Reply With Quote
It's cool, I don't need any rights if I'm not doing anything wrong, right?
A little-noticed Indiana Supreme Court decision late last week overturned long-standing precedent and stripped citizens of the right to resist unlawful police entry to their homes, in a move dissenting justices called "breathtaking" and "unnecessarily broad."
The ruling, which came on the appeal of a case in which police subdued a man who refused to allow them entry to an apartment following a report of domestic violence, strikes to the heart of the Cons ution's Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure.
It effectively means that officers may enter any residence without warrant, probable cause or permission of the owner, leaving citizens' only legal recourse against such intrusions in the hands of police review boards or district courts.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/1...e+Raw+Story%29
====
damn those socialist hippy judges!!
It's cool, I don't need any rights if I'm not doing anything wrong, right?
The march towards a police state goes on
So what happens if the officers think there is a burglar in my house.... in the mean time I'm lighting a doobie..they burst in looking for a burglar..can I be arrested for possesion?
What stops cops from busting in the door now in Indiana?
The only thing stopping the police from busting down your door or anyone else's is their regard or disregard of the US Cons ution.
Supreme Court refuses ‘extraordinary rendition’ torture case
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would not hear the case of five men who said they had fallen victim to a Central Intelligence Agency practice called "extraordinary rendition," in which suspects are sent illegally to other countries to be tortured for information.
The nation's highest court said that trying the case would inevitably lead to state secrets being aired.
The Associated Press reported that this is not the only case to have been dismissed for fear of disclosing dangerous or top-secret information.
“The government’s interest in national security must be deemed paramount to the interests of private litigants in pursuing civil actions,” acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued in court papers, according to Bloomberg.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/1...e+Raw+Story%29
Keep in mind the ruling was against the resident for protecting himself from unlawful entry of law enforcement. It didn't say the police were right in entering. I hope they were fired.
They smelled marijuana, yelled and hammered to come in, heard noises they assumed was evidence destruction (oops, sorry if it wasn't being destroyed), didn't stop to get warrant (take a few minutes, a formality), and busted in.
The "door" is now wide open for warrantless cops to bust in and then lie to cover their criminal asses. "Well, we thought there was some going down, so we busted in" (and no, we're not ing sorry)
I must have missed something.
Where did it say evidence obtained illegally was admissible in court?
Apparently, what has been illegal for 235 years is no longer illegal.
We arrived somewhere during the Bush packing of the SCOTUS.
OK, please show me where it said that happened.
Don't any of you liberals read the attached material for these things? You really should you know. The other resident made the call, actually making it legal for the police to enter.
Actually don't read or research. I find it funny that you liberals prove the accuracy of my term lib .
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-16-2011 at 09:09 PM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html?_r=3The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.
grano salis: uncorroborated
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Le...s-we-will.htmlAccording to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
^ so sad, if true
"adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal."
Such "belief" is ongoing proof that the law enforcement assholes, esp elected assholes like sheriffs, come from the bottom of the barrel.
His imagined "people" have never had their house ransacked, pillaged, stuff destroyed, their peace of mind traumatized, by militarized, screaming, locked-and-loaded police goons.
The most amazing part of the SCOTUS vote is the 8-1. We know the 5 Repug activist assholes are reliably against citizens, but the other 3 are surprising as they are depressing.
America is so ed, and un able.
Shouldn't work under the Indiana Court's ruling.
While they declared resisting illegal entry is illegal, they did not declare the entry legal. Basically, as long as you can get the entry declared illegal, any evidence found would be thrown out. That principal is one of the major reasons the Indiana Court ruled the way it did.
So random checks would be a pain in the ass, but without probably cause or a warrant, anything a random check found would be inadmissible in court.
Those damn marijuana smokers!!! They should of just sent in SWAT
The rulings of the Indiana court and the Supreme Court weren't expected either.
Quite true, and SCOTUS has done some really wonky things lately.
I'm just saying the Indiana Supreme Court took into account that evidence found during an illegal entry would be thrown out, just as is always has been.
That's the rationale. Hope you're right about that.
I fail to see why this thread continues. Are my first three posts accurate, or not?
Keep in mind the ruling was against the resident for protecting himself from unlawful entry of law enforcement. It didn't say the police were right in entering. I hope they were fired.I must have missed something.
Where did it say evidence obtained illegally was admissible in court?OK, please show me where it said that happened.
Don't any of you liberals read the attached material for these things? You really should you know. The other resident made the [911] call, actually making it legal for the police to enter.
Actually don't read or research. I find it funny that you liberals prove the accuracy of my term lib .
If the judges had stuck to that, it would have been fine, but as the dissenting judges noted, the majority ruling declared you can't prevent police from entering, whether there's a valid reason or not.
In that particular case, most people would acknowledge the police at least had an argument for having the legal right to enter (responding to a 911 call, etc).
The judges went way beyond the scope of the case. Hence the discussion on its ramifications.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
