- #1
CAC1001 said:
drankin said: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 said: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.
CAC1001 said:What if a criminal dresses as a cop and demands to come into your home with this ruling in place?
QuarkCharmer said: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)
QuarkCharmer said: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)
SW VandeCarr said: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 said: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?
Jack21222 said: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?
SW VandeCarr said: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 said:Now, without a warrant a cop can enter your home in Indiana.
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.
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.
drankin said: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.
QuarkCharmer said: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 said: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.
TheStatutoryApe said: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?
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.BobG said: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?BobG said: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?
BobG said: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?
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 said:The seizure of cash in the absence of other items would not be reasonable.
turbo-1 said: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.
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.WhoWee said: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-1 said: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'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.WhoWee said: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 said: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.
WhoWee said:The seizure of cash in the absence of other items would not be reasonable.
Nope. Neither of us are. Neither of us made any claim regarding what any specific court has ruled.BobG said:You would both be wrong.
BobG said: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.
Jack21222 said: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.
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 believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"
"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."
drankin said: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.
In this case, Mary Barnes had called for police. The officer entered because he was lawfully engaged in the execution of civil process:ruling said: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.
ruling said: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."
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.jambaugh said: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.
Jack21222 said: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 said:There were drugs involved.
(Bolding mine)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.