Indiana Court Ruling on Illegal Police Entry of Home

[Bayoupiper]

I've already got the popcorn cooking for this one.


http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html





.

 

[Emperor]

Magna Carta?

They have a domed stadium for Chirst sake.

 

[Gus McCrae]

That's kinda screwed up. I'd think that officers can enter if they feel that the wife was in harms way, but to just blanketly state that any officer can just enter your house without a warrant and let the courts decide on throwing it out..... that's kinda screwed up.

 

[cajun 22]

In the case of domestic violence calls I don't see a problem. For the rest, get a warrant!

 

[Metryshooter]

In the case of domestic violence calls I don't see a problem. For the rest, get a warrant!

To avoid the judicial slippery slope I would say in no case is it OK to enter without a warrant or consent. In the case of DV the officer should be able to speak with all present, but from outside unless consent is given.

 

[Doug.38PR]

In the case of domestic violence calls I don't see a problem. For the rest, get a warrant!

Domestic violence is no excuse to violate the Constitution

 

[Doug.38PR]

Judge David says in article:

"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."

In other words, now that the government has turned the police into a military by arming them to the teeth and sufficiently disarmed the public, people have no way of resisting police successfully therefore any resistance is now illegal.........

.....I'm sorry....but in light of this, cops need to have AR-15s, MP5s, Kevlar Helmets, Tazers, and maybe even shotguns taken away and be allowed only to carry handguns (preferably revolver) and maybe a shotgun. They get paid to take risks....let them take their chances. I appeciate the average patrolman who risks his neck, I really do, but not to the point of endangering my life, liberty and property. I don't care if officer deaths goes up. Their safety does not take priority over mine. I'd sooner do away with the police force than accept what these judges have confirmed

People need to be armed to the teeth with AR-15s, MP5s and Kevlar and outgun the police. If the police REALLY need help...put together a possee.

I'm serious. Turning cops into swat team ninjas with machine guns, helicopters, tanks and AR-15 is too dangerous for us. The police tactically need to be at the mercy and grace of the people, not the other way around.

I know NOLACOPUMC and some of the other LEOs in here may get on to me as a "Cop basher" about this. I am NOT bashing cops per se. If I looked out my window and saw a cop outgunned in trouble pinned down, I'd like to think I'd grab my shotgun or AR and get out there to help him.
I am bashing the reality and the mentality that has developed out of what we have made police forces and courts into. This court ruling is clear evidence of it.

 

[jimdana1942]

The Court has prepared the way for the complete removal of a citizens constitutional rights, so that when the SHTF, and a massive rush by the Govt. to take away everyones firearms, the citizens can be trampled upon at will.

 

[thomjb]

Local news sensationalized this, surprise, below are some comments that are closer to the facts:


The case the ISC took was a domestic dispute. Over 80% of all police runs to a residence are some version of a domestic dispute. While the language of the ISC decision goes beyond solving the question at hand within Barnes (which was at the heart of the dissenter's opinion), in reality, it will still only apply to domestic disputes. The discussions of "police breaking down my door at 2am" are born from ignorance and, perhaps, too many Clint Eastwood movies. It doesn't happen. When was the last time your door was busted down at 2am?

In practice, the only ones who will be affected by this decision are those involved in a domestic dispute call that results in LEO's arriving at someone's residence. In that scenario, I don't think a reasonable person is going to have a problem with the LEO's entering the premise. What other scenario is likely that would result in your residence being entered? It doesn't happen.

The wording of the majority's opinion could have been better. But, in the end, this ruling affects very little other than what the Court had in front of it: a domestic dispute at a residence. It is not the "end of everything we've known" drama that is found throughout this thread.

This topic has been nonstop on local talk radio for the past 48 hours. About every conceivable angle has been reviewed. The ruling doesn't really say all that much and, in actual practice, is not going to change anything that doesn't involve domestic dispute calls. The 4th Amendment is also alive and well, as there is nothing unreasonable here.

 

[sraacke]

I thought the whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to shoot government troops (cops included) if they suddenly got out of control and needed shooting. Isn't that the whole reason for 2A? I'm not tring to be a smart ass or ultrapatriot MEMish but ....damn. I always read 2A as saying, you have the right to stand your ground and fire on anyone trying to illegally trying to invade your country, your state, your city or your home. I'm not saying that we need a second civil war or American revolution but court decisions like this fly in the face of our liberties.

 

[JR1572]

I thought the whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to shoot government troops (cops included) if they suddenly got out of control and needed shooting.

Wow.

JR1572

 

[kcinnick]

Wow.

JR1572

Whats innacurate with that statement?

 

[JR1572]

Whats innacurate with that statement?

We just went from the police entering a residence lawfully during a domestic incident, to shooting out of control cops.

JR1572

 

[Doug.38PR]

The discussions of "police breaking down my door at 2am" are born from ignorance and, perhaps, too many Clint Eastwood movies. It doesn't happen. When was the last time your door was busted down at 2am?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-G2cVPmVY[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V--tz3IMCY4&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc3sGDHgxFA[/ame]

and for all of us in Louisiana

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4[/ame]


Also, in my mind, even "domestic violence" doesn't take priority over the 4th amendment.

The words of that judge are very clear and "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" Don't downplay what they said. You just might regret it.

These are the kinds of cops and judges that make good cops look bad. They are dangerous.

 

[cajun 22]

To avoid the judicial slippery slope I would say in no case is it OK to enter without a warrant or consent. In the case of DV the officer should be able to speak with all present, but from outside unless consent is given.

I agree with this statement more.

 

[JR1572]

To avoid the judicial slippery slope I would say in no case is it OK to enter without a warrant or consent. In the case of DV the officer should be able to speak with all present, but from outside unless consent is given.

What about exigent circumstances?

JR1572

 

[nola_]

What about exigent circumstances?

JR1572

If you hear my daughter calling for help then by all means bust it open and come on in. But any non-exigent situation, no thanks.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

We just went from the police entering a residence lawfully during a domestic incident, to shooting out of control cops.

JR1572

Think about it, isn't that exactly what they were dealing with at the time it was written? At it's root that is part of the purpose of the 2A it's just that a lot of people don't understand and/or are scared to say it aloud.

 

[JR1572]

I completely understand it's purpose. However, this incident that the ISC ruled on is not exactly a case of the government turning on it's citizens. The police had a reason to be there, and do what they did. The ISC thought so too.

JR1572

 

[TomTerrific]

What do lawyers conversant in Indiana law say about this?