Rights? What Rights?

A court has ruled that the fourth amendment does not apply to law enforcement people — anyone who is a member of the blue light gang is allowed to enter any premise they want, at any time, and you are not allowed to resist them, or you can be jailed or killed.

From the historical archives:

Amendment IV

The 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.

The Indiana Supreme court has decided today that this rule does not apply to, in their words, the “modern Fourth Amendment.”

So in the US state of Indiana, according to the justice system there, any policeman can enter any house at any time. If you make any attempt to stop them for any reason, YOU have broken the law. Someone explain to me again how in the world you can even think for a minute that you live in a free country.

Maybe I should become a police officer so I can have lots of extra power and rights that regular people don’t have.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

13 Responses to “Rights? What Rights?”

  1. Eoj Trahneir says:

    I hear it is happening like that in Az as well.

  2. Big Dog says:

    You are absolutely correct. The courts have gone hog wild in removing our rights. If I don’t want the police in my home they are not coming in my home. If they have a warrant then I will let them in.

    No warrant, no entry. I will shut the door and if they enter they are trespassing.

  3. Blake says:

    I am kinda surprised here- this court must be full of liberal holdovers from the past.
    Hey court- get a clue- there is no MODERN fourth amendment, just the same old fourth amendment we have always had.

    • Adam says:

      Actually for the record: the court is 3 to 2 made up of appointments by GOP governors and 2 of the 3 in favor are GOP appointments. Of the 2 dissenting opinions it’s made up of 1 GOP appointment and 1 DEM appointment. Being appointed by a DEM or a GOP doesn’t imply the person is necessarily liberal and conservative but it’s a fair bet to say to which side the appointment leans.

      • Big Dog says:

        It has to matter a lot or we would not have such a circus every time a person is nominated for the SCOTUS

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        “Being appointed by a DEM or a GOP doesn’t imply the person is necessarily liberal and conservative but it’s a fair bet to say to which side the appointment leans.”
        Spoken like a true liberal, from both sides of your face.
        The fact is, there are more liberal “Our job is to interpret the Constitution” judges than “This IS the Constitution, and it is law,” conservative judges. By 2 to 1.

        It is obvious; look at what they are doing. What they do speaks clearly, but who appointed them is meaningless.

        The Supreme Court, proof that liberals should not be placed in positions of power.

  4. Adam says:

    It’s should be clear to anyone who has read Ogre’s work here that you can elevate the definition of freedom to such a level that everything appears to be tyranny after that. That being said, I agree with the dissenting justices in this case.

    This is a case where a man fled police by entering his home and when confronted attacked the police. The dissenters in the case say it’s understandable to rule against such actions in cases like this (basically fleeing into the safety of your home to avoid arrest) but that the decision was much too broad and has greatly eroded these rights in the state.

    • Big Dog says:

      If the guy fled into his home and the police entered then they did not violate his rights. They are allowed to pursue a fleeing criminal. The dissenters said that if it had been narrowed to only in domestic violence cases they would have supported it. However, this still leaves the door open (pun intended) for abuse by police officers who are called to a suspected DV incident but find nothing. If they then enter a home they are violating the Constitution. If there is a fight in progress or it is evident that one has taken place then they must weigh safety against possibly violating rights especially if nothing is found.

      This ruling leaves it far to open for abuse and tells the public to let the cops violate your rights and then take it up in court. That is not how it works. Unless there is a reason to enter then they need a warrant. If the guy was fleeing then he could be pursued but this does not look like it was the case. Reports are often unreliable but things do not add up. If it was as you report then why did the court not throw it out based on the probable cause of catching a fleeing law breaker? And did he attack the police or defend his rights?

      Ogre is right that it takes constant chipping away for rights to vanish and it is just as important to be constantly vigilant to keep that from happening. This court dealt the rights of citizens a serious blow.

      • Adam says:

        “If the guy fled into his home and the police entered then they did not violate his rights.”

        You are correct. Looking back over the ruling it’s clear my description was not quite accurate but what I meant was that the ruling dealt with that broader scenarios as they closely matched the incident in question.

        “And did he attack the police or defend his rights?”

        That was one question raised by the appeal. The court felt 3 to 2 that he was not within his rights to attack the police officer so they felt no need to decide whether the trial was correct to deny the defendant the right to state to the jury that he was within his rights.

        “This court dealt the rights of citizens a serious blow.”

        I don’t know if I’d call it a serious blow but it’s not that great and I think the term erosion applies correctly here.

        • Big Dog says:

          They felt he was not within his right because he was committing a crime or because he had no right to defend his home? This is unclear to me. The entire ruling seems to say that even if the police are absolutely wrong you have no right to confront them and that is never going to happen at my house. If there is no crime in progress then they are not coming in unless I want them too.

          • Adam says:

            “The entire ruling seems to say that even if the police are absolutely wrong you have no right to confront them and that is never going to happen at my house.”

            It does indeed. It argues we now have multiple avenues to respond to unconstitutional police action that didn’t exist when the common law precedents were set in the US so we don’t need the same level of protection that we once had. I agree with the dissenting opinion in the ruling that says those avenues routinely fail and can’t be counted on. Furthermore I think a state shouldn’t set a precedent that says the burden is on the average citizen to protect themselves against police instead of the burden being on trained police officers to understand their own boundaries and the rights of the people. This could eventually make it to the SCOTUS where it would be smacked down right away.

            • Blake says:

              You know, for once, I agree with you, in the narrow sense that this case represented- I also believe that this decision COULD BE erosive, depending on the ideology of who is doing the ruling.

          • Ogre says:

            Big Dog — yes, your interpretation is correct. In the case, the court did not question the fact that the police had no right to enter the man’s house. The court freely admitted that the police were entering his house without warrant, probable cause, or justifiable reason. The police were very clearly trespassing, and the court admitted as much.

            What the ruling said was that you absolutely cannot resist the police, even when the police are openly breaking the law. The court says that you’re supposed to deal with the lawbreaking later, through the courts only. Basically, the court said that the people have fourth amendment protections against the government, but the people cannot enforce those protections, only government can. Yeah, it makes sense only in an Orwellian world.

            As for your personal actions, be prepared. And realize that if that is your intended action you WILL be punished, no matter what. If you attempt to stop police from doing anything, even anything illegal, they can and will use as much force as they want, up to killing you. I’m not saying you shouldn’t stand up for your rights — just beware that in this case you are highly likely to either be dead or beaten and in jail — and the IL Supreme Court says that’s fine with them.