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

[Char. Limit]

Am I the only one who is worried by the apparent violation of the fourth amendment in favor of "public policy" here?

I'm just glad I live in Washington, and not in Indiana or Kentucky...

 

[skippy1729]

Quoting from the NWITIMES link above:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

Quoting from the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I seems Americans are plagued by rogue judiciaries at all levels.

Skippy

 

[Al68]

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.

I think you misconstrued my post. I never made any claim about what could or couldn't happen. The point was whether an innocent person's property should be confiscated by government. You used evidence that it could happen to argue against my claim that it shouldn't happen. Hence my pointing out the difference between could and should.

 

[Brandon_R]

Am I the only one who is worried by the apparent violation of the fourth amendment in favor of "public policy" here?

I'm just glad I live in Washington, and not in Indiana or Kentucky...

You're not the only one good sir, I too am worried about how little by little our basic rights are being removed on the mere basis that we shouldn't follow something written centuries ago. I would like to think the basic laws/rights would run with us to the bitter end.

And something like this could very well move over to where you live in the future so i would keep my eye on it.

 

[BobG]

I think you misconstrued my post. I never made any claim about what could or couldn't happen. The point was whether an innocent person's property should be confiscated by government. You used evidence that it could happen to argue against my claim that it shouldn't happen. Hence my pointing out the difference between could and should.

Probably did, since I agree with you about what should happen, but the two posts I responded to seemed to imply that should happen meant it would happen. In other words, the should haves were just left hanging.

My posts were about why the issue is important - that the should have didn't match what the laws or the judicial ruling in the original post allow to happen.

When it comes to both the judicial ruling and civil confiscation laws, I feel they were both appropriate for the given situation, but were written so broadly that they wind up opening up opportunities for abuse. The combination of the two means that the impact of an unwarranted search allowed by the ruling won't necessarily be rectified by the court after the fact, regardless of what the judge thinks would happen.

 

[Al68]

When it comes to both the judicial ruling and civil confiscation laws, I feel they were both appropriate for the given situation, but were written so broadly that they wind up opening up opportunities for abuse.

Yes, but "written broadly" is putting it mildly.

The fifth amendment clearly prohibits property being "taken for public use, without just compensation". And either the property is being taken for public use, taken to settle a debt, or as punishment for a crime. If the latter, the owner of the property, not another person, must be convicted of the crime.

It would seem obvious that the "due process" required to deprive someone of their "life, liberty, or property", referred to in the fifth amendment applies to the property owner, not someone else, receiving due process. And it certainly doesn't mean allowing a property owner an "opportunity to prove their innocence" to get their own property back.

And if property is taken to settle a debt, the seventh amendment clearly requires a trial by jury, if the value exceeds 20 dollars (yes, I know the word "dollar" had a different meaning in that context, it was defined as ~1/20 ounce of gold).

Simply put, the example given of the $6K being confiscated from an innocent person, with the criminal act of another person being used as an excuse, clearly and blatantly violates the fifth amendment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You're not the only one good sir, I too am worried about how little by little our basic rights are being removed on the mere basis that we shouldn't follow something written centuries ago. I would like to think the basic laws/rights would run with us to the bitter end.

And something like this could very well move over to where you live in the future so i would keep my eye on it.

Your right to be free of warrantless search and seizure by law enforcement below the federal level did not exist until 1961 when the court decided to reinterpret that centuries old document. The courts have actually little by little reinterpreted the constitution to give you more of your basic civil rights mostly within the last century.