Indiana Court Okays Illegal Police Entries

For centuries a person’s home has been considered his castle. This fundamental liberty was recognized in the Magna Carta and later in our own Bill of Rights. After all, our Founding Fathers fought a war for independence from the British for routinely violating these cherished and long-recognized rights.

The Fourth Amendment is not ambiguous in its meaning; clearly stating that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Just last week, however, in a move that would have made King George III proud, the Indiana Supreme Court cavalierly decided that police can enter a person’s home for any reason – or no reason, or an unlawful reason — and the homeowner forced to stand aside and let them do their deeds. This 3 to 2 decision of the Hoosier State’s highest court, essentially reinstates the hated Writs of Assistance utilized by the British Crown in the colonies; according to which colonial citizens were subject to Royal gendarmes entering their homes for whatever reason their colonial masters decreed were necessary to “assist” the King.

Unless overturned by the federal courts or the state legislature, Indiana residents will be deprived of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” enjoyed to at least some degree by people in other states and under federal law. To these Indiana jurists, the substance of the Fourth Amendment appears merely as a suggestion, not a protected civil liberty.

The specific issue at hand is whether or not you can resist someone – anyone, including a police officer – attempting to illegally enter your home. In this case, Barnes v. Indiana, a couple had been arguing outside their apartment. The police were called to investigate, but were denied entry by Richard Barnes, the husband. Ignoring his wishes the police entered anyway and he attempted to stop them. Barnes was subdued with a taser, and subsequently charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and battery of a police officer.

At his trial, Barnes sought to have the judge instruct the jury to consider a defense that was permissible to resist unlawful entry into the home. His request was denied by the judge; a ruling eventually upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority of the high court, Justice Steven David stated, “[a] right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence” (emphasis added). He also opined that, “allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Rather than simply requiring police to obtain a warrant or possess at least some degree of reasonable cause (which did not exist at the time the police forced their way into the Barnes’ home), the Indiana Supreme Court has granted Indiana law enforcement a green light to enter a home for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and force the occupant to stand meekly aside and do nothing.

Unfortunate and troubling as this opinion is, it is of course not the only instance of how the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures have been eroded in recent years. Just last week, for example, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted to extend the power of the federal government under the USA PATRIOT Act, to gain access to a person’s private records in the hands of a third person (such as a doctor) as part of some undisclosed “foreign intelligence” investigation, without any suspicion that the person has engaged in any unlawful activity whatsoever.

Clearly, the Fourth Amendment is under assault at all levels of government. Unless the American citizenry awakens to this danger and begins demanding the rights the Amendment protects be restored, one of the fundamental underpinnings of our very Liberty will vanish, perhaps permanently.

By Bob Barr – The Barr Code

63 comments Add your comment

GB

May 18th, 2011
7:20 am

Bobby

May 18th, 2011
7:29 am

Since the police were there for a domestic dispute the argument can be made they had a right to enter the house to ensure everyone was safe and that a crime (assault, battery) had not been committed. It’s not exactly as if the police simply drove up to the house and told the home owner to stand aside just because they wanted to enter his house and inspect it.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

May 18th, 2011
7:38 am

Why speak of a particular amendment as if the same Fifth Column hadn’t performed transgenerational treason against the Constitution and People in concert with a spiraling concentration of wealth for the same fascist plutocracy tories from which we created America to escape?

Aren’t we “straining at the gnat” of some domestic dispute and how a police officer might be concerned about a potential “lady in distress” within a domicile, while “swallowing the camel” of the closeted sublimating ATF “toughs” who illegally and stupidly assaulted the Branch Davidian compound at Waco to ensure a press release and future budget appropriation, slaughtering how many innocents and lying about it?

Where is Truth and Justice in this Promised Land of G-d? Has “Annuit Coeptis” been removed from Our Creed?

The judiciary of sinecures and Fifth Column fascists (’Bush v. Gore’; ‘Citizens United’) is wholly complicit in focussing on “trees” while fully “blind” to the “forest” of Bush’s and Cheney’s having committed 9/11 (Viz. “The New Pearl Harbor,” Griffin, Ph.D.).

Didn’t the little homosexual draft-dodger cheated into the WH by the SCOTUS’ Roman Catholics say Our Constitution was “just a piece of paper?” The “paper” all who take The Oath of Enlistment swear to place their lives at sacrifice to protect?

G-d is not mocked. Are Egyptians better Americans than we?

Death for Treason

Reader with comprehension

May 18th, 2011
7:43 am

This article blatantly distorts the facts. The ruling by the court did NOT alter the requirements for entry into a private residence by police AT ALL. Your assertion that it did is a blatant misrepresentation at best and a bold-face lie at best.

The court decision said that people can’t use violence to stop police from making an unlawful entry. It said they had to use other means of redress such as civil court. This is a very common sense decision since only a COURT OF LAW and not a private citizen can make a determination whether a police entry was lawful.

The fact still stands that in most cases, a valid warrant will be required to enter a residence and conduct a search. Of course, there will always be exceptions to this rule. However, they were NOT modified by this case. I hope that you will have the integrity to stand up and retract most of the trash in this column.

The area of concern I *DO* have is in the area of self-defense. There should be a caveat that force against someone intending to do unjustified bodily harm to you is ok.

the watch dog

May 18th, 2011
7:55 am

Which way does safety and security lie? Does it lie in the usurping of more and more of the individual’s fourth amendment rights or does it lie in the reinstating the Fourth amendment as it is stated in the Bill of Rights?

Fairness is not weakness, fairness insures the equality of rights of all citizens as stated in the Declaration of Independsence. Fairness is the distribution of opportunity and prosperity among all citizens.
Fairness is an attribute of the strength of the U.S. there is absaolutely nothing fair about the warrantless entry into a person’s home.
The time has come for final judgrement, does the Patriot Act make us stronger and more secure or is it the fairness as framed by the Constitution that makes us a strong nation?

Daniel

May 18th, 2011
7:57 am

Bobby, Exactly. So there was no need for the courts to go any further… but instead they decided to completely do away with the 4th amendment protection and even stated you have no right to resit ‘Un-)awful’ entry either.

Red

May 18th, 2011
7:58 am

Reader – I love your spin on it. You say it comes down to people “not being able to use violence to stop people from unlawful entry”. The opinion clearly indicates a redefining of “lawful entry”. The ironic thing here is that if a policeman unlawfully enters, they are breaking the law. If someone, anyone, has another unlawfully entering their home, do they not have a right to self defense? Are police now given protected status? This now means a policeman can enter a home illegally, without warrant, and have judicial protection against their illegal act. In this day in age with anyone having access to police gear and uniform, it would behoove law enforcement to go by the book on entry or risk their own lives in being mistaken or misidentified. If that person defends their home against illegal entry and law enforcement personnel are killed, what good does this decision do? Just as the premise is for law enforcement to act and sort it out later, I’m sure a homeowner facing an illegal entry will have the same mind and shoot first, ask questions later.

Aquagirl

May 18th, 2011
8:02 am

You fruitcakes can cry me a river—-Sorry you can’t punch a cop because you think a comma is misplaced on a search warrant. Anyway, shouldn’t you be busy stockpiling food for the rapture?

Reader with comprehension

May 18th, 2011
8:13 am

Red:

If it was an “unlawful” entry prior to this court ruling, it would still be an unlawful entry after the ruling. You can try and spin it anyway you want or accuse me of spinning it, but that statement is 100% accurate.

The court DID NOT change the requirements for a “legal” search. If you can show me in the case law where it did, I will stand corrected. The court did not say that an illegal police entry was ok as Mr. Barr has titled his article.

Now let’s talk about this in real life context….

The average citizen in the United States has NO formal legal training. More importantly, the average citizen probably couldn’t tell you many of the rights or amendments enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Can you sit and tell me with a straight face that it should be OK for them to make a determination of the lawfulness of a police entry? Furthermore, you think it’s OK for them to use that determination to decide whether or not to kill or maim a law enforcement officer?

The Court was dead on with this issue. The entry and its lawfulness should be judged in a Court of competent jurisdiction. If it was unlawful, appropriate action can be taken.

Daniel

May 18th, 2011
8:16 am

Aquagirl…. what you don’t get is Anyone can yell cop as they bust in your door…. and since now you must lay down any form of protectioin or means of resistance at that point, you are now more vulnerable than ever. What these judges also don’t get is that their ‘feel good’ decision will have the opposite effect. The threat of resistance iIS what makes one safe. Due to this decision, one is now very vulnerable to rapist posing as a cop…. we’ll see if suing in civil court will remove those resulting emotional scars.

Aquagirl

May 18th, 2011
8:28 am

Daniel, relax. It’s still open season on cop imitators. There is absolutely nothing in this case about mistaken identity. And please, take your medication before cleaning the guns.

Bill

May 18th, 2011
8:37 am

This man resisted physically. It seems that you would allow him to shoot police officers to prevent them from entering. The fourth amendment offers protection against illegal search and seizure. That does not mean you get to enforce it yourself. It means that you get protection of the law.

If a policeman wants to search the trunk of your car without a warrant or due cause, it it OK to shoot him? If an officer stops and frisks you without due cause, is it OK to shoot?

DebbieDoRight

May 18th, 2011
8:37 am

Anyway, shouldn’t you be busy stockpiling food for the rapture?

:lol:

bobo

May 18th, 2011
8:45 am

this isn’t about a misplaced comma, it’s about no search warrant at all. Whar are you going to say next… if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t mind the cops walking into your house for no reason?

[...] Bob Barr: Indiana court okays illegal police entries “For centuries a person’s home has been considered his castle. This fundamental liberty was recognized in the Magna Carta and later in our own Bill of Rights. After all, our Founding Fathers fought a war for independence from the British for routinely violating these cherished and long-recognized rights.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution [...]

Aquagirl

May 18th, 2011
8:51 am

“If a policeman wants to search the trunk of your car without a warrant or due cause, it it OK to shoot him?”

Please don’t ask Daniel this question. The answer will surely scare the crap out of you.

bobo, you should certainly mind, and the courts will back you up. That’s where we settle disputes about the lawfulness of police actions. Not at the OK Corral.

Civiliain

May 18th, 2011
8:54 am

Aquagirl…Cynthia Tucker wants cream and sugar in her coffee and her clothes are ready at the dry cleaners. Hurry back and you can still catch Jerry Springer and have some wine.

Daniel

May 18th, 2011
9:14 am

LOL… Aquagirl, I’ll put a sign out that says ‘Armed, will shoot first and ask questions later” and you put out a sign that says, “Unarmed and won’t resist, so you better be a real cop and here legally or I’ll sue.” We’ll see who stays safer. The threat of resistance is what keeps gov/criminals at bay, period. Otherwise you are more vulnerable to Tyranny and tyranical behavior, by either.

lawrence

May 18th, 2011
9:14 am

AquaGirl,

I would like for you to show me a case where it has been dismissed because a comma is misplaced. Search for it and let me know and you can email it to me. Do you want me Westlaw password so you can look?

Aquagirl

May 18th, 2011
9:20 am

“Civiliain” (sic) less time on blogs = more time to repeat 2nd grade spelling. Now, what were you mumbling about Jerry Springer?

Lawrence, I doubt there are any case dismissals due to a missing comma on a search warrant. Should there be? I dunno, that’s a question for the courts, not some drunk involved in a domestic disturbance. Oh, the tyranny!

jconservative

May 18th, 2011
9:34 am

“The city of Atlanta will pay $4.9 million to the family of Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed in a botched November 2006 drug raid…”

“The community is still shaken over the death of Johnston, who was killed on Nov. 21, 2006, after plainclothes narcotics officers burst into her home using a special “no-knock” warrant to search for drugs. She fired a single bullet at the invaders, and they responded with 39 bullets through her wooden door.”

There are warrants and there are warrants.

1984

May 18th, 2011
10:05 am

Wow! I wold have never believed that average Americans would stand still while your neighbor in a cop uniform is legally allowed into your home and you can’t do anything about it. The Law of Unintended Consequences requires that criminals now wear cop uniforms and just kick down your front door and say, “I smell marijuana” then proceed to pillage.

What I really can’t believe is the parsing of the meaning of the law to say that this is OK and some of you agree with it!

At what point will the flag wavers require body searches at the mall? Land of the free??? Nawwww…not anymore. Move along, comrade.

Reader with comprehension

May 18th, 2011
10:07 am

1984: Have you read the ruling? If so, please show me where it says that police can enter your home illegally and you can’t do anything about it.

I’m betting you’ve got nothing. Why? The ruling doesn’t say that. The ruling says that you can’t forcefully resist a cop but instead must sue him/her in civil court. Additionally, criminal penalties for illegal entry (such as the Kathryn Johnston case) will still apply and cops can go to jail for illegal entry.

While I don’t blame Ms. Johnston for ANY of her actions, if she had followed the same train of thought as the court, she would still be alive today. The cops in her case should never see freedom again.

Daniel

May 18th, 2011
10:23 am

Aquagirl,
Though it fun playing… the serious discussion here is not the primary ruling… the ruling in favor of the police in this case who it appears acted legally (unless the wife also came to the door and stated she was in no harm and that there was no other evidence to the contrary for the police to act on). The problem with this case is that the Judges (3 of them) decided to go beyond the merits of this specific case to make the blanket decision that citizens no longer have the right to resist Illegal behavior at the time of that behavior if the one(s) performing that Un-lawful behavior is a police officer. This is where they went awry. One ALWAYS has the Right to resist illegal behavior… no matter who is performing that unlawful behavior…. and with whatever necessary force to protect oneself from that Illegal behavior. This is a natural Right. Governments can choose to protect it (their charge in the 4th Amendment) or they can choose not to. But it doesn’t negate its existence. And it is up to the citizens of Indiana to correct the “injustice” of these judges’ decision and to have their elected officials state very loudly that no-one is above the law, not even police officers.

Quartering Change

May 18th, 2011
10:49 am

Obama promised change. The last time a tyrant promised change was 1776 and all we got was quartering troops. It’s time for Newt. Don’t you just feel it?

Newt 2012: It’s his turn. It just is. It’s just his turn. His turn it is. It really is his turn.

1984

May 18th, 2011
10:49 am

For those that can’t seem to understand but feel that they comprehend….the ruling means nothing. Interpretation means everything. And the interpretation means what the judge says…

Justice Steven David said

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 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.”

“…a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy…” written by a state supreme court justice, comprende? Say what you want about the ruling but the rulers, you know the ones the will judge what the ruling means, say ….a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy…therefore, unlawful police entry is an accepted part of business. Any comrade citizen should be aware that the police can enter your house at any time without cause and just …. accept it. Who cares about a government with the consent of the people. What do the people know? Don’t you know that some pigs are better than others? And, remember, no pig goes to jail. Jail is for the little sheep.

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

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-ind-court-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry-20110513,0,1713312.story

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry/

http://m.courierpress.com/news/2011/may/13/indiana-supreme-court-no-right-resist-unlawful-pol/

“The opinion marks the second time in a week that the Indiana Supreme Court addressed police entry. On Tuesday, the court found that police serving a warrant can enter a home without knocking, if officers decide that approach is necessary.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in_indiana_no_right_to_resist_unlawful_police_entry_at_home/

Move along, comrade. Nothing to see here. Now move before we strip search you and take your possessions under forfeiture laws. All Hail the government and its apologists. Return to your assigned duties, comrade, and leave the thinking to us. You are not allowed to think, Sheep.

Civiliain

May 18th, 2011
10:53 am

Daniel … you are correct but wasting your time trying to explain to Aquagirl. She lacks the mental capacity to comprehend complex topics greater than the love triangles in her daily soaps.

Aquagirl

May 18th, 2011
11:02 am

Daniel, I understand your reservations. But the Constitution does not grant the right to use force based on what you saw on “Matlock.”

Individuals do not decide on the spot what is legal and illegal, and then back up their guesses with physical violence. Under the rule of law, courts are where you seek remedies for illegal actions. If you are in immediate danger of bodily harm, you have the right to self defense, of course. A cop digging a bag of weed out of your couch is not “immediate danger of bodily harm.” That can be decided later. If the search wasn’t legal, then everything connected is thrown out. Well, unless it’s under drug seizure laws, but that’s another story. You should ask Bob about that, he spent a lot more time than any of us harassing such folks.

Jefferson

May 18th, 2011
11:12 am

Busting into someones home is a good way to get shot.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

May 18th, 2011
11:14 am

Dear GB @ 7:20, thanks, persuasive counter-argument. To the extent that Mr. Barr’s essay would empower a homeowner to shoot a “no-knock” invading policeman, I agree with his thesis. But the stubbornfacts link by GB argues the better, broader rule.

carlosgvv

May 18th, 2011
11:14 am

I’ll just wait till this gets to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, all of you must remember the America you live in now is not the America of the past. Powerful forces are at work and the influence of us average citizens gets weaker each year.

Raymond Huffman

May 18th, 2011
11:18 am

This is not the only recent opinion depriving 4th amendment rights. SCOTUS made a similar holding just last week. Weed smell, no warrant required, 8-1 decision (Ginsburg dissent). Will this outrage all the pothead Republicans out there? There are a lot of you!

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/marijuana-smell-supreme-court-carpet-bombs-4th-amendment

Very Very

May 18th, 2011
11:18 am

Ever since Osama Bin Laden was kilt, this country has gone down hill. We keel one bad guy and the government thinks it can take all of our rights away!! Well two many taken rights makes a wrong! I say we all go to Canada where they not only have all our rights, but they have free healthcare too! Let go! Who’s with me!!!

Let’s do it!!!

Very Very

May 18th, 2011
11:20 am

Seriously, did our Seals have the right to enter illegally the Osama Compound?

That’s the crux of the ruling, morons. When there’s a war, the law has to change.

If not we’re finished.

Dave

May 18th, 2011
11:28 am

“If a policeman wants to search the trunk of your car without a warrant or due cause, it it OK to shoot him? If an officer stops and frisks you without due cause, is it OK to shoot?”

Yes.

Jess

May 18th, 2011
12:09 pm

Dave, I’m with you. There’s a constitution and bill of rights for a reason. The government seems to trample all over them and it seems that even when the people respond, nothing happens. The outcome will have to be like Egypt to create change, where it takes the whole population to be concerned about its country. Over here in America, you’re just a conspiracy theorist if you cry foul at the government.

Bryan G.

May 18th, 2011
12:15 pm

If someone busts into your house and you have a gun, you should be able to mow them the f*** down. It’s that simple. It shouldn’t matter that the person busting down your door is a cop.

Am I supposed to wait and see if it’s a cop or a a crackhead before I shoot?

Aquagirl

May 18th, 2011
12:15 pm

Dave, that sounds like a great bumpersticker. I suggest you affix it to your car to properly warn cops they’re dealing with a real 2nd Amendment manly-man, and one who knows the law better than them or some activist judge. I’m sure they’ll express their admiration.

David Granger

May 18th, 2011
12:16 pm

Hard to know who is more disgusting in their fervent desire to ignore the Constitution…the giggle-sissy liberals or the right-wing police state conservatives.

Clinton "Skink" Tyree

May 18th, 2011
12:26 pm

It’s amazing how those who esteem the constitution are the first to make exceptions to some of the most precious of the protections ie. Fourth Ammendment.

And, the threat doesn’t seem to be from “libruls” but from those sunny day patriots.

Bryan

May 18th, 2011
12:36 pm

The one thing we should take from this is that the remedy at law for unlawful entry should be far more substantial. As it stands, if a policeman enters unlawfully, you can sue. Aaaaand…good luck with that. We should make sure that the legal remedy is strong.

This case is about remedies — what you can do in response to what you believe to be an unlawful entry. You have a constitutional right — but the constitution itself does not prescribe any method of enforcing that right. So how does one do it? One view says that the right can only be protected by allowing each individual person to respond to the government with gunfire — that if the government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment rights in a given context turns out to be incorrect, then killing a police officer is justified. But where is that in the Fourth Amendment? I’ve looked — it’s not in there. Instead, the mechanism for enforcing that right depends on history and the common law — and all of that says that the correct mechanism is a lawsuit. (Which goes back to what I said before — we need to protect THAT mechanism, not this one.)

Let’s apply that to these facts, for example. You have a domestic dispute. The man is saying that the cops can’t come in. The woman is saying that the cops should come in. Quick — what does the law say about that? Can the cops come in? There’s some caselaw that says that unless the cops hear the man actually attacking the woman, the resident objecting to entry prevails. But…it’s a close case. The man involved in the domestic dispute had a gun (which he thankfully didn’t pull). Would it have been justifiable to shoot the officers if it turns out later that a court agrees with his view of lawful entry, and disagrees with the police officers’? The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say that it would be — and the common law doesn’t either. So, no. That’s the right answer, and the answer the court gave.

But there’s something else. That answer is also a good result for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Why? Because the alternative puts officers’ lives on the line for searches. As it stands, the stakes are (relatively) low — if a court says that a search is unreasonable, then maybe a criminal goes free or a lawsuit is won. What you’re proposing is a rule that says that if a search is deemed unreasonable, police officers may be killed — that if they make close calls in the heat of the moment, and don’t keep up with the latest jurisprudence, then let them be shot down like dogs for their transgression. Now let’s be judicial realists for a moment. Are judges going to find searches unreasonable under those circumstances? When a decision against a police officer could allow police officers to be shot? Of course not.

In insisting on a violent (rather than legal) remedy for protecting a constitutional right, you pretty much insure that the right itself will be torpedoed. That’s a terrible result — and you shouldn’t be fighting for it. Instead, you should be demanding stronger legal remedies. It’s a crime that it is so hard to enforce Fourth Amendment rights through a lawsuit — that a police officer is all but immune, and that the only relief you can get is a piece of your own tax dollars back. THAT’s what you should be focusing on, Bob — not a mythical right to come out guns blazing in a mixed-consent case.

Very Very

May 18th, 2011
12:55 pm

The trolls here are such great thinkers, that they conclude to shoot cops as the remedy for civil rights violations.

These are the same type of losers who shoot their own family members in the darkness of night thinking that they were burglars. (”Yes, officer, my four year old looked like a burglar in the darkness.”)

Cops can invade the wrong home by mistake, and enter by breaking the door down, and then you get the tragedy we witnessed not long ago with that old lady. But that is a relatively rare and unavoidable occurence. Because of terrorism, we need to be able to “bin laden” a home now and then when the national security is at stake.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

May 18th, 2011
1:02 pm

A Cobb County police officer lied in court that his dashcam video system had “run out of memory on the previous stop” to convict me in a traffic case, in which I was clearly in the right, near the Winter Solstice on a bright clear day. When, after my conviction, it was discovered he had turned in a computer disc for the time he stopped me, he was afforded the opportunity and means to forge a video “pasting” my stop (with a long, dark/black shadow on my car) into a phony background reshot months later with obviously shorter/higher, fuzzy gray sun-shadow angles on the passing traffic and an overcast sky (the NOAA weather satellite data shows a clear sky during the period of the stop – hence my black shadows – and the felonious officer failed to delete a portion of the video which shows the true sky picture: bright, clear, blue sky).

Remanded to the trial court from the Court of Appeals, I can’t get a member of the bar to take the case (one wanted $10K, said he’d like to nail the specific officer, but wouldn’t look at the forged video for less than $300) even though our nation’s top video tampering expert has provided his analysis that the video, with a file bit rate different than that generated by the police car equipment, was created in an authoring program – a “de facto” violation of the CCPD audio/visual evidence protocol.

We have a problem, America. Google: “police video tamper”. They do it all the time.

Fortunately the officer, then a 14-year veteran, is from out-of-state, but this is an outgrowth of bad leadership from the phony-Silver Star fake man Mickey Lloyd (who also fortunately isn’t from around here), the bad officer’s boss at the time.

What can we expect letting all the Vietnam draft-dodgers of the Boomer Generation become our political leadership? Birds of feather flock together. Cowardly manipulative politicians in service to the corrupt rich overseeing fake men/steroidal bully boys trampling on the rights of citizens to make themselves seem “macho.”

This “officer” (and I’m sure the in-car mic picked it up) asked me (then 58yo w/ “VET” on my license) from the front of the police car after he’d taken me into custody “Do you want to start crying so I’ll go easier on you?” This is the mark of some kind of deviant dressing up in a badge and uniform trying to act like a man…not the personality profile Georgians need working with a gun as police officers. Service to the People should be a noble calling, not an outlet and paycheck for pervert felons.

Georgia lawyers, and those who know them, are here discussing what’s right and wrong in Indiana. If one is interested in pursuing justice and establishing righteousness in Georgia, your wisdom, guidance, case law cite, or help would be greatly appreciated: please e-mail me at tjwhig@gmail.com if the Spirit moves you.

Stay Out of My Home

May 18th, 2011
1:10 pm

@ Very Very

“Because of terrorism, we need to be able to “bin laden” a home now and then when the national security is at stake.”

It will not be long before ‘national security’ allows any cop to go into any home and check out your sock drawer. Cops invade the wrong home by mistake often and typically end up killing someone innocent. That’s just the type of police state that I don’t want to live in.

Google no knock drug warrant deaths to see just how ‘not’ rare these events are.

Would you allow that terrible noisy neighbor of your to go into your home and look around for ‘national security’? Then why do you let him when he wears a uniform?

PMC

May 18th, 2011
1:11 pm

It’s not constitutional. It will be struck down.

PMC

May 18th, 2011
1:17 pm

All this said, in regards to this case, if I was the policemen in question. I’d have acted in exactly the same manner.

Tom

May 18th, 2011
2:27 pm

Ok, let’s be sensible for a moment. Two people(man and woman) in a heated argument outside of apt, police get call about domestic dispute. Officers arrive and speak with man outside apt who says everything is ok, apparently woman is back inside apt for whatever reason. Officers want to find out if woman is ok or not(may be hurt or killed inside apt), man refuses to allow entry to check on woman. Sends a red flag to me that something has happened to woman inside apt, I believe it is their duty to make sure she is ok and not harmed or injuried. You cannot wait for warrant in this type situation. Bob Barr(lawyer) has a way of twisting things around as most lawyers do! Makes me think of what an older cop told me once, “what do you call 2 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, a good start”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Retired cop

Keith

May 18th, 2011
4:04 pm

Tom: both residents told the cops to leave. To avoid violence all the cops have to do is get a proper warrant. I’m shooting first if ANYBODY is busting down my door. No matter the court ruling, no-knocks are unconstitutional and should be resisted.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

May 18th, 2011
4:38 pm

Entering the apartment accomplishes nothing if both the man and woman have said no threat of abuse or violence is present. The police officer chose to assert his power, believing he needed to “save face” in the presence of likely witnesses or neighbors.

It’s a tough call on his part, but if both of the dysfunctional couple told him they were just being themselves, his humility and nobility should guide him…away. He’s exonerated if he leaves, whether he gets a warrant or makes a report to some social service agency is his potential waste of time.

“That government governs best which governs least.”

It is we who must elect citizens of integrity who understand American Exceptionalism – first in history to establish individual sovereignty, rather than the gulls and cons now serving fascist plutocracy, which, in part through police authorities, must reduce the People to justify, in their minds, the crimes which have gained them such disproportionate, unnecessary, and graceless wealth. Nothing is worse for the corrupt rich than to have a Middle/Working class person present acting as if no one is his or her better as de Tocqueville reported…like an American should.

The justices of the Indiana court are serving the corrupt rich, not the People: just like the Supreme Court’s majority bloc.

Are Egyptians better Americans than we are?

Jeb

May 18th, 2011
4:44 pm

The new Republican proposal allows only for this type of entry if the home is owned or occuppied by a minority.