What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay

from the thanks-Indiana-supreme-court dept

Thu, May 19th 2011 9:17am — Mike Masnick

We've been covering a large number of situations and legal rulings lately that appear to suggest that the 4th Amendment is pretty much null and void for much of the US. With the news of a bad Supreme Court ruling concerning the ability of police to invade a home without a warrant, so long as they create circumstances that make it seem urgent, we're pointed to an even more ridiculous ruling in the Indiana Supreme Court that effectively legalizes the ability of law enforcement to enter any home without a warrant. Why? The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:

"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

In other words, the gradual (and, at times, not so gradual) destruction of the 4th Amendment is used to destroy it even more.

It appears that law enforcement in Indiana is wasting no time in recognizing the power this gives them. Radley Balko points us to the news that one Indiana Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., from Newton County, has now stated that it's legal to conduct house-to-house warrantless searches (see update below). According to him, everyone should be fine with such an invasion of privacy, because it means they can catch criminals:

According 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.

It's as if they don't care that they're making a total mockery of the 4th Amendment and its important history.

Update: The sheriff in question has put out a statement contradicting the original story:

On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station. Her question concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random warrantless searches. I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she then asked how the Sheriff�s Office conducted searches of residences. I informed her that searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot pursuit. When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch. This reporter then asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights. This State Supreme Court ruling in my opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I�m sure this state ruling will be revisited.

When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee. I advised her that if people were aware of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission.

This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search without due cause. Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.

I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County Sheriff�s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.

At this point it's the reporter's word against the sheriff's. It does seem odd that the reporter does not directly quote the sheriff, but does state that he "emphatically" said he would use such house-to-house searches...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, don hartman, home searches, indiana, privacy, warrants

141 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 8:28am

WWII Germany?
The Gestapo absolutely loved doing this. Why would anyone want to stop it. They might find a bootleg CD or DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re: WWII Germany?
  speaking of Gestapo...
  
  I'm absolutely sure the Tea Party/small government crowd will be rising up in abject horror at this shortly.
  
  tap tap tap....Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re: WWII Germany?
    I would, but I don't consider this at all surprising. I think we'll need a revolution to sort all this out; maybe it will come sooner than I'd expected.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re: WWII Germany?
    The Tea Party member are basically Republicans demanding (some) fiscal responsibility in the face of their party's shameful, ongoing complicity in our current budget disaster. Departing from Republican talking points on social issues was never their strong suit.
    
    The "small government crowd" encompasses many more people, including your average libertarian like me, and you can bet we're all over it. You did realize that Radley Balko (the guy Masnick hat-tipped in the post itself) writes for Reason magazine, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Shawn, 19 May 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: WWII Germany?
    And why wouldn't you be up in arms as well? Would you be the first one to step out your front door, start screaming at the sheriff to hurry up and search through your house for no reasonable search reasoning applied?
    
    I hope you enjoy what they can do to you, as anything and everything in your house will them be misinterpreted, so you will fit the elements of a crime, whether or not you actually committed one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WWII Germany?
      When the full cavity search comes he'll just bend over and spread his cheeks. Don't know why this should only alarm Tea Partiers...it should alarm us all!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TS.Atomic (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:46pm
  
  Now, hang on a minute...
  The Sheriff said if they were after a suspect and they thought he might be in someone outbuildings/garage, they would SEEK PERMISSION to check them out. If a deputy knocks on my door and says a burglar/rapist/murderer was chased into my neighborhood, not only would I allow them to look in my outbuildings, I'd ask if they needed any help.
  
  The Sheriff went further and said this ruling would likely be revisited and that he stands by his oath to uphold the Constitution.
  
  How "Allison Bricker" came out of that interview with the Sheriff wanting to conduct warrantless, random, house-to-house searches without property-owners consent is a question I would like answered. It's crap reporters like Bricker that throw out some unfounded, inflammatory tripe that gullible rubes eagerly lap up and begin frothing at the mouth about.
  
  The ruling is bad enough. Purposefully deceiving/misquoting a chief law enforcement officer is just making it worse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 May 2011 @ 12:15am
    
    Re: Now, hang on a minute...
    Now, hang on a minute...
    
    Um. Yes, we had already updated the post hours before you added this comment. Kinda weird.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew D. Todd, 20 May 2011 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Now, hang on a minute--- The Sheriff of a Small County
    I took the trouble to look Newton County, Indiana up, and found that it is a remote rural county with a population of 14,000, 2000 of them in the county seat, the rest spread out over several hundred square miles. Crown Point, the dateline for the article, is a suburb of Gary, Indiana (_not_ in Newton County), but the author's business address is in Indianapolis. If you are driving from Gary to Indianapolis on I-65, you go through a corner of Newton County for about three miles, out in the middle of nowhere, but you are never less than seventeen road miles from the county seat. One can see how there might be a joke about Newton County being Nowhere Land. Parenthetically, the disputed case, Barnes v. State of Indiana, originated from Vanderburgh County (Evansville, Indiana), at the other end of the state. There was no logical reason to consult the sheriff of Newton County about this case. He is not a big city police chief, or anything like that.
    
    What it comes down to is that the blogger Allison Bricker telephoned the sheriff of the smallest and most backwoods county she could think of, in the hope that he would be out of his depth and make injudicious remarks. I cannot say whether he made injudicious remarks or not, but it hardly matters. Ms. Bricker was writing for a national audience, betting that people would not know about Newton County, and that they would assume that this sheriff was someone of real importance. People from around the world would not know that Indianapolis and Gary are not in Newton County.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 20 May 2011 @ 5:31am
  
  Re: WWII Germany?
  I know... It's reaking of it.. But does Godwins law need to be the first post? Seriously?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 8:56am

.....what?
"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

I love this concept. We took a shit before, so now we're enacting a law to make sure you have the smell wafted directly into your noses. What else can we do?

This is getting ridiculous....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: .....what?
  This is getting ridiculous....
  
  This is getting worse than ridiculous - it's getting downright terrifying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: .....what?
    The terrifying part is that most American's don't care.
    
    Congratulations America, you officially suck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Berenerd (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .....what?
      Here...watch american gladiators! here is 56 channels of it1 Go back to bed america, your government is in control again...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?
        I wish we had 56 channels of nothing but American Gladiator.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Daffy, 19 May 2011 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?
        You're despicable
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Buck, 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .....what?
      WHERE IN THE HELL ,,,, Did -YOU- ever get the idea - that most Americans don't care about this ??????????
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mark, 19 May 2011 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: .....what?
  Not to disagree with your main point that this is bad, however, technically they didn't enact any laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re: .....what?
    True. They repealed an amendment, which is much worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Steve, 19 May 2011 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .....what?
      No.. They ruled that it's OK to INTERPRET that amendment (and presumably by precedence, the others as well) as doublespeak that would make Orwell take a double-take.
      
      I'm just glad the government is here to protect us.. I dont know what I'd do with all that freedom stuff..
      
      "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
      - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 7
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hegemon13, 19 May 2011 @ 10:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .....what?
      No, they nullified it...in the judicial branch, which is there for the express purpose of upholding the law of the land, of which the Constitution is the supreme authority. Goodbye, liberty. Welcome to the Western Empire of the Americas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 20 May 2011 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?
        > No, they nullified it...in the judicial
        > branch, which is there for the express
        > purpose of upholding the law of the land,
        > of which the Constitution is the supreme
        > authority. Goodbye, liberty. Welcome to
        > the Western Empire of the Americas.
        
        It's worth pointing out that this ridiculous ruling was from the Indiana Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. Which means it only applies in Indiana, and only for as long it takes to be overturned on appeal to the federal system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?
        It will not go to the "federal system" because it does not involve a federal law or the US Constitution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 20 May 2011 @ 7:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .....what?
        > It will not go to the "federal system" because it does not
        > involve a federal law or the US Constitution.
        
        Sure it does. Read the 4th Amendment: "secure in their houses, papers, effects..." Being told by the state that you have to allow police to force their way into your home means you are no longer secure in your home, papers, or effects.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:22am

What's next?
Cameras in everyone's house would also help capture criminals. I'm sure citizens will welcome that, too.

/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anothermike, 19 May 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: What's next?
  They wouldn't even have to hide the camera in my house; I'd have them put it right on the table. They'd get a daily goatse but they must've wanted that since they supplied the camera gear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2015 @ 3:41am
    
    Re: Re: What's next?
    That might be a bad idea, depending on the local indecent exposure laws, which are quite likely to be insane. (Of course, all rooms in the house need to be watched, including bathrooms, and if you're naked in front of the camera, you'll just have to rely on police discretion - have you contributed to the police social fund?)
    
    ISTR there is one state in the US where a person naked in their own home can be prosecuted for indecent exposure if they can be seem from the street while a person in the street looking at a naked person in a private home can be prosecuted as a peeping tom.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A.R.M. (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:26am

As one who resides in Indiana...
"It's as if they don't care..."
No offense to the reporting of Techdirt, but this "didn't care" attitude started with those who actually reside in the state.

I gave up years ago at trying to correct the issues the Indiana government has.

I truly believe it's corrupt and this recent Constitutional bill passing clearly shows this.

Remember, this is the same state which has a right to sell off its impounded goods based on trumped-up laws.

The ruling for the law isn't a surprise.

Neither will be the temporary infusion of rights defenders to sue the state... at our expense.

Damned if we..., no, we're just damned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger, 22 Oct 2012 @ 9:22pm
  
  Re: As one who resides in Indiana...
  WAKE UP AMERICA
  All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
  IT'S TIME FOR ALL AMERICANS TO STAND AND SPEAK UP
  MUST READ ARTICLES
  The Infallible Prosecutor: Google it
  10,000 innocent people convicted each year
  Scalia's death row lunacy: Google it
  Most registered sex offenders are innocent
  www.wikipedia.org
  Type censorship in the U.S. in the search box
  IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
  YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
  Jury nullification: A fundamental right!
  
  Indiana Constitution: Article1: Section 19:
  In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of the United States means the same thing.
  
  An unjust law is not a law at all and any person charged with violating an unjust law has not violated any law and should be found not guilty simply because the law is unjust!
  WE MUST PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONS
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:26am

Minor Nitpick
Why? The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:

Not technically accurate. Any fruits of an illegal search would still be (in a non-insane world like ours) inadmissible in court.

The decision "only" said that the serfs can't resist during the time period that their rights are being violated, and must submit for their own safety in the face of any expected police brutality that is sure to come. Later, when the threat of being beaten to death by a police officer is no longer present, they can spend their life savings on a lawyer to bring a complaint forward against the officers that will then be heard and decided on by the friends of said police officers.

But technically, officers still require a warrant if they want to use what they find in court. If they just want to keep any loot for themselves through civil forfeiture ("Can you prove that you didn't buy your wife these earrings with drug money? No? Great! Now I don't have to shop for an anniversary present!"), presumably that's okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 19 May 2011 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Minor Nitpick
  Any fruits of an illegal search would still be (in a non-insane world like ours) inadmissible in court.
  
  I doubt it. They'll unlawfully enter the premises based on the exigent circumstances created by knocking on the door.
  
  Later, when the threat of being beaten to death by a police officer is no longer present, they can spend their life savings on a lawyer to bring a complaint forward against the officers that will then be heard and decided on by the friends of said police officers.
  
  Some of your post includes a bit of excessive rhetoric...but this part is spot on. Your only hope would be to appeal the ruling and spend more of your life savings to get before a judge that is not friends with the officers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:51am
    
    Re: Re: Minor Nitpick
    They'll unlawfully enter the premises based on the exigent circumstances created by knocking on the door.
    
    Using exigent circumstances to enter is not unlawful, of course, even it it might be wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: Minor Nitpick
  My guns work really well, and they open fire on anyone illegally entering my home. Period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Minor Nitpick
    Agreed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCX2, 19 May 2011 @ 9:32am

The outcry will likely be small
I'm sure that these warrantless house-to-house searches will be largely focused in poor communities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: The outcry will likely be small
  Mr. Sheriff should start at the Indiana Supreme Court Justices houses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan F (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:35am

Wow.. I'm dumbfounded. I'm not even sure where to begin much less end. Normally I would take a wait and see and hope the SCOTUS would knock it down faster then lightning strikes, but considering this move is in reply to the recent ruling.

*sigh* once they put it in action, and other states see it going through unchecked I fear the practice will spread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cjstg (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 11:04am
  
  Re:
  i think i can hear sheriff joe arpaio shouting with glee. oh crap! is that a knock at the door? quick honey! hide the cd's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:39am

I don't particularly like that Indiana Supreme Court ruling, but saying it "effectively legalizes the ability of law enforcement to enter any home without a warrant" is just a blatant misrepresentation.

The only issue was whether the homeowner had a right to physically resist such illegal entry, not whether the entry was legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 19 May 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  In a world where you are not allowed to physically resist a search (illegal or not) then you might as well give the police keys to your front door since a physical barrier like a door or window means nothing.
  
  Scary!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's just not true. If any evidence seized is inadmissible and you could sue the PD for violating your rights, there is a disincentive for the cops to enter illegally.
    
    I'm not saying that *should* be the only option for a homeowner, but this hysterical misinterpretation of the opinion doesn't help anyone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 19 May 2011 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you can't physically resist a search (I am not talking about a violent resistance... just a physical act such as keeping your door closed) then how do you resist a search?
      
      Where as the example is a bit of an extreme position down the slippery slope the base problem exists... when you give due process to those on the ground in the moment they tend to loose sight of the bigger picture. The framers were very explicit in the 4th amendment to prevent you from loosing your liberty.... didn't you ever see Judge Dredd movie?
      
      Now replace the word 'Door' with 'Locked safe' or 'Car' or 'hard drive' or 'sphincter'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, the case here was a violent resistance, in the sense that the guy started trying to push the cop out of his entry and they ended up wrestling (if I recall correctly).
        
        This case isn't about whether you open your door or not, and it's not about whether the search was legal or illegal.
        
        This case is only about whether your are allowed to assault an officer to prevent him from making an illegal entry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DCL, 19 May 2011 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you have a cop in your entry and you want him off your property because he doesn't have a warrant how do you get him off your property?
        
        You can ask nice but cops are trained to be assertive and take the steps they perceive as being needed by the circumstances and available to them.
        
        Push can easily comes to shove... when one group is being assertive and the other feeling defensive and backed into a corner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unfortunately, in Indiana, you ask him to leave, explain that what he's doing is illegal since he doesn't have a warrant, and if he doesn't, you sue the department after the fact.
        
        I mean, that's probably the best course of action even if you have a legal right to physically resist, since you would be risking your life and the lives of your family members if you start a physical confrontation with an armed police officer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 19 May 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  In a world where you are not allowed to physically resist a search (illegal or not) then you might as well give the police keys to your front door since a physical barrier like a door or window means nothing.
  
  Scary!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  It is every citizens duty to resist that which is unjust.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Careful there, you might be declared a "lone wolf" "homegrown" terrorist for that sort of talk.
    
    Also, quoting Thomas Jefferson can get you classified as a terrorist...
    
    Anybody know of a nice English speaking country which is friendly towards American emigrants/immigrants?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They'll only invade there, too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    AKA: the Second Amendment. Oh, I need to get my butt in gear and exercise that right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's fine, but it doesn't make the article any more accurate.
    
    Also, this is about what form such resistance takes. This opinion doesn't restrict the right to engaged in non-physical resistance or make the cops' entry legal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:40am

As a current Hoosier (well, boilermaker, but still...)
As a current resident of this state, I can easily say that there is absolutely no common sense in our state government. None. Zilch. Nada. That is why I believe our governor has a halfway decent chance at entering the presidential election...which genuinely scares me.

Fortunately, as far as police go, the Sheriff you quoted is on the low end of the spectrum as far as average intelligence goes. At least in the parts of the state that I've been in (which, admittedly, do not go much further south than Indianapolis), the cops have been generally well-mannered and intelligent.

Please excuse me now while I try to find a decent place to move to after graduation. I hear Antarctica is relatively nice, if you can live with cold...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:47am

...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.

Good screaming christ...

I guess he'll think so until his officers are killed doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:50am

Hrm....I've received a few calls recently from US companies asking me to interview with them. I think I shall just pass and keep looking here in Canada.

Land of the free??? Not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 9:50am

Indian?
news that one Indian Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., from Newton County
Is Don Hartman a Native American? or from India? I believe Hoosier is the correct term for someone from Indiana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Indian?
  Don't be foolish. He obviously just missed the trailing 'a'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 19 May 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: Indian?
  If I were from Indiana, I would be insulted if some idiot called me a "Hoosier."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rhiadon, 19 May 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re: Indian?
    It's actually the most common thing to refer to a person from Indiana as a Hoosier. I've lived here (in Indiana) my entire life. I've heard some people say "Indianan" but that's just silly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Ho (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re: Indian?
  fixed. It should be Indiana... just a typo, folks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammar Police, 19 May 2011 @ 9:54am

Typo
"Indian Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarian, 19 May 2011 @ 9:57am

3rd amendment next?
At this rate I suppose i should fix up my basement for when they start quartering soldiers in my home...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: 3rd amendment next?
  Too true. Eventually they are going to run out of really sexy amendments to tear down, and are going to have to start looking at tearing down some of the less-sexy ones too.
  
  "These men risked their lives for freedom; are you really going to deny them room and board for a couple months while they get back on their feet?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re: 3rd amendment next?
    Yeah that whole "women have the right to vote" thing needs to go....they can start tearing it down by declaring that women, during that time of the month, are not of sound mind to make important decisions that will affect the direction of the country.......
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 9:58am

I wonder if hearing a weapon being loaded is exigent. If they bust down your door and you weren't doing anything wrong for them to enter, who's fear of mortal safety is more legal?
Once again a parinoid schitzophrenic police officer can go anywhere and shoot anything legally. Only other person that can go anywhere like that is someone on fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:03am

so a cop wife is in the home of here boy friend
Hmmmmm that will be fun to see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RadialSkid (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:05am

Someone's going to end up getting shot when a homeowner defends his property. An officer, a resident, or maybe both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous American, 19 May 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  This has already happened: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/No-knock_warrant#Examples (see #1)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  How about a Marine who served two tours in Iraq?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nobody, 19 May 2011 @ 1:41pm
  
  Response to: RadialSkid on May 19th, 2011 @ 10:05am
  It already happened in MN a couple years back. Police informant gave bad info, police raided innocent family's home, homeowner shot said police. Homeowner was cleared of any and all charges, as I remember.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HrilL, 19 May 2011 @ 10:09am

Wonder if this qualifies us for asylum in a European nation
Clearly this allows us to show fear of our own nation and government. The Police state is now officially upon us =/...
Only problem is I doubt the Europeans would let us get away with the claim. I hate our government more and more every day it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dev, 19 May 2011 @ 10:10am

dangerous
�Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.� -Ronald Reagan

and that's coming from a republican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: dangerous
  Never mind that he was a Republican. It came from a Conservative. Liberals (at least those in power) want more control, like this sherrif, not less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re: dangerous
    Politicians want more control, like this sherrif, not less.
    
    Fixed that for you. We have only one party; the big government party. While the "Team Red" vs "Team Blue" myth persists, the leaders who keep that myth of political choice going are laughing their asses off.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 12:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: dangerous
      That might be the most insightful thing I've read in awhile.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RadialSkid (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: dangerous
      To paraphrase Bill Hicks: "'I think the puppet on the left shares my values.' 'Well, I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking.' Hey, wait, they're both held by the same person..."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 19 May 2011 @ 10:54am
    
    Re: Re: dangerous
    Oh, please. The neo-con establishment condones virtually unlimited executive power, military expansionism, and corporate welfare. The problem is not Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative (in it's current neo-con form). The problem is that both sides see the federal government as the ultimate solution to a problem, whether foreign or domestic. Our two choices are really one: the authoritarian state.
    
    I generally would prefer to stump for principles rather than a specific candidate, but this time I will make an exception. There is actually a guy in the race that will make a difference. I won't tell you to vote for Ron Paul. I will tell you to listen to him, read him (in context!), and consider what he has to say. At that point, I won't have to tell you who to vote for. The choice will be obvious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: dangerous
      We can't vote for him in every state...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hegemon13, 20 May 2011 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: dangerous
        I suppose if your state had neither a primary nor a caucas, you would be right. But if he wins the primary, I'm pretty sure every state has the ability to vote for him :).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:10am

A modest proposal?
Wait, you mean that isn't satire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eejit (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:13am

Hmm...I wonder if the Rapture is only Coming to America? If so, do you think Whoopi Goldberg would be pleased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:13am

Hitler and SS would be proud what America is turning into. Citizens that aren't rich don't deserve any rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Hitler, 19 May 2011 @ 10:15am

I love it!
Let the goosestepping begin!

Gestapo first... next... death camps!

Welcome to the United Nazi States of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
J0000, 19 May 2011 @ 10:19am

Indian Sheriff? lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:22am

Suspicious story
Checking out the original story, it's apparently based entirely on a single phone interview and does not even offer a direct quote from the Sheriff in question. Given the paraphrasing of the journalist, it sure sounds damning. But without a clear statement from the sheriff, or at least a better description of the phone interview (i.e., showing the Q & A that led to the alleged statement), I think it's more likely that this article is the byproduct of some journalistic biases, sloppy reporting and a irritated sheriff rather than an actual policy developed by the county.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Suspicious story
  Nah, there was an update to one of the articles that you had to do a click through to read. The state's AG said the sheriff might be over stepping his bounds but that he has no plans to do anything about it right now. Which is pretty much the same thing as saying its perfectly fine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jakerome (profile), 20 May 2011 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Suspicious story
  Can I get a holla?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2011 @ 2:21am
  
  Re: Suspicious story
  Hello thank you for linking to my article on SmArgus.com
  
  As it relates to the legal ramifications of this Indiana Supreme Court ruling, my analysis was validated by several law enforcement sources and a Constitutional attorney. Supreme Court Justice David in writing the MAJORITY opinion did so in a manner that went outside the matters presented in BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA.
  
  When he wrote "MODERN" legalese for (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence that Hoosiers may not resist UNLAWFUL entry, with the stroke of a pen he decreed the ability for law enforcement to conduct random house to house searches.
  
  In order to appreciate the full gravity of the ruling, we must understand exactly what UNLAWFUL ENTRY means in the legal sense.Telephone any police chief and ask what does UNLAWFUL ENTRY MEAN; you will get an answer that states an UNLAWFUL ENTRY is any search of PRIVATE PROPERTY without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT.
  
  Therefore if neither PROBABLE CAUSE nor a WARRANT must be issued, it is left to the arbitrary whims of the department or officer on the scene.
  
  Further as it relates to the inferences that this story is phony, all I can offer is that I have been publishing for 3 years, in that time never once have any of my articles ever received a LIBEL DEMAND RETRACTION LETTER from the facts presented therein.
  
  Furthermore, Mike Church who retained my services as a Contributing Editor & Publisher, would not risk Libel litigation (nor his contract with Sirius/XM) by allowing libelous news reports to be published anywhere on his site which directly tied to the Sirius/XM show. (The article was originally drafted for MikeChurch.com where it also currently resides.)
  
  Thus, you have my word as the author that the following is all true:
  
  a.) I telephoned the Newton County Sheriff's Department on May 16th, 2011 and asked his secretary to speak with Sheriff Hartman since he as Sheriff is the highest-constitutionally-elected law enforcement officer in the state.
  
  b.) Sheriff Hartman was asked if UNLAWFUL entry by law enforcement means entry without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT. He indicated that is the definition of UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
  
  c.) I then asked the Sheriff if he was familiar with the BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, to which he replied "yes."
  
  c.) When asked what would then stop police from conducting random searches, he indicated to me that he would "follow the law as decided by the Indiana Supreme Court."
  
  d.) I then asked again if this meant he felt he could conduct random searches without Probable Cause or warrant to which he replied, "if the Supreme Court has said Hoosiers cannot resist, I follow the law. If that means we can conduct random searches then we will if needed"
  
  e.) Sheriff Hartman was then asked about whether he felt his oath to the Indiana State Constitution Section 11. was superior to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling to which he responded in a annoyed fashion, "Ma'am, I have already told you twice, if the supreme court says Hoosier cannot resist, then that is the law."
  
  f.) I then asked if he saw any benefit to conducting Random Searches, to which he replied, "the people would be happy to have random searches if it means the capture of a criminal."
  
  I thanked him for his time we hung up the telephone and utterly astounded at what he told me, immediately began to draft the article.
  
  Allison Bricker
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jan Bilek (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:25am

OMG!
I grew up in east-european totalitarian communist regime... and I always looked up to the paradise of freedom and respect to human rights - United States of America.

It's kind of sad to see that my home country now seems to be better and much more free place to live than the USA - not because my country got so much better but because your country got so much worse. What is going on, guys? How come that now the land of freedom does not seem so much different than China when it comes to respect to human rights? When are you going to do something about it?

I tell you... I remember one revolution and it felt really good;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve R. (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re: OMG!
  What is especially sad is that in the 1960s and 1970 the youth of this country stood-up for freedom. Now many of these same people are in positions of national leadership. Instead of using their leadership positions to foster freedom, the US is increasingly becoming a police state in the name of fighting terrorism, drugs, and piracy. Due process is vaporizing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike, 19 May 2011 @ 11:57am
  
  Re: OMG!
  Your "Home" country isn't the US ?
  
  If you're not living in your Home Country, and doing something about what the politicians are up to, do not question any further.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jan Bilek (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 2:14pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!
    Yes, I do live in my home country and no, it isn't the US. But...
    
    1. I've been to the US, I've spent important part of my life there, I've met many friends there and I love that country. That's why I am sad.
    
    2. The US still has the great power and can exercise its influence all over the world. There are many of us, who are not American citizens and have no influence over your politicians... but whatever you let them do will have impact on us. That's what makes me worried.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:28am

I'm sorry I shot all the cops on the force. I didn't hear them yell 'POLICE!' before they barged in and didn't notice their badges with all the blood splatter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bgillock, 19 May 2011 @ 10:28am

Well, then...
Random shooting of people entering my house uninvited must be okay too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: Well, then...
  You really think they're going to let the serfs, er, citizens keep weapons?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:36am

Dear Law Enforcement Officers:

If you ignore my 4th Ammendment rights there's a good chance you'll meet my 2nd Ammendment rights.

Regards,

AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steevo, 19 May 2011 @ 10:42am

Local coverage
Here's a link to a blog post from a local radio host. The host (Abdul) has a law degree and I believe he has passed the bar in Indiana. I'm not sure if he is a practicing lawyer, or whatever other minutia is required, but he at least has a pretty good idea of the law.

http://www.wxnt.com/pages/1622896.php?itmBlogDomainUrl=http://abdul-wxnt.itmblog.com/2011/05 /18/4th-amendment-follies/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: Local coverage
  Maybe I should join the police force. I could be a member of the ruling class and it's a safe job.
  
  "The Court held the safety of the police trumps the individual�s right to privacy."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 10:49am

New sign on front door:
4th amendment - Enforced by Smith & Wesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon B. (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 11:03am

The Kentucky ruling was broad and stupid, and SCOTUS was right to overturn it.

This Indiana ruling is also broad and stupid, and SCOTUS should overturn it.

The idea that you can't protect your property from trespassers as long as the trespassers are cops is wrong.

I do agree that "common law" shouldn't be able to override written policy, but saying that's what happened here is plain wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anymouse (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 11:18am

Is it still legal to kill trespassers in some states?
I seem to recall that it used to be perfectly legal to kill trespassers if the homeowner felt 'imminent danger' to their person (or something similar).

Don't injure them and let them get away (or they will sue, and they will win), and make sure they are completely in the window before you shoot, so they don't fall out of the house (their relatives will sue, and probably win)....

What is this country coming to? Back in the USSR.... Would probably be better than here (if there still was a USSR).

Oh well, off to make another tinfoil beanie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 19 May 2011 @ 11:24am

Sadly, this is why we need the second amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 19 May 2011 @ 12:05pm

I wish I was
I wish I was a police officer in Indianapolis ... I would begin by very throughly searching every judge's home, then every legislators, then the governor, and every other government official. I might get to make an arrest or two on some minor charges before I get fired, but with any luck they would reverse this ruling before long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
benenglish (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 12:09pm

Update the Story, TechDirt!
The sheriff in question has posted a statement on the department web site. In all fairness, a pointer to it would be reasonable. It's at: http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: Update the Story, TechDirt!
  I am shocked, SHOCKED that a story on TD would be misleading in any way!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 19 May 2011 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: Update the Story, TechDirt!
  From the statement, for those who cannot get to it:
  
  "I informed her that
  searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot
  pursuit."
  
  "This State Supreme Court ruling in my
  opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I�m sure this state ruling will
  be revisited. "
  
  "Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context.
  I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches."
  
  "I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County
  Sheriff�s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or
  probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the
  United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 1:40pm
  
  Re: Update the Story, TechDirt!
  The sheriff in question has posted a statement on the department web site. In all fairness, a pointer to it would be reasonable. It's at: http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/
  
  Updated...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chuck, 19 May 2011 @ 12:25pm

Wonder what Becky Stillman has to say about this? lmao
Only the people of Indiana would elect someone named Becky.

So Governor Becky, what is your.....no I cant go on its just making me laugh to hard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:28pm

Isn't entering without consent really Rape?
These people are raping Indians!
Or is it Indians raping homeowners?
either way its a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 1:10pm

Just give a formal declaration of martial law and get it over with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 1:29pm

Post updated
Post updated with the statement from the Sheriff saying he was quoted significantly out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re: Post updated
  Well at least we got one guy in Indiana who doesnt seem like a complete D-bag
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 1:31pm

When the soap box, ballot box, and jury box have all failed, it's time to bring out the ammo box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Airman (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 1:38pm

worrying
I find it kind of worrying that we have military volunteers sending themselves to prison over the validity of the President's authority, but not over our Government's apparent disdain for the Constitution that we swore to protect. I guess it's time to write some letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 19 May 2011 @ 1:58pm

You know, some of these comments have succeeded in creeping me out worse than the actual article. Illegal searches are unpleasant, demeaning and intimidating, but they do not justify the use of violence. If you fall victim of this, lawyer up and get your story in the papers; it'll work better and you won't have killed some poor bastard who was just trying not to get fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re:
  Illegal searches are unpleasant, demeaning and intimidating, but they do not justify the use of violence.
  
  I disagree. There are things worse than violence, and being told to stand by like a coward while your rights are ignored is one of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 2:30pm

public policy trumps the constitution, got it. Now if I can just get my free ice-cream and strippers policy passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2011 @ 3:54am
  
  Re:
  Wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stan T., 19 May 2011 @ 4:05pm

Good Christian citizens do as they're told.
If you don't allow a peace officer to enter your home when asked you are most likely a child molester, drug dealer, illegal immigrant, terrorist sympathizer or communist. Hopefully with some due surveillance you'll be caught slipping up and will be arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re: Good Christian citizens do as they're told.
  Well played, sir. +7
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 21 May 2011 @ 4:46am
  
  Re: Good Christian citizens do as they're told.
  Are you being sarcastic?....Surely you must be because "Good Christian Citizens" do not do as they are told...take Jesus for instance, he was executed for breaking the law. Good Christian Citizens have a responsibility to break unjust laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 5:40pm

While it may appear otherwise, this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is only an interpretation of Indiana law that does not have constitutional dimensions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 May 2011 @ 12:18am
  
  Re:
  While it may appear otherwise, this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is only an interpretation of Indiana law that does not have constitutional dimensions
  
  I love how you think that because you *say* something is so, but refuse to back it up, that it must be so.
  
  Needless to say, you are incorrect. But since you won't explain your position, I won't explain why you're wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why not review analyses containted in legal publications before jumping the gun?
    
    Again, for emphasis, this is not a 4th Amendment case, though at first glance it may appear to be so. However, upon analysis it quickly becomes apparent that this case is about a matter of Indiana common law, and not the 4th Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment.
    
    It is the "holding" of a case that defines the true import of a court decision, and not "dicta" that may appear in the decision that is not germane to the "holding".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I love how you think that because you *say* something is so, but refuse to back it up, that it must be so."
    
    Very well. Read the case. You already have the cite needed to do so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Could you be any more pompous?
    
    Your description of this case is inaccurate on many levels, one of which I pointed out above, and this happens to be another one.
    
    The majority's opinion is about the common law right to physically resist an illegal search/entry into your home by a police officer.
    
    It doesn't change one bit what is or is not an illegal entry/search under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    
    One of the dissenting opinions claims that the case *was* about whether the entry was illegal in the first place, in language that does not make any sense to me, but since the majority's opinion (i.e., the law) makes no statements about whether the entry was or was not illegal (and seems to presume that it was for purposes of the argument), the opinion doesn't change anything w/r/t what is or is not illegal under the 4th Amendment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 10:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your final sentence appears to agree with what I have said...that this case is not about the 4th Amendment.
      
      It is a matter governed entirely by substantive law in the State of Indiana, no more and no less.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think all of my sentences agree with what you have said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Merely FYI, this case was presented a week ago by Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy site. Even among lawyers the comments were scattershot, so it is no surprise the same has taken place here. Orin did, however, try and keep the discussion on point by explaining in clear and consise terms why this is an Indiana law case, and not one under the 4th Amendment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not a particular fan of the holding, or the reasoning for it, but I agree it's irrelevant to the scope of the 4th Amendment or whether any particular entry/search/seizure is legal or illegal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am not a fan either, but I believe the majority did raise two points that were noteworthy.
        
        First, whether you are right or wrong, fighting the police is almost always not a wise idea given what they have as hardware and you do not. Throw hot tempers on both sides into the mix and the situation rapidly turns volatile, perhaps even deadly.
        
        Second, the common law arose at a time when citizens did not have any effective recourse for unlawful action by the police. That has changed markedly, though it is still an uphill struggle in many cases to ultimately prevail.
        
        I am not a criminal lawyer, so I found it of interest when the majority referred to the Model Penal Code that it stated has been adopted in the vast majority of states and which does not include the right at common law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2011 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to be under the impression that I have disagreed with you somewhere.
        
        Any way, as I stated further up in the comments, I agree it's not a good idea to get into a physical confrontation with an armed police officer, regardless of whether you have a legal right to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2011 @ 8:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope...not saying there is any disagreement.
        
        Mine was just a couple of observations taken from the majority opinion that I thought were interesting, and particularly the part concerning the Model Penal Code.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
onchu, 20 May 2011 @ 3:25am

Way to Sensationalize
"The court basically says that it's 'against public policy' to require a warrant."

No, it doesn't. Not even close. What the court said is that you don't have the right to assault or otherwise physically prevent an officer from entering your home illegally. That doesn't mean the 4th no longer applies.

Any evidence found from such an entry would still be inadmissible in court, they still wouldn't be protected from a lawsuit, you can still file a complaint, and they can still be punished or fired.

[A] right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, [The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942)] (citing the dangers of arrest at common law�indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture�as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W. 2d 825, 835�36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2011 @ 8:54am

My freedom is too big
You see, this is a huge boon. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong.

Imagine your freedom was a huuuuuge apple orchard. BIG FREEDOM! 500 acres of freedom. Sounds pretty good, right? But now think about protecting all that freedom - How would you even do that? You could spend all day patrolling your freedom, and it would still be easy for anyone to come in and start ruining it. Or just burn it down!!!

You could build a wall around it, and install cameras and hire guards. That would take a lot of money. A lot.

NOW, imagine your freedom is REALLY tiny. Like an apple seed! How easy would it be to keep that safe? SUPER EASY! Put it in your pocket, a safe deposit box or a locket! So simple, doesn't cost you a dime if you are clever.

We should be grateful that we are saving a tremendous amount of time and money normally spent protecting our freedom now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sherman, 20 May 2011 @ 3:43pm

sports
We sell the best Sports Fan Gear such as Sports Memorabilia and other Gifts for a Sports Fan. Find the Sports Fan Gear You need for your next Sporting Event! Order today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2011 @ 9:23am

This case assumes that the 4th Amendment has been trampled upon and violated in the worst possible way. The cops broke the law and did violence to the 4th Amendment.

However, violation of the 4th Amendment was not the issue presented to the Indiana Supreme Court. The issue was whether or not, even if police made a completely illegal entry, did Indiana state law countenance a person in the residence getting into a "fight" with the police?

This is why I have stated that this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is, no more and no less, what actions may a person within a residence engage in in dealing with police once they have entered a residence, even illegally?

Will there later be a price to be paid by the police at a later date for having illegally gained entrance? Yes, the 4th Amendment demands no less. Hence, the 4th Amendment remains unchanged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 22 May 2011 @ 9:35pm

This is why I have stated that this case is not about the 4th Amendment. It is, no more and no less, what actions may a person within a residence engage in in dealing with police once they have entered a residence, even illegally?

So if someone is sleeping with a cop's wife and cop barges into this guy's house to assault him, he's not allowed to defend himself?

Will there later be a price to be paid by the police at a later date for having illegally gained entrance? Yes, the 4th Amendment demands no less. Hence, the 4th Amendment remains unchanged.

Yes, I'm sure it will be a really high price, like a one-week suspension! That'll teach 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
countycrusaders, 25 May 2011 @ 6:52pm

this guy is back peddling....the reprorter was to have asked the alleged sheriff 3 TIMES if what he told her was correct before ending the conversation adn he allegedly aggred. we do NOT believe in anyway sahpe or fomer that ANYTHING was taken out of context further more PLEASE look at this mans past REPUTATION:
these two links help wrap it up! we believe there are Deputies who would arrest the �alleged Sheriff� only that jeff drinski the prosecuting attorney and the judge are in COLLUSION with Hartman! OTHERWISE why would'nt they just DO THEIR JOB! http://countycrusaders.angelfire.com/emergencyletter http://countycrusaders.angelfire.com/forcedentry
this �alleged Sheriff� has a long History...along with the local legal staff.....bilking and pilfering money from VICTIMS OF CRIMES! read about it http://countycrusaders.wordpress.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd Slee, 30 Jun 2011 @ 8:42pm

4th Amendment
People should be totally enraged about this. Anyone whom supports any ruling which undermines the Constitution should be arrested for treason. They want to take our guns, and then try to make us believe that warrantless searches are for our safety, when a long tom already ensures a homeowner's safety? The cops don't do their jobs right much of the time to begin with. If a criminal gets past my outside watchdogs, then my inside Dobe, then my 12 gauge, then I guess I'll be carried by six. I don't need big brother babysitting me. They're liars & nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Momma, 4 Oct 2011 @ 11:58am

wanna hear a joke about my wiener?.....o wait! its to long!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
back home in kentucky, 20 Sep 2012 @ 2:38pm

warrantless serch
GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!! That is what this law abiding citizen did. I fell pray to the Jeffersonville police department and their nazi crimes. They totally fabricated a report and entered my home illegally. They found nothing so they had to make something up....... The case has been dismissed>..........Leave Indiana now of get new people in power to stop this unethical practice.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]