Indiana Supreme Court rules no right to block illegal police entry into home

This is my fear as well.

Cop sees some black teens hanging out in the driveway doing nothing wrong. Cop decided to hassle them and go inside. Rummages around, finds a baggie of pot. Arrests them and states in his report that he never went inside and “smelled weed”. Officer bob’s word against theirs who wins?

As a Hoosier, this is one bad ruling. Poor and working class people cannot afford lawyers’ fees to recover any property seized in an illegal raid. I suspect the cops and the jackasses in this state’s power structure know this and are perfectly happy with it.

Re the Newton County sheriff: That doesn’t surprise me in the least. Newton County is the biggest goddamn speed trap in this state. I hope the poor people in that county can move elsewhere; else they’ll find the sherrif is confiscating anything they have that is worth anything.

  1. Go to the police station.
  2. Ask for your property back.

If that doesn’t work:

  1. Go to the courthouse.
  2. Ask the court to order the police to give you your property back.

There’s no magic lawyer spell involved. If it’s your stuff and it isn’t contraband, demand to have it returned.

As for this particular case, I’m generally in agreement with Martin Hyde. It’s not usually obvious that police entry into a home was unreasonable. It’s for a judge to decide.

MOIDALIZE: I live in this benighted state (hopefully for not much longer) and I can tell you it ain’t going to work that way in a lot of the rural counties. If the police and the judge want to harass you, you are going to have to get a lawyer to defend your rights. Also, the judges in this state favor the police.
Many rural people don’t know much about the Constitution, they don’t know much about their rights, and they often are stupid and/or ignorant enough to believe anything the police tell them. Due to my rebellious nature and the fact that I worked 15 years as a reporter, I’ve met a lot of Hoosier police. The majority of them, especially the state boys, are good cops, but the rest of them are worthless badge-flashers who will use this ruling as an excuse to fuck with someone. I have no concerns about the Indiana State Police, but I can name you towns and counties where I would be greatly worried by this if I had any enemies among the local police.

One of the great things about America is the right to be safe in your home. And to know the State can’t just take your shit. Or some stranger (an agent of the state) can’t come into your home with out evidence of a crime and a sober sane Judge putting it into writing.

Freedom isn’t removed in one fell swoop. It’s slowly whittled away, a little bit at a time.

Yes, I’m aware that courts have upheld no-knock warrants in the past, and that they’re considered standard practice in some circumstances. I also think that’s a terrible idea. This is just making that already terrible idea one incremental small step worse.

Quoth Cheesesteak:

If a guy in uniform shows up at my door, shows me a badge, and shows me a document that looks (so far as I can tell) like a search warrant, then it’s reasonable for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it’s possible that a criminal might try such a ploy to gain access to the house, but it’d be awfully risky for him, since impersonating a police officer is itself a crime, and so he’s risking arrest and prosecution before he even steps on my front porch. On the other hand, if a guy shows up at my house and immediately proceeds to kick down the door, I don’t have any basis on which to make a reasonable assessment that he’s a police officer, and so it’s appropriate for me to react the same way I’d react to anyone else kicking down my front door.

Well, either the sheriff has not read the opinion, or has read it and profoundly misunderstands it. This opinion does not permit him or any member of law enforcement to perform random house to house searches. As I said previously, this decision does not render as legal that which is illegal and at the time of the decision forbidden by the 4th Amendment, such as random house to house searches.

Well, if criminal charges are filed, and they cannot afford a lawyer, they will be provided with a public defender who can litigate those claims on their behalf. If no criminal charges are filed, an attorney is not needed to file a motion for return of property and an order for return of property.

No I think he understands it perfectly. While he isn’t permitted to do something he is now not restricted from doing it either. It’s created a gray area loophole that needs only be filled by a Cop’s word against the homeowner.

And even though supposedly nothing found by an illegal search is admissable in court, I’ll bet that clever prosecutors will find ways to lever in the results of such searches. Or if nothing else, the knowledge gained by illegal searches will give the police clues to “discover” evidence they wouldn’t have known about otherwise.

Cue Tony Hancock

I find this ruling troubling. Police have (and require) enormous power and require (and don’t always have) commensurate accountability. This gives them a little more power and a little less accountability.

Or the author of the article has misrepresented the sheriff’s position. When the author of a news story uses such phrases as “…When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans…” and “…directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. …” we can form certain conclusions as to the author’s bias and professionalism.

The article itself is quite poorly written, another factor in doubting the accuracy of its claims.

NotreDame05 is absolutely correct.

This is not correct.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held warrantless entries into homes, absent exigent circumstances or consent, is forbidden by both the 4th Amendment. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). So, contrary to your statement “he is now not restricted from doing [it] (it being random house to house searches)” is incorrect. Random house to house entries and searches is presently precluded under the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore, as I stated previously, the Indiana Supreme Court case did not do away with the warrant requirement of law enforcement obtaining a warrant to enter a home. Neither did the Indiana Supreme Court dispense with the doctrine of the existence of exigent circumstances to enter a home without a warrant, or the notion a warrantless entry into a home is unlawful when it cannot be justified by consent or exigent circumstances.

As a result, there isn’t any “greay area loophole” this opinion created.

Not familiar with the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine?

This is because you’re a reasonable person who trusts the police and doesn’t have a stash of cocaine under his bed. The police have to deal with people who don’t trust the police and know they have something incriminating for the police to find. They would be emboldened to claim that there is fraud, or that the warrant is improper, or any other reason to suggest that the police are not legally allowed entrance.

There are also situations where the police are expressly allowed to enter without a warrant, if they claim one of those situations is in play, you might trust them, many others would not.

I simply think the time to determine legality is after the fact, not during the entry, where emotions are running high and violence is a likely outcome.

Wow, this article really is garbage. Seriously, you conduct a telephone interview with the Sheriff and can’t provide even one quote?

Not that I don’t doubt a Sheriff could have said something this stupid, but you can’t make a wild claim like this, off of an interview, and not include quotes from the interview.

In the magical legal world where everybody toes the line and never ever does anything untoward you are perfectly correct. In the real world this means a private citizen has absolutely no recourse to stop a policeman from invading his home. I should not have to hire a lawyer and sue the policeman for breaking into my home without a warrant. All a cop has to do is claim “exigent circumstances” and he would be good to go, but at least I could still resist. Now I have to simply sit there and take it if they decide to randomly search my home. How would I prove that their claim of “Hearing a noise” or “smelling weed” or anything else was false?

“knock, knock” Hello sir it’s the police can we come in?
“What for?”
“We think there might be a criminal around.”
“No I don’t think so.”
Sorry sir but we are coming in anyway."
“Do you have a warrant? If not I’m closing this door.”
“No.” (Kicks in the door anyway) “Sit down with your hands on your head sir.” (Pulls gun)
(Other cop rifles through my things and pockets the cash in my wallet and takes my computer as “evidence”)

They cover up by trumping up some imaginary charge, write the report accordingly and keep the computer.

How exactly would I prove them guilty?

How exactly does this decision give them any more power at all? How does this decision give them any less accountability?

Have you actually read the opinion and thought this through? This opinion does ot give “any” more power to law enforcement and it does not make them “any” less accountable.

I fail to see how, in your mind, resisting law enforcement leads to the conclusion of holding them “accountable.”

I’m a bit late to the party, and all I had heard about the ruling was from blurbs on the radio and, now, this thread. From the rhetoric here, I expected a paramilitary operation, no knock warrant justified by lies and the beating to death of a priest, his bed ridden grandmother, and a newborn puppy. Then the court, with moustaches a-twirling, rules that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply in Indiana, and that people can’t just get in the way, but they must allow the police to break at least one bone and anally rape their cat. That’s the expectations I had from the rhetoric here.

And then, I actually read a bit of the opinion.

Suffice it to say that I’m not too worried that guys who want to stop the police from investigating a domestic abuse report with the woman begging him to let the police enter isn’t allowed a jury instruction that says he can stop them.

Acid Lamp, I think the point is to eliminate the whole kicking down the door and pulling a gun on you part of the encounter. Do you actually believe that you would be able to successfully resist the police entering your home? I don’t, unless you’re going to pull your own gun, at which point we’re looking at somebody leaving the scene in a body bag, and I don’t like your odds.

If you could successfully resist their entry, I believe that you would be able to do so simply by declaring non-consent to a search. If they’ve decided to enter without your consent, putting hands on them isn’t going to stop them, it’s just going to make the situation far more dangerous.