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.