I cannot believe that amount of damage which the government has done to one of the most important documents ever written to establish a government system. The US Constitution has been the standard bearer of democracy and it lays out 'unalienable rights' which are granted by the Creator to every citizen of the United States. But since the Constitution has many provisions which guard the rights of citizens, the government in its attempt to be all-powerful, has begun to revoke some of the rights which were granted by the constitution.
One of these rights is the right to resist unlawful searches and seizures. The Constitution guarantees Americans that they have a right to privacy and from unlawful searches and seizures. In order for the police to search a house it must procure a Search Warrant which establishes 'reasonable cause' to believe that the site being searched contains evidence of a crime. The 'Search Warrant' is a valid protection of a citizens rights and prevents the police department from doing blanket searches and in the process violating many citizens civil rights...
But today we read that the Constitutionally protected freedom from unlawful searches and seizures has been revoked by the Indiana Supreme Court. This is a very bad step in the wrong direction. One step towards a police state where there is no right of a citizen to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.htmlCourt: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, 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.
"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," David said. "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."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
Topic: US Constitution Continues to be Destroyed (Read 486 times)