Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hoosier Hospitality or Fourth Amendment Violation?
The Constitution Club ^ | 05-16-11 | The Rat

Posted on 05/16/2011 5:33:27 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen


The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Hoosiers do not have the right to resist unlawful entry of their homes by police.

Think about it for a moment; the court overruled nearly 800 years of common law, dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215 – and the U.S. Constitution as well.

Justice Steven David, writing for the court: If a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner has no right to stop the officer’s entry.

“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.”

The right to resist unlawful police entry is against public policy? Does anyone else find it laughable that this dopey judge actually uses the term UNLAWFUL police entry in this ridiculous ruling? And public policy? What “public policy” nullifies the U.S. Constitution?

Incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? What exactly is “modern” Fourth Amendment “jurisprudence”? No Fourth Amendment rights at all, I guess.

“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.”

Resisting unlawful activity is a no-no because it escalates the level of violence? Let’s extrapolate that logic: A man about to be murdered or a woman about to be raped shouldn’t resist because it will escalate the level of violence? What planet are we on?

Maybe it’s just me; the whole thing reads more like a page out of a police-state manual than a ruling by a justice of an American court, let alone the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment IV

“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.”

I’m no constitutional attorney, but the Fourth Amendment reads pretty clearly to me; especially the part about “oath or affirmation describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

As a Hoosier, the idea that “Hoosier Hospitality” now means that we must allow the police into our homes whenever they choose to “stop by” sickens me. Mussolini would be proud.

TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: constitution; fourthamendment; hoosiers; supremecourt

1 posted on 05/16/2011 5:33:37 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Obviously, the police should begin by invading Justice David’s home first, because he must be on meth to come up with this totally bizarre ruling. Don’t people in Indiana vote for judges? He needs to be fired.

2 posted on 05/16/2011 5:36:47 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

When does the Tree of Liberty need to be fertilized?

3 posted on 05/16/2011 5:38:40 PM PDT by LeGrande (“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” John)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
So let me get this straight...lets my beautiful wife and I live in Indiana. And lets say a local cop has his eye on my wife. He has been watching her for some time and lets suppose one night he gets real drunk and realizes he can waltz into my house, have his way with my wife and there is not a damn thing I can do to stop him. If I try to prevent him from raping my wife, or daughter, then I will be thrown in jail. I am supposed to be a good Hoosier and stand by while this goes on. Oh, I guess I get to dial 911 and wait for someone else to show up and stop the crime.

I don't think so.

I hope all the cops in Indiana have real impeccable morals. Otherwise this policy is a prescription for disaster.

4 posted on 05/16/2011 5:53:59 PM PDT by Upstate NY Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Just arrange for a flash mob of police to show up and bust down this judige’s door for no apparent reason.

When he demands they leave have the cops retort right back that some judge recently ruled that the cops can bust into anyone’s home for any reason without any reason and its unlawful for the occupants of the residence to resist.

When the judge said he made that ruling then one cop should go up to him and say,

“Sir, we’re the cops and we can do anything we want according to you and now we are doing it. And remember that if you resist then it is considered unlawful for you to do so. As a result, we can shoot you, shoot your dog, eat your food, burn down your house, rape your wife, kill your children, and whatever else you can think of, and get away with it because we’re the cops and we’re unionized! Remember that, Bucko.”

Then he kicks the judge in the head and they all leave.

Now how long do you think his ruling would stand before he decided to change his mind?

5 posted on 05/16/2011 5:54:46 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Justice Steven David, writing for the court:

Steven David? There is something seriously wrong here. How many justices compose the Indiana Supreme Court, and a majority decided in favor?

Like an FR comment the other day, to the LEFT their viewpoint is entirely self-consistent internally. They see only one way, the exercise of power over others.

It really is a psychological malady. Common among lawyers and judges (who are lawyers) given they are trained to commit to only one possibility.

6 posted on 05/16/2011 6:02:30 PM PDT by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Every state should pass a “Judge’s First” law.

If they ever let sex predators go because their ‘time is up’, they must be placed in a house next to the judge’s house, with a clear view of the judge’s yard and main windows.

Same with violenbt criminals. All violent criminals lib judges release are released into THEIR custody, and will be housed either IN the judge’s house or in a property adjacent to the judge.

Eminent Domain cases - Judges shall first have all of their own properties looked at and reviewed and considered for taking away via eminent domain laws they say are legal.

Basically any rights a judge takes away or invents out of thin air, will automatically be applied to the judges, first.

7 posted on 05/16/2011 6:04:18 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Who put this moron Supreme Court Justice on the Court? I assume it had to be a hard core leftist Democrat. But please confirm - who appointed this jackwagon to the Supreme Court. That person needs to be politically castrated so they can’t do any more damage.

8 posted on 05/16/2011 6:11:13 PM PDT by kentramsay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

I want to hear about the gov’s response to this.

9 posted on 05/16/2011 6:15:36 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

“I want to hear about the gov’s response to this.”

“I want to hear about the gov’s response to this.”
Governor Mitch Daniels appointed this sh*%t for brains judge less than 6 months ago.

10 posted on 05/16/2011 6:21:54 PM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Secret Agent Man

That’s probably the most common sense idea I’ve heard in a long time!

12 posted on 05/16/2011 6:44:29 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Judges today are out of control and have no respect for the law let alone reverence for justice.

A Florida judge had a dead beat dad in his court and simply waived his arrearages to allow the dead beat dad to claim child exemptions for tax returns.

Santa Rosa County court, Judge Miller.

13 posted on 05/16/2011 6:46:46 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCause

Ah, the pygmyrino.

14 posted on 05/16/2011 7:19:48 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Clearly a violation of the fourth amendment.

As such, it’ll be overturned eventually - alas, too late for the poor Marine and his family who got caught in the middle of the police incompetence/stupidity/brutality that sparked it all.

15 posted on 05/17/2011 2:24:52 AM PDT by Jack Hammer (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson