4th Amendment Dead

Well, the judges have finally gone too far. Well actually they went too far about 60 years ago but that's another story. Today, we mourn the loss of the 4th Amendment in the state of Indiana. Three judges there have made a ruling that defies all logic and reason in a 3-2 decision where they have essentially given law enforcement a blank check to invade homes without warrants.

The gist of the case appears to be that cops entered someone's home during the course of a domestic dispute. They had been called to the area because a couple was arguing outside their apartment. They went back inside, and the cops were told they were no longer needed. Officers forced their way inside the home anyway and were met with resistance. One cop got pushed against the wall, and another tazed the owner for it. Sounds simple enough, yes?

The problem is, the ruling the court handed down says that homeowners are no longer allowed to resist unlawful entry by police into their homes. Well, I've got news guys, 2nd Amendment trumps the 4th in this case. You come busting into my house without legal cause and you're likely to get shot. There have been far too many cases of cops getting the wrong address and causing unnecessary violence through their own actions. The court's ruling effectively grants the cops unrestricted right to just break in whenever they feel like it, and you can do nothing about it without getting arrested. Good luck pulling this shit in Texas.

Though no mention of it was made, I'm fully expecting this ruling to get struck down when saner heads than these 3 judges are allowed to hear the case. If that means getting it to SCOTUS, then so be it. This needs to stop. Otherwise our decent into fascism is already complete.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Thor
Facebook Strikes Again! »

Posted on May 13, 2011 1:39 pm by Samson in: | 50 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Vladaar [Anon] said:
Comment #1 May 13, 2011 6:25 pm
All I can say is I suggest you and your family get ready because the govt. Is not on your side.

Survivialistsboards.com

Is a good place to learn about being prepared.

       
"But wait!" I say, "This HAS to have been talked about by the Volokh Conspiracy!" Sure enough.

Reading of that makes the circumstances of entry a whole lot more ambiguous. If the wife is actively pleading to get the cops in the house, well, that's just fine then, for what I'd hope are obvious reasons.

Which is not to defend the actual decision, which would appear to my IANAL self to be pretty highly dubious and full of pretty suspect reasoning, to say the least.

       
Ok, so I'm with several of the commenters over there. If the wife asked the police to enter, then why is the entry being discussed as though it was unlawful? Surely she has the right to grant entry as much as he does?

That doesn't excuse the daft ruling from the court here. The court appears to have used the occasion to perform judicial activism in eroding 4th Amendment rights by specifically ruling that even UNLAWFUL entry cannot be resisted. Surely that has to be raising some serious red flags for you, doesn't it?

       
Re: your last sentence, see also my last sentence, which is to say most definitely.

Definitely if your argument boils down to "Well, it's ok because they can fight it out later in the courts, so no big deal", especially in regards to something like unlawful intrusions, then you're missing some reality somewhere. Because yeah, definitely everybody can afford to do just that. Among other possible issues.

       
Ok, I'll try this again. Yesterday, I typed all this out, pushed post-and I wasn't connected :mad: This version is probably going to be shorter than the original.

What the court did here was open an unnecessary can of worms. Instead of ruling that you "have no right to prevent the police from illegally entering your home"; (which means the police can enter any time they get a wild hair up their ass) they should have ruled "since the police were present on official business in the course of investigating a domestic disturbance and one or more of the parties would not come to the police (ie at the door) it was legal and obligatory for the police to enter the residence to ascertain the safety and well being of the party(s)."

For those of you that don't see a difference: The first one is carte blanche for anyone with a badge to come barging in for any (or no) reason; the second is a very specific circumstance with a very specific reason. Anything unrelated to ascertaining the safety and well being of the party(s) would not be covered here-and would require either (a) separate probable cause or (b) a separate warrant.

Beside the point: It is inherently illogical to rule that a law enforcement agency has a right to do something that's inherently illegal.

       
Exactly. Not only were they properly invited in by one of the parties, the domestic dispute itself once the wife threw the guy's bags out created exigent circumstances where the police could have justified the entry even if she hadn't invited them in. The court in Indiana has essentially ruled in favor of the creation of a Gestapo, which was a wildly irrational reaction to the facts of the case.

       
That's pretty much what I got out of it, yeah.

       
Ok, call me dumb, but who was it that took this to the supreme court? Just trying to work out what is what, cause its kind of confusing to an outsider.

       
So far, no one has taken it to the supreme court. First it will have to be heard by whichever District Court of Appeals covers Indiana. Because this ruling specifically says that it is legal to do an illegal act; this will not make it to SCOTUS-it will be overturned prima facia by the District Court. Providing, of course, the defence attorney has the sense to appeal.

       
What Dallen said. Assuming the defense appeals like they should.

       
O' America, where have your morals gone? :unclesam:

I thought we had enough of this back in the late 1700s. Guess not. Why are people so keen on turning their backs on our nation's history, all of a sudden?

       
This has made the international news. Last week's Economist (a British news weekly magazine) had an article about the 4th Amendment in which they cited several examples of similar issues. In fact the subtitle to the article is "Fear of crime, not just fear of terrorism, has nibbled away at America's liberties". So you're not alone guys - the international media has taken notice.

       
If we even begin to tolerate such laws as these, then America as we know it is dead. Plain and simple.

Trouble is, this is exactly what America voted for in the last election. We were so fed up with Bush's manhandling of our economy that we turned to the first person who said he would fix things. But therein lies a huge problem, politicians are masters of snake-oil sales tactics, and they will say anything to get elected. That this administration would attempt to quietly pick away at our liberties as U.S. citizens was clear enough two years ago, but now, not even the stupidest of American citizens can deny that we put the wrong people in power (at least, those living in the affected states).

The only written document in the world that carries more power over Americans than the Bill of Rights is the Christian Bible. That such rulings like these would be passed is nothing short of sacrilegious to the eyes of many people. I do not expect the people who passed this ruling to remain in office for much longer.

See, this is where a Parliamentary system would really benefit Americans. If our politicians do something insanely stupid (like this), then we can quickly and easily kick them out of office.

       
Edited by ThomasKaira on May 19, 2011 9:57 pm
First of all, these were not elected officials that did this (well, in most states they wouldn't be) these are appointed judges-and we don't know from the information given who appointed them. As far as we know, they were appointed by whoever it was that was governor of Indiana during the Carter administration. Point being, this could have happened no matter "who" was sitting in the Oval Office at the time. What's going to mark the current administrations, courts, and various legislative bodies both federally and stately is whether or not this is allowed to stand. I'd also go for whether these people still have a job come Friday-but that part's my opinion.

The amount of power the Christian Bible, or any other religious text one may choose, only has any power over individuals that choose it to be so. In the United States, it is not a legal document - but the constitution is.

Actually, (laying aside the fact that *politicians* did not do this for a moment) it's easier to get rid of a bad politician in a Federalist Republic than it is in a Parlimentary Democracy. In a Federalist Republic, you vote for the individual and if things go pair shaped-their are (usually) measures to remove that person. In a parlimentary democracy, (even those with Queens) you vote for the party-and then the party that wins fills the seats.

       
This ruling is nothing more than affirmation that judges need to be elected officials too. Not appointed for life by some dunderhead who shouldn't have been allowed the privilege. Or at the very least, subject to a recall vote. It's far too dangerous to our liberties to let some Marxist hack appoint people who will still be on the bench 40 years from now - long after we've run the elected Marxists out of the country.

       
My comment about the Bible is that America is the most fundamentally Christian nation in the world (which might help to explain why the Middle East hates us so much), so there are a helluva lot of people out there in the States who give the Bible that power.

And, yes, I did slip up on the difference between Politician and Justice there, so thank you for correcting me. :smile:

       
...so there are a helluva lot of people...who give the Bible that power.

Fair enough.

@Samson:

We could do it like Arizona does it (I think parts of California do it too) every election there's a page of judges and you see "Shall *Insert name here* be retained as *insert title and court herel* for another *insert term of office here*?

yes
no

       
Yes, that's basically what I'm getting at. The problem is, in California the governor still appoints the state judges, and the ones on the state supreme court. Though being able to block them on reconfirmation votes blunts that power significantly. If the people in CA would just exercise it more to remove these liberal activist judges. Rose Bird being the only example I can think of where this was done.

       
The Economist article pointed out that this has been going on for some time. Basically it's been a gradual withering of the 4th Amendment that really took a hit with 9-11. The article pointed out that black men living in certain areas of Washington just lift up their shirts automatically as soon as a cop passes by to show they aren't hiding weapons. And the cops routinely search them anyway. This is an infringement on the 4th. And it's escalated from there. Yes Obama hasn't helped any, but this is something that was going on before 9-11 and has just gotten worse since. The article points out that it isn't just the fight against terrorism that has led to this. It also points out that the fight against crime and drugs is a contributing factor. I suggest doing a search and see if you can find the article on-line - it has some interesting points to make. It's the May 14th - 20th 2011 issue of the Economist.

As a counter point, I was concerned about the state of affairs here in Canada. Well so far, we're safe :D A few months ago a black man was pulled over in a nice vehicle because apparently there was a report that he was carrying a gun. When no gun was found, there was an uproar and the police involved were subject to disciplinary action. The police took some liberties at the recent G20 summit in Toronto. Suddenly it seemed we had the newest police state. For example, a large group of citizens were forced to stand for several hours in the cold and pouring rain at an intersection because the cops thought there were some agitators in the crowd. There were a number of older and elderly people in the crowd who had the misfortune of going out shopping during the G20. There is now a class action lawsuit underway. And the chief of police was forced to admit they overstepped their bounds. That was only one example of the crap that went on during the G20. Even Canadians have their limits. Hopefully America does too.

       
Not to dismiss the Washington thing (I assume DC?) but were I a cop, and a black guy walked by me and suddenly pulled up his shirt (or anyone for that matter) I'd regard it as a highly suspicious situation and consider the shirt lifting an act of consent to do the rest of the pat-down. Were one of these cases to end up in court for some reason, an officer could argue the point that the actions were suspicious and generated probable cause.

This thing in Indiana is totally different from something like that because it was a wildly irrational ruling to a totally unrelated set of circumstances.

Indiana may be trying to go down the slippery slope at high speed, but they are only 1 state out of 50 and at least so far that ruling is not in line with how that case would have ended in the other 49. Also I'm pretty sure if it had happened in Texas someone would have gotten shot :P

       
I'd consider the shirt thing as implied consent, myself. Same thing if I pull you over and you open the trunk to show me nothings there: I take it as implied consent to search the rest of hte car.

We've covered exactly what's wrong with the Indiana ruling fairly well, I think; so I won't re-hash it in this post. But pretending for a moment that the events happened the way the court apparently thinks it did happen (again it didn't), the home owner is allowed to use the same amount of force to prevent the officers from illegally entering as the police are using to illegally enter. So, if the police aren't shooting at anyone to get in, you can't shoot them to keep them out. What exactly your allowed to use when they're using a battering ram and tear gas...:shrug:

       
Yes, it's Washington DC - specifically the north-east. I can't quote the entire article, that's why I recommend reading it if you can. Basically the author talks about the routine patrols that go on in these neighbourhoods and he says that the patrols are so routine "... that black men sitting on stoops or standing on corners will reflexively lift their t-shirts when the police approach, to show that they have no pistol tucked into their wastebands. Often the police will frisk them anyway, and search their cars as well." The author then quotes the 4th Amendment. His point is that this has become commonplace and violations have escalated from these events. There's no causality here - he's just pointing out that this is expected now. I'm hardly an expert. My point was that this issue in the States is getting noticed worldwide.

I don't think it's fair to call it implied consent however. Do it or get shot. No consent involved.

       
Edited by AndalayBay on May 20, 2011 12:04 am
DC's a weird town. Pretty sure I've heard of something approximately like that happening. Nor do I figure it's the only big east coast city where it takes place.

Also:

ThomasKaira said:


Trouble is, this is exactly what America voted for in the last election. We were so fed up with Bush's manhandling of our economy that we turned to the first person who said he would fix things. But therein lies a huge problem, politicians are masters of snake-oil sales tactics, and they will say anything to get elected. That this administration would attempt to quietly pick away at our liberties as U.S. citizens was clear enough two years ago, but now, not even the stupidest of American citizens can deny that we put the wrong people in power (at least, those living in the affected states).


1. The Obama administration appointed some random jackasses to the Indiana Supreme Court? Your ire, it is misdirected in this instance.

2. Re: that last sentence, speak for yourself, dude. Considering who the alternatives were, especially considering who the alternatives were, I'm continuing to rejoice in my having voted for about the best people possible.

All that said, if we're blaming the Feds for civil liberties stuff, do I get to blame everybody in Congress, too? Is IS kind of their thing, and all.

       
Who said anything about getting shot? (Well, in relation to that anyway.)

       
1. The Obama administration appointed some random jackasses to the Indiana Supreme Court? Your ire, it is misdirected in this instance.

2. Re: that last sentence, speak for yourself, dude. Considering who the alternatives were, especially considering who the alternatives were, I'm continuing to rejoice in my having voted for about the best people possible.

All that said, if we're blaming the Feds for civil liberties stuff, do I get to blame everybody in Congress, too? Is IS kind of their thing, and all.


Please read my posts again. I have already stated that I misspoke about the Politician Vs. Justice differentiation.

Secondly, I recognize that this is a state-level problem, but there is a reason I brought up Bush. Ever since the economy tanked under the Bush Administration, pretty much every single legislative seat swapped ends in the 2008 elections. The point here is that we switched from largely conservative to largely liberal in almost a heartbeat in the 2008 elections, on both the national level as well as the state level. When I say Bush, really meant to say the Republican Party (apologies for not making that clear). Once the 2008 elections occurred, the Democrats finished as the dominant party... on both the national level AND the state level. I know precisely where my ire is being directed, and I am not blaming Obama a bit for this happening, as I know he has nothing to do with it at this point.

I voted for Obama because at the time, I was naive enough to believe that politicians would keep their promises. I now know that I was wrong, I did not get what I voted for at all, as the economy is still in the crapper and now our nation's ideals are being undermined. I am now a lot better at seeing through the lies these people will tell to get into office. (Forgive me for being a newbie voter :innocent:)

       
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31