4th ammendment violation?

[Anselmo 87]

Link to article

 

 

Indiana supreme rules no right to resist police in an illegal entry into your house. Crazy.

[Recon Racoon 49]

You're right that is a 4th Amendment Violation. No officer of the law shall enter your home with out express verbal permission or a signed warrant by a judge. Any other entry is illegal. I don't get how a STATE court can over rule the Constitution...oh wait they can't.

[ChrisJM981 924]

Why respect the Constitution when you can litigate from the bench.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Link to article

 

 

Indiana supreme rules no right to resist police in an illegal entry into your house. Crazy.

 

Certainly sounds like Indiana is NOT an ideal place to live anymore

(Especially with its proximity to Mayor "Don't Waste a Crisis" Emanuel's Chicago)

[SpecialK 193]

Yet another blow to The People.

[Vlad G 345]

I don't see that surviving an appeal to higher courts.

[Malsua 1,422]

It's a clear 4th amendment violation and will not survive. That the Indiana supreme court rendered this decision bears witness to something rotten in that court.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Why respect the Constitution when you can litigate legislate from the bench.

 

 

Fixed it for you

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

I sure hope the non-dissenting justices aren't the victim of some home invasions by perps screaming "police, everyone down on the floor" as they bust in.

[Dan 177]

I'm all for preventing violence, and not condoning violence against the police even if they are doing something illegal, but this ruling is blatantly unconstitutional. In reality, it gives the ability for the police to disregard 4th amendment rights without fear of reprisal unless the victim is wealthy enough to file a civil rights lawsuit against the cop / department.

 

Its called deterrence, the main tool laws have that drive behavior away from doing illegal things, if the cop knows that illegally entering a home opens him up to legal physical resistance by the homeowner, along with a civil rights suit on top of that, which are both backed up by the 4th and the courts... they WOULD NOT PERFORM THE ILLEGAL ACT in the first place. They would stop and think... do we have the authority to enter here without a warrant? (things like crime in progress, lives in danger, someone getting murdered, etc)

 

Unless the victim has the financial and resource backing of a civil rights organization, a vast majority of the population will not be able to challenge the police in civil court. Now the police can size up the folks, and if they look poor enough that they couldn't defend themselves after the fact, its green light for violating their constitutional rights.

 

Another notch for police state mentality.

[KpdPipes 388]

You're right that is a 4th Amendment Violation. No officer of the law shall enter your home with out express verbal permission or a signed warrant by a judge. Any other entry is illegal. I don't get how a STATE court can over rule the Constitution...oh wait they can't.

 

 

Nonsense.... There are legitimate circumstances where an Entry can, and in fact MUST be made without permission or warrant..however those types of Exigent Circumstances MUST be present, you cant just do it on a whim. This case isnt as simple as it's presented in the article, in many cases State Laws, and AG guidelines make specific allowances for Domestics..which this was. Lets say that the cops took the husband's word that there was no problem and didnt attempt to speak with the Wife and she turned up dead...you'd be calling for those Cop's HEADS on a pike.

 

 

Now of course some Bright Spark here will attempt to twist what i've said into something else starting in 3...2....1

[Anselmo 87]

To me, the gist of the decision is that you cannot resist a police officer's entry into your home even if it is illegal. You have to allow it and then seek civil recourse in the courts.

 

It defines the police as not an illegal intruder and you cannot take defensive measures.

 

Wonder how the Oath Keepers feel about this.

 

NJ law:

 

b. Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

 

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

 

(a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

 

 

If the police in NJ violate the 4th amendment, is that a definition of unlawful force and then resistance is justifiable or is unlawful arrest the 4th amendment violation?

[The Dark Knight 11]

I fail to see how someone bursting into a home without a warrant is any different than a burglar. Badge or not.

[ChrisJM981 924]

Fixed it for you

 

That's what I meant. I think I had a few...I mean... it was really late and I mistyped.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

That's what I meant. I think I had a few...I mean... it was really late and I mistyped.

 

 

No problem, I've got your back

[PeteF 1,044]

Cops were outta hand (if report is correct). They had every right to ask to talk to the woman, and then enter they weren't allowed to talk to her. (exigent circumstance)

They had no right to enter the apartment without a warrant the exigent circumstance.

 

The court completely F-d it up with its finding of

 

"Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry."

 

This decision won't last long.

[Recon Racoon 49]

Kpd, I understand there are certain circumstances where an officer must make entry in order to maintain the peace, i.e Domestic Dispute. But how far will they stretch that in their favor to make an illegal entry. I'll pose a couple scenarios:

 

1: A husband and wife, boy friend/girl friend, or Same sex couple are arguing and things get a little loud. The neighbors call the cops. Would it be reasonable for the cops to enter with out permission in order to maintain the peace and make sure no one is hurt or needs assistance?

 

2: You're home alone and playing a video game, for the sake of the scenario we'll say Black Ops. You get aggravated and shout at the game. Your windows are open and a passer-by just so happens to hear you freaking out. They call the cops. Is it reasonable for them to bust open your door even if they know you are home by yourself?

 

At what extent does it become unnecessary for an officer to make entry? Is it at their discretion? What if they see something 'odd', and I use that as loosely as possible, happening in your home. Is that a reasonable Exigent Circumstance?

[BCeagle 12]

I fail to see how someone bursting into a home without a warrant is any different than a burglar. Badge or not.

 

+1

[KpdPipes 388]

Kpd, I understand there are certain circumstances where an officer must make entry in order to maintain the peace, i.e Domestic Dispute. But how far will they stretch that in their favor to make an illegal entry. I'll pose a couple scenarios:

 

1: A husband and wife, boy friend/girl friend, or Same sex couple are arguing and things get a little loud. The neighbors call the cops. Would it be reasonable for the cops to enter with out permission in order to maintain the peace and make sure no one is hurt or needs assistance?

 

2: You're home alone and playing a video game, for the sake of the scenario we'll say Black Ops. You get aggravated and shout at the game. Your windows are open and a passer-by just so happens to hear you freaking out. They call the cops. Is it reasonable for them to bust open your door even if they know you are home by yourself?

 

At what extent does it become unnecessary for an officer to make entry? Is it at their discretion? What if they see something 'odd', and I use that as loosely as possible, happening in your home. Is that a reasonable Exigent Circumstance?

Scenario #1.. i know OUR policy is to speak to all parties. I have had someone attempt to physically bar me from entering after his wife called 911. That didnt go well for him. I've also had people get froggy on 3rd party complaints..so far I havent had to force entry.

 

#2... Happens all the time once the weather gets warm..Video games, Movies/TV...orgasms..people dont understand how much their voices carry. 99.99% of the time people are reasonable, that other 1%..well there are a-holes out there.

 

We are expected to use discretion in how we do our jobs AFAIC if you're in your own home, I dont give a damn what you're doing, as long as it doesnt cosntitute an Indictable Offense...HOWEVER when your actions Offend or Alarm your neighbors, dont **** a me when i come knocking on your door. We have a HUGE lattitude when it comes to Domestics, and a lot of qualified immunity as long as we are acting in Good Faith. However that also has to be balanced with the AG guidelines, other Statutes, and more importantly the State and US Constitutions. there are times when I've told the Judge that a certain Restraining order wasnt warranted..sometimes he listens, most times they err on the side of over-caution and issue it..and let the Superior Court (Family Part) Sort it out at their level. And before anyone bring sit up, we end up having to take guns MAYBE half a dozen times a year tops, and interestingly enough MOST of the time those guns are possessed by Prohibited persons to begin with. I can only think of 2 in the last year or so that were just average joes with legal firearms that we had to take. The worst part now is the Prosecutor's offices..they have the final say in when you get your property back, and the wrong AP (assistant prosecutor) can have your stuff tied up for years. I know of one guy (Co-worker) who had a really bad divorce with the Ex constantly getting TRO's, even though the Husband in many cases had both documentation AND Witnesses that the ex was FOS, the particular AP who handled his case kept him tied up for almost a year, even after the court Denied her Restraining Order, to the point she finally had to be ordered by a Judge, then threatened with charges of Malfeasance and Misconduct if she didnt return his property. Our County prosecutor even stepped in with no movement on the part of the AP. For those of you in Bergen County...... you DONT want to get done for a Domestic in that County.

[john q publik 10]

To me, the gist of the decision is that you cannot resist a police officer's entry into your home even if it is illegal. You have to allow it and then seek civil recourse in the courts.

 

Basically we're supposed to allow the utter and total contempt and trampling on our rights, illegal intrusion into the sanctity of our homes, and then ATTEMPT to hold those involved responsible for it in a court system stacked ridiculously in their favor and against "qualified immunity"??

 

Yea that'll work well for us. Not only will we not succeed in these courts after the fact, we will more than likely be held accountable for their legal fees. Then try to apply for a pistol permit after having sued the locals....

[JackDaWack 2,895]

This is basically how i read it...

If your sitting at home minding your business, not being loud, not fighting with anyone, for the sake of argument lets say u live alone and were sleeping on the couch.

Knock Knock(at the door), its the police.... Hi, we have no reason to be here but were going to enter your house either way.... you cannot say no?? are u freaking kidding me....

 

Another big issue... we had/have a problem with people impersonating police... I'm not big on letting anyone into my house that i don't personally know, this just screams all sorts of F'ed up Sh8t.

 

Im surprised no one has started to copy and paste the 4thA. I mean its pretty clear about search and entry into/onto someones property.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

For those of you in Bergen County...... you DONT want to get done for a Domestic in that County.

The problem here is.. 90% of calls are for domestice violence.

[KpdPipes 388]

The problem here is.. 90% of calls are for domestice violence.

 

Ok..let me be more Specific.. You do not want as a gun owner to EVER have a Restraining Order..you ESPECIALLY Dont want one in Bergen County. The AP who handles DV for the BCPO is very anti-gun owner

[Soju 153]

That is the problem...err, messed up part with laws, any laws. Everyone relies on other people to properly uphold them, and you get someone on a bad day, someone with an agenda, someone who doesn't like that particular law, and if they are in that position of authority, like a police officer, judge, attorney general, state prosecutor, jury, etc... well, who knows how it will end.

 

I wish we had some sort of super computer that could listen to the cases, legislative proposals, facts, or whatever, and make an unbiased decision based off of the law where there is no other influences or personal opinions involved. That would be a sweet justice system.

[bbk 188]

I wish we had some sort of super computer that could listen to the cases, legislative proposals, facts, or whatever, and make an unbiased decision based off of the law where there is no other influences or personal opinions involved. That would be a sweet justice system.

 

[BRaptor 68]

Kpd, I understand there are certain circumstances where an officer must make entry in order to maintain the peace, i.e Domestic Dispute. But how far will they stretch that in their favor to make an illegal entry. I'll pose a couple scenarios:

 

1: A husband and wife, boy friend/girl friend, or Same sex couple are arguing and things get a little loud. The neighbors call the cops. Would it be reasonable for the cops to enter with out permission in order to maintain the peace and make sure no one is hurt or needs assistance?

 

2: You're home alone and playing a video game, for the sake of the scenario we'll say Black Ops. You get aggravated and shout at the game. Your windows are open and a passer-by just so happens to hear you freaking out. They call the cops. Is it reasonable for them to bust open your door even if they know you are home by yourself?

 

At what extent does it become unnecessary for an officer to make entry? Is it at their discretion? What if they see something 'odd', and I use that as loosely as possible, happening in your home. Is that a reasonable Exigent Circumstance?

 

Your scenarios bring up two legitimate functions of the police.

 

1) Criminal Investigation and Evidence Gathering.

 

2) Community Caretaking. (no, I'm not kidding).

 

An example of investigating criminal activity would be: Caller calls 911 and says they hear violent screaming and banging and crying along with a woman pleading with a man's voice saying "that's what you deserve for burning my dinner," a woman crying and what sounds like someone being slapped or punched. The caller provides their name, phone number and address and verifies that they're next door to or capable of hearing the disturbance. Police likely have probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the property without warrant to investigate the male for committing battery against the female. This satisfies the veracity of the tipster, the accuracy of their report and the likelihood that a crime is being committed in the house along with exigent circumstances.

 

An example of (arguable) community caretaking: Police receive a random tip that people are arguing very loudly inside a house at an address. There is some screaming and general disturbance. Police are likely permitted to respond and check in the house to make sure that all occupants are OK. No warrant is likely needed, and no exigent circumstances may be needed, because the police are not, necessarily, investigating a crime, thus, they are outside the 4A. The police may not be there with probable cause that the man was hitting the woman, or vice versa. Rather, they are making sure that everyone is safe, secure and unharmed within the house regardless of who or what was the cause of the disturbance.

 

The two scenarios are a very fine line between community caretaking and crime investigation, and are subject to debate, but this highlights the very fine line that police must walk on a daily basis. One thing I promise, there is no debate that police serve the two purposes of crime investigation and community caretaking and one requires a warrant or a warrant exception while the other does not. Which is another reason why this Indiana domestic case makes bad law (bad facts make bad law). In DV situations, the police are either investigating a crime or doing community caretaking and the line is very narrow. I think the Indiana Supreme Court was trying to make a stand on DV situations in support of the difficult situation that police are in during DV investigations and ended up saying something quite irrational.

[djg0770 481]

Police likely have probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the property without warrant to investigate the male for committing battery against the female.

 

 

Just because the woman is crying doesn't mean she's the recipient of the battery. It seems that every time someone portrays domestic violence it is man on woman and never the other way around.

 

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

[Vlad G 345]

Just because the woman is crying doesn't mean she's the recipient of the battery. It seems that every time someone portrays domestic violence it is man on woman and never the other way around.

 

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

Why are you beating your horse?

[djg0770 481]

Why are you beating your horse?

 

Well - if you believe the MSM, it's because I'm a 40's white male clinging to my guns and religion...

[KpdPipes 388]

Just because the woman is crying doesn't mean she's the recipient of the battery. It seems that every time someone portrays domestic violence it is man on woman and never the other way around.

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

about 90% of the time it is..i've seen VERY few legitimate cases of DV with the male as the "Victim"..most fo the time the male claims he's assaulted his "Injuries" are defensive wounds from the girl who's being choked or what have you. Now, that doesnt mean the system ISNT Skewed in favor of the Women. As usual, the state of NJ, in response to Stupidity on the part of the State and City of NY (That's why we cant have Tasers here..but thats another rant) after some SPECTACULAR failures on the part of the Courts System and Judges when it came to DV issues. At that things are better now, there was a time about 20 years ago when the rules were changing literally daily..what was a "Shall Arrest" Scenario one day was a "May Arrest" Scenario the next.