4th Amendment Struck down in Indiana

[JimBianchi]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

There state supreme court ruled you can not stop a police officer from illegally entering your home. They can enter for any reason, no warrant, without pause.

You must let them enter and seek remedy in the courts, if the enter is in fact illegal....

[O'Dell]

Another assault an the Constitution and evidently Obama didn't have anything to do with this one. I'm glad I live in the south.

[jocko]

wow that sucks bigt time, I wonder if it will be appealed. enter without knocking just seems so dangerous. We have police officers n these small towns that can't tie their fokkiing shoes, now you give them the powers to enter without knocking, oh my and in my home state to...

[Dietrich]

This is a recipe for tragedy.Those judges who voted in favor of this travesty must be spending way too much time in the evidence room testing the seized smoking materiels.Do they have a clue as to what the bill of rights are ?

[CJB]

"Ask the cop on the corner; ask the cop on the rooftop; ask the cop in the woodpile; ask that cop that's knock, knock, knockin' at your back door. (Knock knock)...Well, ask him!" Bergman and Proctor

Since when can a State court, supreme or otherwise, rule on US Constitutional matters? They can rule on State constitution, and that's it. The issue looks more like a probable cause issue than one of 4th Amendment, but that's how it was brought to court - or how the court ruled. I think their ruling will be either struck down, or, sent back to the State court asking that the scope of the ruling be clearly defined within the case brought before them.

From the outside looking from afar, if there was a suspicion of a domestic altercation going on, and it moved inside, there was some reasonable amount of "probable cause". How the guy who was arrested brought that all the way up to his states highest court.... could mean there were some other factors involved.

We had a case here, three weeks ago. County Judge (female) is at her friends place, and it gets (wrongly) raided by the cops in some sort of sting operation. They start busting in unannounced. She tells them "Who are you, state your business, why are you entereing, I'm armed" (I guess judges talk like that, but the cops also agreed thats what she said). All hell broke loose. She should have said - ok - courts in session, no probable... see ya!

Thinkin' on this more... they (the State) were probably itching to get a case that allowed them to do what they did. Leftist, socialist, Courts are like that. Sort of like the mad doctor just itching for a guy to come in with his torso in a box next to him on the stretcher - because he always wanted to try sew one back together.

[crazymailman]

Yeah, that ruling is way too broad. Can you imagine all the homes that will be searched in the hopes of a cop finding a fresh Krispy Kreme. Hopefully it will be struck down.

[Longitude Zero]

I will wait until I can read the actual decision and not some media mooks take on it.

For instance in many states if the responding officer(s) have reasonable belief that a domestic abuse and or child abuse is in progress or has very recently taken place they can make entry over the refusal of an occupant for the limited and express purpose of checking the welfare of the possible victims.

[CJB]

They already had that, not only in Indiana, but all across the USA - its part of "probable cause" that a crime is being committed, or evidence present will be unavailable if delayed entry is performed. The Indiana state ruling goes well beyond that, and says that even if entry was made illegally - that is - no probable cause, the recourse is to sue the LEO and his department. That would be a very very hard suit to win for us mere mortals. The part that keeps me goin' hmmmm.... is why it all came down like it did. To me it seems a case claiming lack of probable cause, which the cops would refute. Adding to that, was the denial of entry by the defendant, who shoved the cop. So, it could be that the defendant is trying to beat the felony rap for shoving the cop (in his own home, because he thought they had no probable cause to enter). Sometimes these things take on a life of their own - and it may be that this ends up being a happy case, because it may just force SCOTUS to affirm the 4th amendment once again.

[JimBianchi]

I will wait until I can read the actual decision and not some media mooks take on it.

For instance in many states if the responding officer(s) have reasonable belief that a domestic abuse and or child abuse is in progress or has very recently taken place they can make entry over the refusal of an occupant for the limited and express purpose of checking the welfare of the possible victims.

You are completely correct. When it comes to domestic violence, probable cause is not hard to prove. In Alaska, California, Oklahoma and Arizona police would easily be allowed to do a welfare check on a potential victim, inside the home, the plain sight rule would apply also while the cops are in the home. I am very familiar with those state laws, but most others would be similar. Getting in the way of a police officer in these circumstances will get you arrest for a variety of charges.

But according to one of the dissenting judges own statement, this ruling is far to broad giving police cart-blanc to enter for any reason and the home owner can not stop it, ever.

Here in Vegas we have already had a problem with people in uniform attempting to gain entry into homes under false pretenses.
The police issued an advisory for citizens to call Metro's non-emergency number if a person claiming to be an officer knocks on your door unexpectedly.

This ridiculous ruling will only embolden bad guys to do more harm.

Broad rulings like like rarely stand up to review.