Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unlawful Police Entry Ruling Could Be Reconsidered (Indiana)
theindychannel.com ^ | 06/10/2011 | uncredited

Posted on 06/10/2011 8:01:14 AM PDT by Abathar

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court may reconsider its ruling that eliminates the right of homeowners to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The attorney for Richard Barnes, whose criminal case in Vanderburgh County led to the court ruling last month, filed a formal petition for a rehearing Thursday.

Barnes' attorney argues the ruling violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"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," part of the petition read.

The court issued its controversial 3-2 ruling May 12, declaring that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who are entering their home without a legal basis to do so.

The ruling said homeowners could instead seek legal remedies through court proceedings after the fact.

The decision sparked large public outcry, including from state officials. Seventy-one Indiana lawmakers filed a joint brief with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the court to reconsider its opinion.

Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.

(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 4th; 4thamendment; donutwatch; indiana; police; raid; warrant
To reverse this it would mean that the justices would have to admit they were wrong on their original decision, and I just don't see their egos letting them do that.
1 posted on 06/10/2011 8:01:20 AM PDT by Abathar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abathar

A real President would have had the involved justices arrested and incarcerated until they saw the error of their ways.


2 posted on 06/10/2011 8:03:30 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

State court not fed, Obozo has nothing to do with it.


3 posted on 06/10/2011 8:15:11 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Federal pre-emption—States cannot pass laws which violate rights spelled out in the Constitution.


4 posted on 06/10/2011 8:23:11 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

on second thought a butt-smacking from Antonin Scalia would not be the most beneficial thing to one’s career as a jurist


5 posted on 06/10/2011 8:24:53 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

Yeah but that is done thru the courts and not the Oboso, get real.


6 posted on 06/10/2011 8:31:58 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"

What in hell is 'MODERN' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? Is the Constitution a variable on a day to day basis now? Silly me. Obama and the Marxists don't even recognize its existence.

7 posted on 06/10/2011 8:40:01 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
Is the Constitution a variable on a day to day basis now?

It has been for decades.

8 posted on 06/10/2011 8:43:39 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
I think that this court decision cost Mitch Daniels his chance at the Presidency. It was HIS court pick that made the majority opinion!
9 posted on 06/10/2011 8:45:54 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

REVERSE the decision? The proper thing is to IGNORE it!!! Sooner or later a homeowner will take a stand and kill some rogue cop. That’s when all hell will break loose and the leftists on the Indiana SC will be “retired.”


10 posted on 06/10/2011 8:45:59 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
To reverse this it would mean that the justices would have to admit they were wrong on their original decision, and I just don't see their egos letting them do that.

Indiana's Attorney General says he supports a rehearing and that the court's ruling went beyond what his office argued in court. Over 70 lawmakers of the Indiana General Assembly have asked the court to reconsider it's ruling. The justices have to be feeling the heat on this decision.
11 posted on 06/10/2011 8:46:30 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

- sigh -


12 posted on 06/10/2011 8:57:25 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

But there may be no “after the fact” if the homeowner is somehow killed.


13 posted on 06/10/2011 9:02:45 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Not only incompatible with modern thinking, incompatible since 1789.


14 posted on 06/10/2011 9:59:45 AM PDT by wastedyears (SEAL SIX makes me proud to have been playing SOCOM since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

“What in hell is ‘MODERN’ Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?”

Well, to give just one example, prior to Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Fourth Amendment protected you only from the Federal Government. In other words, until that case was decided, the Fourth Amendment would do nothing whatsoever to prevent a police officer of the State of Indiana or any of its counties, cities or towns from waltzing right into your house any old time.


15 posted on 06/10/2011 10:42:44 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.

############

Question hell!!! If they had a set of balls between them they would be filing a suit in federal court to overturn this ruling AND working to remove the three fools who made this ruling.


16 posted on 06/10/2011 10:48:54 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

“Modern” is the giveaway that the judge is a “postmodernist”,
denying that any written law has any value compared to the judgement of those making decisions today.

It’s one of the basic assumptions in liberalism.


17 posted on 06/10/2011 10:57:48 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Flash Bazbeaux
Well, to give just one example, prior to Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Fourth Amendment protected you only from the Federal Government. In other words, until that case was decided, the Fourth Amendment would do nothing whatsoever to prevent a police officer of the State of Indiana or any of its counties, cities or towns from waltzing right into your house any old time.

That's what Constitutional Amendments are all about. It's time to hold Congress accountable for their responsibilities and eliminate the need for the Courts to make an interpretation when the laws are clearly and plainly written.

18 posted on 06/10/2011 11:47:12 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (ual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

They ought to be reconsidering...I would have thought the good citizens of Indiana would have already tarred and feathered these idiots. I’m really shocked this happened in Indiana frankly.


19 posted on 06/10/2011 12:00:33 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (Fix bayonets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

A real freeper would understand the legal term “unqualified immunity.”

Judges are immune from any legal consequence of an action taken from the bench.

You may impeach them, but other than that, zip.


20 posted on 06/10/2011 12:07:29 PM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

“Federal pre-emption—States cannot pass laws which violate rights spelled out in the Constitution.”

Herman Cain doesn’t think so and he made that clear last week when he said that states have the right to regulate the 2nd Amendment.


21 posted on 06/10/2011 2:12:02 PM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

“Judges are immune from any legal consequence of an action taken from the bench.”

Recent history shows, however, that they’re not immune to lead. I imagine they’re also not immune to rope and that they may find walking on water while wearing 100# concrete shoes to be problematic.

Mind you, I certainly do not celebrate or endorse violence against errant judges, but I don’t mind them being aware that just because they wear a robe it makes them into supernatural beings.


22 posted on 06/10/2011 2:16:29 PM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

“Doesn’t” should have been in there.


23 posted on 06/10/2011 2:18:12 PM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Abathar


24 posted on 06/10/2011 2:58:29 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
Herman Cain doesn’t think so and he made that clear last week when he said that states have the right to regulate the 2nd Amendment.

Woah Cain said that?

Where and when?

25 posted on 06/10/2011 3:54:51 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bill1952; Arm_Bears
A real freeper...

That is wholly uncalled for. Not everyone is a Constitutional scholar or an attorney.

Very crass on your part.

26 posted on 06/10/2011 3:59:11 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Cain said it here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2731713/posts


27 posted on 06/10/2011 4:45:36 PM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
Thanks MeganC, I had not heard that :(

Very, very disappointing. I never would have expected that from him given his otherwise clear thinking stances.

28 posted on 06/10/2011 4:49:57 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears
"A real President would have had the involved justices arrested and incarcerated until they saw the error of their ways."

If I were the local sheriff, I would have had my deputies walking into the homes of each of the justices the evening that decision was released.

29 posted on 06/10/2011 4:50:58 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

ABOUT TIME to reverse this UNAMERICAN ruling!!


30 posted on 06/10/2011 7:58:09 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Your post would be considered more uncalled for since you were not involved in the original postings, sir.

Plain rude but perhaps not out of character?


31 posted on 06/10/2011 9:33:28 PM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

These courts are part of a confederate prefab or the liberals and Zero. They all dig from the same trough. They are pretty much organized.


32 posted on 06/10/2011 10:34:25 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

“You may impeach them, but other than that, zip.”

I’ve never so much as visited Indiana, so does that mean you do or do not support the tar and feathers option?

OS


33 posted on 06/11/2011 9:29:32 AM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Arm_Bears; Ratman83; Buckeye McFrog; Don Corleone; Lurker; catman67; Oldpuppymax; ...
To reverse this it would mean that the justices would have to admit they were wrong on their original decision, and I just don't see their egos letting them do that.

Actually that is patently wrong. I will be citing their own ruling, found here, the State's Constitution, the US Constitution and 2 sections of the US Code.

Page 6, 1st Paragraph:

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.
Note that what once was now is not, yet...

Page 4, last paragraph:

The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) ("One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.").
Thus, the USSC (which rules on constitutionalities) affirms the right is present; further the case was precisely a 4th Amendment case, from wikipedia "which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile..." Therefore the 4th, being the subject of the case, must also allow for the exercise of the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Indiana State Constitution, Art 1, Section 11:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Now, seeing that the Indiana Constitution and the 4th Amendment are textually identical (excepting capitalization, I believe only on 'Oath') it must be agreed that the Indiana State Constitution therefore affirms the same right just as the 4th Amendment; and it is therefore obvious that to declare otherwise is either de facto alteration of the State Constitution.

But the State Constitution has this to say about its alteration:
ARTICLE 16, Amendments:

Section 1.
(a) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly. If the amendment is agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, the proposed amendment shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election.
(b) If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the proposed amendment is agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the electors of the State at the next general election.
(c) If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment becomes a part of this Constitution. (History: As Amended November 3, 1998).

Section 2. If two or more amendments shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such manner that the electors shall vote for or against each of such amendments separately.

Now, because the State's Constitution was not amended it is a violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is now obvious that the State's Supreme Court has indeed deprived the whole of the people of their right to resist an unlawful arrest, and therefore in violation of the 14th Amendment. This is punishable under 18USC241 and 242 which say:

Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
and
Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Now we see that because they acted as a group it fits the definition required for a conspiracy; which is a felony. And Supreme Court Justices may be easily removed for felonies.

34 posted on 06/13/2011 7:55:14 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Why 1789?


35 posted on 06/13/2011 7:57:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The Bill of Rights was created in 1789. I may have been looking for 1791, when it was ratified.


36 posted on 06/13/2011 9:46:40 PM PDT by wastedyears (SEAL SIX makes me proud to have been playing SOCOM since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Excellent research on the subject!


37 posted on 06/14/2011 7:36:24 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (ual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Kinda makes me wonder when interpretation of laws can be made that contradict the plain meaning of the Constitution of the State or the U.S.???


38 posted on 06/14/2011 7:40:23 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (ual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; DanMiller
Thanks for the info, OneWingedShark. Interesting.

FYI Ping to post 34, Dan Miller. Comments?
39 posted on 06/14/2011 10:59:11 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No offense, but you’re speaking to common sense and I’m speaking to the fact of judicial egotism. I seriously doubt those a$$clowns will reverse themselves.


40 posted on 06/15/2011 1:38:57 PM PDT by MeganC (NO WAR FOR OIL! ........except when a Democrat's in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Any Indiana freepers know what became of this case? Has it been brushed under the rug?


41 posted on 08/18/2011 9:53:21 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC; Las Vegas Ron
Also from the article you refer to:

"But, again, the piece went by fairly quickly and it’s possible that he simply misfired in response to Blitzer’s flurry of questions on a wide variety of issues. It would be worthwhile for someone to ask Mr. Cain to clarify these remarks in the near future."

He was emphatic about supporting the 2nd Amendment, but also same regarding State's rights. Perhaps someone should ask him to clarify his statements, which as the writer observes "went by fairly quickly and it's possible thae he simply misfired in response...".

I think he is a good man and deserves the opportunity to explain his stance.

42 posted on 08/18/2011 10:39:31 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

Good question, I’ve lost track of what has been happening to this case. Time for some research...


43 posted on 08/19/2011 4:25:43 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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