Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 19:20:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 14:55:11 GMT -5
No, I have every idea of what laws are involved here and I do believe that the police had a right to enter under the "Exigent circumstances" clause. I also have first-hand experience of Domestic violence and know that women can be carved up while everyone crosses the T's.
toughtimes I believe that "probable cause" of a crime being committed (like beating your spouse is against the law) is pretty much standard in all states. Something like someone screaming or a gun going off would be considered probable cause for them to enter.
With this ruling "any" policemen can enter your house for any reason. I just wanted to see if she was naked is a reason (& yes that would work under this law). Under the old ruling (for example) someone had to tell the police that drugs were being sold in that house before they could go in. They couldn't just use the excuse that the person living there had once sold drugs 20 years ago & that gave them probable cause. This law change goes directly in the face of our constitution (unreasonable search & seizure). I've got a feeling that this will be challenged in court.
To try & convey how bad this is to you personal try this: Your having a romantic evening with your SO. Maybe the 2 of you are getting a little kinky. Officers break in right in the middle of it because they didn't bother to double check the street number that they should have gone to. They have done NOTHING wrong & you have no means of making them pay or punishing them for their intrusion.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 14, 2011 14:56:31 GMT -5
No, I have every idea of what laws are involved here and I do believe that the police had a right to enter under the "Exigent circumstances" clause. I also have first-hand experience of Domestic violence and know that women can be carved up while everyone crosses the T's. I agree- but the court could have just applied exigent circumstance exceptions to DV situations. Instead they go and destroy the 4th amendment- time for some new judges.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on May 14, 2011 15:03:16 GMT -5
As a criminal defense attorney, I am absolutely horrified at the decision. Heck, even the former prosecutor in me is horrified.
The entry seems to fall under "exigent circumstances" where the officers were justified in entering and the doofus homeowner didn't have a right to assault the cops. The Court didn't need to go that far.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on May 14, 2011 15:06:32 GMT -5
I also think they are overstepping and this will be reversed on appeal. Putting hands on cops is a pretty stupid idea under the best of circumstances however, and the man sounds like a clown. Don't pick a fight with the dude with a gun, a taser, and mace, and friends with guns, tasers, and mace. You'll lose.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 19:20:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 15:19:18 GMT -5
I'm glad you guys "got" it. Pretty scary stuff. Not in THIS case, but the change in general. Thx for putting your lawyer knowledge in, evt.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 14, 2011 15:22:22 GMT -5
As a criminal defense attorney, I am absolutely horrified at the decision. Heck, even the former prosecutor in me is horrified. The entry seems to fall under "exigent circumstances" where the officers were justified in entering and the doofus homeowner didn't have a right to assault the cops. The Court didn't need to go that far. The court specifically states "... a right to resist an unlawful police entry ..." so they ruled (correctly or incorrectly in anyone's mind) that "exigent circumstances" did not exist in this case. The ruling is that you must always do what the police say, even if you know it to be an illegal request. Hell, our military personnel have not only the right, but the obligation, to refuse an unlawful order.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 14, 2011 16:15:51 GMT -5
Question is- what are the police there going to do now? Unlawful entry will still taint evidence, so the only thing I can see is more abuse in situations where arrests don't happen- i.e loud music,etc. 'Mind if we come in' 'no' (tries to shut door)- blam-against the wall. Personally I have no problem shutting my door in an officer's face if I do not wish to talk anymore.
I still do not see how the court can take away a defense ex post facto- that is blatantly forbidden. They could have changed the law and still tossed the conviction.
The scarier ruling was the elimination of judicial oversight of no-knock warrants. Why in hell did they do that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 19:20:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 16:24:50 GMT -5
I don't know. No way it will stand up when challenged, right? Cops came to question my daughter about something that happened at her work one day, as they went to several other employee's houses. I opened the door and they stepped right in. Now-- I have no reason to fear cops in my house, but I didn't think it was right they just stepped past me. Nothing to make a deal out of because it was a non-issue thing, but I didn't really like it. I mean, what if they step in and see something they don't like? They were looking all around my living room, wanted to go in my daughter's room to talk to her, and I said no. I did not refuse them entrance, but they did not ask, either.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 14, 2011 16:38:53 GMT -5
They should have asked to come in- I don't like that kind of behavior either and would not allow it- and don't have to. I would never let police 'look around', would not let them out of the living room if I did let them in. Although it depends on what they were there for, I would usually not answer any questions- especially if they were wearing suits .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 19:20:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 16:50:31 GMT -5
It was some altercation between management and an employee at work, and they were just gathering info because the manager called cops on the kid after she made him go home. I just don't like having cops in my house. Having young adults living here, two still under 21 but over 18, AND a toddler in the house, I just don't want them here, if you know what I mean. I'm just glad the house was clean that day. If it had involved us at all I would not have let them in.. not that I had a clue what was going on when they walked by me. I like cops better out on the streets than in my house. ;D
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2011 16:55:46 GMT -5
I don't believe this decision is going to hold. It's far too broad in terms.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 14, 2011 18:00:06 GMT -5
Nice to know everyone agrees for once. That should last about 3 minutes.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 16, 2011 11:10:58 GMT -5
Rush Limbaugh is leading with this story today. He summed up the reasoning-- you can't resist illegal entry into your home by police because the police might hurt or kill you if you resist. They're just looking out for you.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on May 16, 2011 19:47:04 GMT -5
Ahhh, my dear law and order conservative friends...you finally got what you wanted. Indiana is no longer creeping ever closer to becoming a police-state. It IS a police state. This ought to be fairly quickly over-turned. There's already established precedent to allow law enforcement to enter upon probable cause. Otherwise, a person has every legal right to resist illegal entry by police. Paul, you nailed it. I am from Indiana, and this is a travesty. Can only hope this goes to a higher court and gets overturned. The court is tellling the citizens to bend over and enjoy it. Then you can file a claim against the police.....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 16, 2011 21:13:57 GMT -5
... ... Can only hope this goes to a higher court and gets overturned...... This was a ruling of the highest court in the state.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on May 16, 2011 21:16:24 GMT -5
... ... Can only hope this goes to a higher court and gets overturned...... This was a ruling of the highest court in the state. Then it can be taken to the Federal Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 16, 2011 21:18:14 GMT -5
... ... Can only hope this goes to a higher court and gets overturned...... This was a ruling of the highest court in the state. We might just see a wave in cop killings for those cops that feel the need to enter someones home without reason or cause to do so. Any cop coming to my home and tries to come in, it will be the last door he walks through without a warrant. If they try, then I will see them as breaking and entering, and I have the right to defend myself and my property. My home, my space, I pay my taxes and abide by the law. I don't drink or do drugs, so there is no reason for a cop to ever want to invade my personal space or property without cause.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on May 16, 2011 21:25:14 GMT -5
This was a ruling of the highest court in the state. Then it can be taken to the Federal Court of Appeals. Good thing we have the feds to overturn this state ruling.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on May 16, 2011 21:30:17 GMT -5
Then it can be taken to the Federal Court of Appeals. Good thing we have the feds to overturn this state ruling. Since it clearly violates the COTUS, yes, it is.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 16, 2011 21:36:38 GMT -5
Good thing we have the feds to overturn this state ruling. Since it clearly violates the COTUS, yes, it is.
|
|