generally require being in public and home security cameras should be fine.

And this particular issue of home entry will likely pass the USSC. Typically if you have an issue with the way a police officer is doing their job you are supposed to do something about it after the fact. Imagine the abuse if it were the other way around. How many criminals do you think would be doing their damnedest to keep cops out of their homes claiming that the officers did not have probable cause? Do you really think that an officer should have to demonstrate probable cause to any person whose home they enter?

 

[BobG]

And this particular issue of home entry will likely pass the USSC. Typically if you have an issue with the way a police officer is doing their job you are supposed to do something about it after the fact. Imagine the abuse if it were the other way around. How many criminals do you think would be doing their damnedest to keep cops out of their homes claiming that the officers did not have probable cause? Do you really think that an officer should have to demonstrate probable cause to any person whose home they enter?

If the officers had a warrant before arriving at the home, then the criminals have no recourse. I don't see huge problems resulting from this arrangement.

WhoWee mentioned something that's also applicable. One of the laws passed during the "War on Drugs" was one that allowed police to confiscate property used to distribute drugs or obtained from the profits of distributing drugs. It was passed because your leaders of organized drug distribution networks were too far removed from the operations to be arrested and convicted (and the law even made sense when limited to known drug lords).

The property confiscated can be kept (or more likely sold at a police auction) even if no charges are eventually brought against the person. That way, your drug lords suffered even if we couldn't get a conviction against them.

So, police can confiscate anything related to possible drug use/distribution even if no charges are brought against the home owner. Too much cash laying around? It's gone for good. But, realistically, what legitimate reason would someone have for keeping some outrageous amount of cash, like 10 grand, laying around their house in a duffel bag?

You have situations that are going to ensure some types of abuses, even if most of the actions are justified. The exceptions, the abuses, are the whole intent of providing civil rights protections. What's an acceptable ratio between the number of criminals that are subjected to warrantless searches and confiscation of their property and the number of innocent people subjected to warrantless searches and confiscation of their property?

 

[Al68]

But, realistically, what legitimate reason would someone have for keeping some outrageous amount of cash, like 10 grand, laying around their house in a duffel bag?

Keeping 10 grand in cash laying around the house in a duffel bag is not a crime, so there is no obligation to have a "legitimate" reason. Legitimate reasons are not needed for legal activities.

And most importantly, in the absence of proof of a crime, the reason is automatically legitimate, no matter what it is or whether it is disclosed.

 

[turbo]

So, police can confiscate anything related to possible drug use/distribution even if no charges are brought against the home owner. Too much cash laying around? It's gone for good. But, realistically, what legitimate reason would someone have for keeping some outrageous amount of cash, like 10 grand, laying around their house in a duffel bag?

How about securely locked away in a safe? How about if the cash, bonds, etc are earmarked for your siblings as part of their inheritance?

 

[WhoWee]

If the officers had a warrant before arriving at the home, then the criminals have no recourse. I don't see huge problems resulting from this arrangement.

WhoWee mentioned something that's also applicable. One of the laws passed during the "War on Drugs" was one that allowed police to confiscate property used to distribute drugs or obtained from the profits of distributing drugs. It was passed because your leaders of organized drug distribution networks were too far removed from the operations to be arrested and convicted (and the law even made sense when limited to known drug lords).

The property confiscated can be kept (or more likely sold at a police auction) even if no charges are eventually brought against the person. That way, your drug lords suffered even if we couldn't get a conviction against them.

So, police can confiscate anything related to possible drug use/distribution even if no charges are brought against the home owner. Too much cash laying around? It's gone for good. But, realistically, what legitimate reason would someone have for keeping some outrageous amount of cash, like 10 grand, laying around their house in a duffel bag?

You have situations that are going to ensure some types of abuses, even if most of the actions are justified. The exceptions, the abuses, are the whole intent of providing civil rights protections. What's an acceptable ratio between the number of criminals that are subjected to warrantless searches and confiscation of their property and the number of innocent people subjected to warrantless searches and confiscation of their property?

The seizure of cash in the absence of other items would not be reasonable.

 

[turbo]

The seizure of cash in the absence of other items would not be reasonable.

In the absence of some physical evidence of intent to distribute drugs or other contraband, seizing liquid assets should be strictly forbidden. Even in the presumed presence of such evidence, seizures should be strictly limited, and subject to strict accounting procedures, so that the assets can be returned if law-enforcement's case falls apart.

 

[WhoWee]

In the absence of some physical evidence of intent to distribute drugs or other contraband, seizing liquid assets should be strictly forbidden. Even in the presumed presence of such evidence, seizures should be strictly limited, and subject to strict accounting procedures, so that the assets can be returned if law-enforcement's case falls apart.

Subject to strict accounting yes. But cash found with drugs or illegal firearms, stolen property, or any other evidence of criminal activity - is fair game - you'll have some explaining to do...

 

[turbo]

Subject to strict accounting yes. But cash found with drugs or illegal firearms, stolen property, or any other evidence of criminal activity - is fair game - you'll have some explaining to do...

That's true, but having large amounts of cash on hand is not a crime. I have friends who are antique pickers, and when they are prospecting, they carry thousands in cash. Another friend is really fond of antique cars and trucks. If he shows up to view a vehicle that you have for sale, he can come up with the cash right in the driveway. I tend to stay a bit more "liquid" than most folks because I want to be ready if someone gets in a jam and wants to sell off a nice piece of real-estate.

A couple of years back, I had an almost-new Polaris ATP for sale for $5000. An old guy and his wife showed up, and I let him talk me down to $4500, so he told his wife to pay me. She pulled a really fat envelope out of her hand-bag and counted out 45 old (no security features) $100 bills and handed them over. That envelope was still really fat. I wrote up a receipt and handed him the title. He came back the next day with a heavy utility trailer with a compact Kubota tractor chained down on it, and I loaded the ATP for him and helped him strap it down. That little Kubota probably ran him at least $10K. He had found some ads in the local "Swap and Sell it guide" and drove up from NH to buy stuff.

When I took the $4500 to the credit union (didn't need that much more cash in my safe) the teller commented on the old bills, but that was it.

 

[WhoWee]

That's true, but having large amounts of cash on hand is not a crime. I have friends who are antique pickers, and when they are prospecting, they carry thousands in cash. Another friend is really fond of antique cars and trucks. If he shows up to view a vehicle that you have for sale, he can come up with the cash right in the driveway. I tend to stay a bit more "liquid" than most folks because I want to be ready if someone gets in a jam and wants to sell off a nice piece of real-estate.

A couple of years back, I had an almost-new Polaris ATP for sale for $5000. An old guy and his wife showed up, and I let him talk me down to $4500, so he told his wife to pay me. She pulled a really fat envelope out of her hand-bag and counted out 45 old (no security features) $100 bills and handed them over. That envelope was still really fat. I wrote up a receipt and handed him the title. He came back the next day with a heavy utility trailer with a compact Kubota tractor chained down on it, and I loaded the ATP for him and helped him strap it down. That little Kubota probably ran him at least $10K. He had found some ads in the local "Swap and Sell it guide" and drove up from NH to buy stuff.

When I took the $4500 to the credit union (didn't need that much more cash in my safe) the teller commented on the old bills, but that was it.

I agree, having cash on hand doesn't (by itself) indicate any bad behaviour. I know a fellow that taped cash to bubble wrap and insulated his walls - said thieves don't like to work hard and that it would be a big job to rob him.

 

[Al68]

I agree, having cash on hand doesn't (by itself) indicate any bad behaviour. I know a fellow that taped cash to bubble wrap and insulated his walls - said thieves don't like to work hard and that it would be a big job to rob him.

I've known people like that, too, but they would be far better off using real money, like gold or silver coins, than paper currency that will continuously devalue while stored.

It has nothing to do with legality, but why place an asset that loses so much value over time into long term storage, other than a modest amount easy to get to?

 

[BobG]

Keeping 10 grand in cash laying around the house in a duffel bag is not a crime, so there is no obligation to have a "legitimate" reason. Legitimate reasons are not needed for legal activities.

And most importantly, in the absence of proof of a crime, the reason is automatically legitimate, no matter what it is or whether it is disclosed.

The seizure of cash in the absence of other items would not be reasonable.

You would both be wrong.

Cash Seizures by Police Prompt Court Fights

Police crack down on I-81 drug corridor in Susquehanna County

http://www.stategazette.com/story/1627095.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004001175_cash08m.html

This is similar to the idea that no one should resist a police officer wanting to enter their house. Any abuse can be rectified later.

In this case, if they take your money via civil confiscation (instead of criminal confiscation) and you want your money back, you can go to court and prove the money was not used for any illegitimate purposes. Your situation eventually is rectified, although at some effort by you (plus, you may not be able to prove you had a large amount of cash for legitimate reasons).

The beauty of this tactic is most drug traffickers never try to reclaim their cash, resulting in a huge windfall for local police when they confiscate cash from real drug smugglers (i.e. when they confiscate cash from anyone that fails to successfully reclaim their money).

You don't need a probable cause in many instances. You just have to consent to a search. Several years ago, Iowa posted signs on I-80 saying that consenting to police searches was a requirement to use their interstate highway and that using their interstate highway constituted consent for police to search your vehicle. A unit decided to search my ex and her vehicle while she was pulled over at a rest stop. She got the full drug sniffing dog going through her SUV, plus a pat down by police. The dog's operator shouting out his dog had got a hit was a nice touch. It turned out to be either a misread by the dog, since there was nothing suspicious in the ex's vehicle, or perhaps just a mischievious sense of humor by the operator, since that announcement definitely shocked the ex. Now, personally, seeing as how it was the ex, I thought the incident was hilarious. I probably wouldn't think it was so hilarious if it happened to me, though, even if nothing were confiscated.

The irony of how most of these things go is that abuse against an innocent person will usually result in no repercussions (assuming the abuse is just an unwarranted entry into your home or an unwarranted search of your house, vehicle or person with nothing being confiscated). The only repercussions come when evidence obtained against a criminal is tossed out and can't be used in a trial.

 

[Al68]

You would both be wrong.

Nope. Neither of us are. Neither of us made any claim regarding what any specific court has ruled.

The fact that a court has sanctioned such theft means that that court is wrong, not that I am wrong. Such theft, not someone's purpose for their legal activity, is illegitimate.

 

[Jack21222]

In this case, if they take your money via civil confiscation (instead of criminal confiscation) and you want your money back, you can go to court and prove the money was not used for any illegitimate purposes.

In practice, this is almost impossible. My mother works for tips, and she'd put her tips away every day in a safe. My house was raided because of who my sister was dating at the time, they found my father's recreational drug stash (small amount of marijuana and a few prescription pain pills that weren't his), so they confiscated all of the cash in the house, including the 6k my mother had stashed away over the course of two years.

Because my mother didn't get a receipt from every customer who tipped her, the cops kept the cash, and my father just got a slap on the wrist for the drugs.

 

[WhoWee]

In practice, this is almost impossible. My mother works for tips, and she'd put her tips away every day in a safe. My house was raided because of who my sister was dating at the time, they found my father's recreational drug stash (small amount of marijuana and a few prescription pain pills that weren't his), so they confiscated all of the cash in the house, including the 6k my mother had stashed away over the course of two years.

Because my mother didn't get a receipt from every customer who tipped her, the cops kept the cash, and my father just got a slap on the wrist for the drugs.

There were drugs involved.

 

[jambaugh]

Yes this is a bogus ruling:

Where the judge said:

"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,"

I am intrigued by the meaning of "modern". The fourth amendment hasn't been re-written has it? It wouldn't be the 4th amendment anymore but rather the umpteenth. But more telling is the "against public policy" and where he argues:

"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."

He is not appealing to the constitution but rather to what HE thinks the law should be. He's legislating not adjudicating. If he wants to use this argument to amend the constitution then that's fine but he hasn't the power to rewrite it based on such an argument.

The fact is that you have the right to shoot to death in self defense a corrupt police officer entering your house with the intent of doing you harm. You are not required by law or the constitution to (die and) wait (for your family) to sue after the fact.

Given that scenario and the question, "how are you to know he's a crooked cop, or a villain who bough a cop's uniform and badge at the costume shop?" the presumption is that if he's entering your house illegally in a suspicious manner you may make a presumption of ill intent.

Now this extreme case doesn't apply directly to the case cited. But by my reasoning it would parallel. As I see it, if an officer seeks to enter your property, and you do indeed have reason to believe he is acting in an official capacity, but he is acting outside his legal authority, you have the right to resist proportionately. I.e. you do not have to unlock your door. You can announce your intent to resist entry with violent force and then back it up if the officer ignores the warning.

The ruling is just plain wrong. The officer should have backed off when the man barred him from the house, unless he saw apparent injuries on the woman and thus had probable cause that a continuing crime was occurring, namely assault and battery... or he could have arrested the man and woman for disturbing the peace. I think the judge (mis)used this case to twist the constitution into the form he thought it ought to read.

 

[Newai]

If a cop forces his way into your home and assaults you unnecessarily, you have no recourse. It's his word against yours. The courts side with the cop.

Now, without a warrant a cop can enter your home in Indiana.

If a cop is going to do that, then it doesn't matter if you're in your home or not. A bad cop is bad inside and out. The point here is...

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

In this case, Mary Barnes had called for police. The officer entered because he was lawfully engaged in the execution of civil process:

Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed‘s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, "don't do this" and "just let them in."

I don't agree with the ruling either, but I'm afraid some people are going to get the wrong idea about the circumstances in this particular case. The officer behaved appropriately and in a manner I would hope they all would given the facts. Unfortunately, the court is handling this too broadly.

 

[Newai]

The ruling is just plain wrong. The officer should have backed off when the man barred him from the house, unless he saw apparent injuries on the woman and thus had probable cause that a continuing crime was occurring, namely assault and battery... or he could have arrested the man and woman for disturbing the peace. I think the judge (mis)used this case to twist the constitution into the form he thought it ought to read.

Mary Barnes called 911 for assistance. That's all the officer needs to respond and intervene. To assess injury to the victim, the officer needs to interview the caller. He's not in a position to assess that from the doorway.

The ruling is another matter, though.

 

[BobG]

Because my mother didn't get a receipt from every customer who tipped her, the cops kept the cash, and my father just got a slap on the wrist for the drugs.

There were drugs involved.

Lucky they didn't confiscate her house, as well. Drugs, plus enough cash to purchase more than a person could normally consume in a few days? That sounds like the house is being used in drug distribution activities.

Actually, that would be a bizarre result for such a small amount of marijuana and such a small amount of cash. But, having children (or childrens' boyfriends/girlfriends, etc) that are selling drugs in your garage while you're at work could cost you your house.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179.html

Notwithstanding these changes, however, in many jurisdictions, proof of "innocence" has come to mean a great deal more than mere proof that a property owner is not a criminal. Indeed, the owner must prove instead that he lacked both knowledge of, and control over the property's unlawful use. Thus, civil forfeiture not only makes a property owner his brother's keeper but compels him to prevent the unlawful use of his property by his brother, or anyone else for that matter. In many respects, this situation only exacerbates the disparity in the law's treatment of the criminally accused and the nonaccused property owner. To obtain a criminal forfeiture, the government must prove a defendant's intentional criminal conduct. To do that, it must prove both a bad act (actus rea) and a criminal intent (mens rea); mere knowledge of criminal activity by others is ordinarily not sufficient to justify conviction, as one must knowingly participate in a criminal venture to become a criminal. By contrast, to be exempt from civil seizure and forfeiture, a property owner must prove a negative: that is, he must prove he lacked any knowledge (mens rea) of the property's unlawful use, even though mere knowledge of criminal conduct is typically insufficient to establish criminal culpability under criminal law.

(Bolding mine)

 

[Jack21222]

Lucky they didn't confiscate her house, as well. Drugs, plus enough cash to purchase more than a person could normally consume in a few days? That sounds like the house is being used in drug distribution activities.

Yeah, you can go incredibly far distributing a small baggie of weed and 5 percosets. *eyeroll*

The plea bargain was my father got probation and he had to give up all of his legal guns in his house. I personally think it's because the police wanted my antique heirloom shotgun that I hadn't moved into my new house by the time of the raid. That thing was almost 100 years old.

 

[Alfi]

It's another witch hunt ... and their little dogs too hehehe

The Dog says your guilty. The cop believes him, without question.
( trained dog and all ...)
hummmm . Can I see the dogs 'true hit' number and 'false hit' numbers and the 'no hit' numbers please.
He's trained, but is he calibrated?

I'm stuck with a very bad feeling, that my future could possibly be badly effected by a dog's erroneous testimony. It would not be nice know they are wrong. Plain out wrong! The dog must be lying, or mistaken, but still still, off you go for Fingerprinting, Record Keeping information! Nice forward and profile pictures.
All the money I was holding because there was a tractor I wanted to buy.

why why ME ? We say.
Because the Dog said so. How accurate does a Dog need to be?
Perhaps your in a rental car, someone could have spilled a bit last ride... ?

I've stepped in this before. Stuff that smelled the same as this stuff.
And, it's expensive to wipe it all off.

Thanks to the belief in the training of the dog.
But ... They didn't fire you though did they Dog? ( Wrong again eh? Dog ! )
Even though all charges get dropped.
Eventually.
Wrong again eh? Dog ! Oppps MY bad. I just get a bad feeling, about the choice of, relying on a decision made by our four legged sensors.

Just a thought.

 

[Al68]

Lucky they didn't confiscate her house, as well. Drugs, plus enough cash to purchase more than a person could normally consume in a few days? That sounds like the house is being used in drug distribution activities.

Are you being sarcastic? A few days consumption's worth of cash is your criteria now? My God, the person who can afford to but doesn't have more cash than that on hand is a moron.

 

[drankin]

A cop shouldn't be able to enter your home without a warrant or to intervene into an impending crime. From what I read, a cop can now enter your home uninvited without a there being a crime to respond to. In Indiana.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you being sarcastic? A few days consumption's worth of cash is your criteria now? My God, the person who can afford to but doesn't have more cash than that on hand is a moron.

$6k will buy more than a few days consumption.

 

[Newai]

A cop shouldn't be able to enter your home without a warrant or to intervene into an impending crime. From what I read, a cop can now enter your home uninvited without a there being a crime to respond to. In Indiana.

I agree. I just want to be sure everyone knows that in this case Mary Barnes told the 911 dispatcher that Richard Barnes had thrown things at the wall in a violent manner, and the officer had to respond to it based on what the dispatcher relayed. When Reed responded, he had to interview Mary Barnes, but Richard Barnes wouldn't let him in. Reed did exactly what he was supposed to do.

 

[BobG]

Are you being sarcastic? A few days consumption's worth of cash is your criteria now? My God, the person who can afford to but doesn't have more cash than that on hand is a moron.

Only semi-sarcastic, as I implied in the next paragraph. The key is that police had reason to be suspicious of activity in the house already because of the daughter's boyfriend. That lowers the threshold for police abuse a lot, but, as I implied, lowering the threshold to the point that a small amount of marijuana and 6k in cash would be enough to confiscate the house probably doesn't carry a realistic probability.

But it is true that your house could be confiscated for something you have little control of just because of the people that your family members associate with. And those associations can cause you trouble whether you're one of the softies ("If they're at my house, at least know where my daughter is at.") or a semi-hardliner and your daughter only associates with shady friends when she leaves the house (a real hardliner would kick their daughter out of the house for having a boyfriend they found shady, but that would carry a downside, too, if you're like me and thought every boyfriend of your daughters were shady characters ).

And if I recall the results from the poll I posted a few years back about whether I should bail my daughter's boyfriend of out of jail, I think there must be quite a few that would set themselves up by being too soft-hearted.

 

[Al68]

$6k will buy more than a few days consumption.

Sure, but I was referring to the latter, not the former, in that post, which was about being prudent, not legality.

The $6K referred to earlier was stolen without any legitimate justification. Whether it was prudent for the owner to have it in her house is completely irrelevant.

 

[Al68]

Only semi-sarcastic, as I implied in the next paragraph. The key is that police had reason to be suspicious of activity in the house already because of the daughter's boyfriend. That lowers the threshold for police abuse a lot, but, as I implied, lowering the threshold to the point that a small amount of marijuana and 6k in cash would be enough to confiscate the house probably doesn't carry a realistic probability.

But it is true that your house could be confiscated for something you have little control of just because of the people that your family members associate with.

"Could be" is very different from "should be". This thread is about what should or shouldn't happen, not what could or couldn't happen.

My getting mugged and raped by big gnarly bikers could happen. My getting mugged and raped by Angelina Jolie should happen. Big difference.

 

[WhoWee]

"Could be" is very different from "should be". This thread is about what should or shouldn't happen, not what could or couldn't happen.

My getting mugged and raped by big gnarly bikers could happen. My getting mugged and raped by Angelina Jolie should happen. Big difference.

Careful what you wish for - there could be a miscommunication.

 

[Al68]

Careful what you wish for - there could be a miscommunication.

Doh!

 

[edward]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015072154_scotus17.html

The plot thickens. This case was in Kentucky.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.

The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.

I need to remind my wife not to light those scented candles when I am on the potty.

Potty flushing is one of the things they listen for.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If the officers had a warrant before arriving at the home, then the criminals have no recourse. I don't see huge problems resulting from this arrangement.

I said probable cause. Less than a warrant.

Yes this is a bogus ruling:

Where the judge said:

I am intrigued by the meaning of "modern". The fourth amendment hasn't been re-written has it? It wouldn't be the 4th amendment anymore but rather the umpteenth. But more telling is the "against public policy" and where he argues: He is not appealing to the constitution but rather to what HE thinks the law should be. He's legislating not adjudicating. If he wants to use this argument to amend the constitution then that's fine but he hasn't the power to rewrite it based on such an argument...

...

...I think the judge (mis)used this case to twist the constitution into the form he thought it ought to read.

The "modern interpretation" of the fourth amendment includes "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion". If any person may lawfully refuse and/or resist attempts by an officer to conduct a search because they do not personally believe that the officer has a legitimate reason then it throws out any ability of an officer to conduct a search without a signed warrant from a judge.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015072154_scotus17.html

The plot thickens. This case was in Kentucky.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html



I need to remind my wife not to light those scented candles when I am on the potty.

Potty flushing is one of the things they listen for.

yeah, the problem is that cops lie about smelling marijuana. they simply bring a dog and say "the dog says...". i had it happen to me on a traffic stop once. it was about a week before the kids start showing up at the beach in droves, and the local police were practicing. i had a car only i had owned and never used drugs. cop picked up some random dried leaf that had gotten tracked in on the carpet and accused me with it, said the dog smelled that. then i get a warning for speeding and get sent on my way.

and they wonder why people don't like cops. it's because they have no integrity.

 

[BobG]

"Could be" is very different from "should be". This thread is about what should or shouldn't happen, not what could or couldn't happen.

My getting mugged and raped by big gnarly bikers could happen. My getting mugged and raped by Angelina Jolie should happen. Big difference.

The "what should happen" is based on protecting people from "what could happen". If there were no risk of unhampered police searches having a bad consequence for you, then what reason would there be to object to them?

If bad things couldn't happen, then the crowd that claims that only criminals have something to hide would be correct. Our civil rights are based on what could happen and are the reasons that our civil rights should be protected.

Plus, I wouldn't categorize the court ruling in the original post as something that should happen. It's something that did happen even though it shouldn't have.