November 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

Indiana Supreme Court says your home belongs to government enforcement officers

So if you live in Indiana, you’ll want to keep the pantry stocked with plenty of donuts.

Wouldn’t want to piss off your new housemates, should they decide to drop in.

(h/t Rush Limbaugh and zamoose)

****
update: Chris Muir’s take.

30 Replies to “Indiana Supreme Court says your home belongs to government enforcement officers”

Joe says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:02 am

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/05/16/#006103

This goes well with this thread.
cranky-d says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:09 am

We’re from the government and we’re here to help ourselves to your snacks. Do you have any Cheetos?
geoffb says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:09 am

Also written up here.
agile_dog says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:23 am

and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence

Well, when “modern” = “progressive”, maybe. For the rest of us, not so much.
cranky-d says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:27 am

Warrants? We don’t need no stinking warrants.
Stephanie says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:30 am

Tis only a short walk from here to the government doing ‘home checks’ for baby proofing, gun safety and other assorted wet dreams of the statists to make sure you don’t do something deemed too difficult for you to discern might be a ‘bad idea.’

Between this and the assault on free speech, won’t be long til they outlaw the siren call of flyover country – ‘Hold my beer and watch this!!!’
Bob Reed says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:33 am

Pesky 4th amendment, who really believed in it anyway…

This won’t work out well for Mitch the Knife; especially considering that the Indiana legislature wanted to scrap the system that selected the “swing” vote on the panel of judges in this particular instance.

For instance, he is an outspoken supporter of Indiana’s version of the Missouri Plan, the so-called “merit” selection system for selecting judges that requires the governor to select from a panel of judicial nominees chosen by a commission dominated by lawyers. (I prefer to call it the “merit deception” plan.) In 2009, after overwhelming majorities of the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation scrapping that system in northern Indiana’s St. Joseph County, Governor Daniels vetoed the legislation. But apparently it wasn’t enough to veto legislation that conservative legislators in other states would have been thrilled to pass. In his veto message, Governor Daniels had to praise the system:

The current method of selecting judges for the St. Joseph Superior Court has prevailed successfully for 35 years. It is a model to be emulated, not discarded. It is not broken; it requires no repair. It has produced outstanding jurists and contains sufficient measures of public accountability. I believe it neither necessary nor wise to re-politicize the courts of St. Joseph County.

Interesting talking points. They sound remarkably similar to the talking points the Left’s legal arm — through groups like the ABA and the Soros-funded Justice at Stake — has been using to attack conservatives who support Missouri Plan reforms in other states. If Daniels had been wearing his wonk hat that day, he would have realized that he was praising a form of judicial selection designed by Progressive Era lawyers who wanted “experts” to engineer every aspect of American life. By vetoing that legislation, and using those talking points, he carried water for a dangerous and extremely well-funded coalition of special-interest groups who would like our courts to be captured by liberal judicial activists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/247215/mitch-s-merit-gary-marx

It’s far more desireable to allow our betters to select who should be nominated to the court instead of someone who has to answer to the people via those nasty elections…

LEAVE MITCH ALOOOOOOOOOOOONE!
cranky-d says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:37 am

Presumably this will go the the Supreme Court, and presumably it will be overturned. Still, it’s chilling.
Stephanie says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:42 am

It will only go to the US Supremes if the Indiana SC ruling is deemed to be contra the US constitution as the Indiana SC has final say on Indiana jurisprudence. Do you really think, in this climate of statism and living documents, that is gonna be deemed to have happened?
Bob Reed says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:50 am

I’m hoping that this will go to, and be overturned by, the SCOTUS. It’s so breathtakingly unconstitutional that it must be.
LTC John says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:51 am

I think it will make it to US SCT soon – how they rule depends on how narrowly the question gets framed.
JD says:

May 16, 2011 at 11:59 am

Fuckers, they are.
Squid says:

May 16, 2011 at 12:09 pm

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.

Get that? Allowing resistance would elevate the risk of injury. Allowing unlawful invasions, on the other hand, would appear to be just ducky.

Go ahead — let armed men force their way into your home! What’s the worst that could happen?
Bob Reed says:

May 16, 2011 at 12:14 pm

JD, you have standing as a Hoosier; bring suit against the state! :)

I would have never thought this possible in Indiana of all places. NY, CA, maybe.
Stephanie says:

May 16, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Once someone, anyone, announces they are police you must let them in – no allowance to see badges or warrants. Unbelievable! A knock on the door of any one of these dunces by a few ‘police’ should cure them of their stupidity. Or not. They’d probably hand over the silver and excuse them for being poor and forced into crime by the evil tax cuts for the wealthy.
bh says:

May 16, 2011 at 12:28 pm

It’s far more desireable to allow our betters to select who should be nominated to the court instead of someone who has to answer to the people via those nasty elections…

This is my fundamental problem with the Missouri Plan. It leaves the people no real recourse. No matter to what degree we feel the judiciary should be distinct from direct democracy (whether by their long terms after election or by having our executive representatives appointing them), this is not a tempering of direct democracy, it stands in opposition.

LEAVE MITCH ALOOOOOOOOOOOONE!

In regards to all the bullshit charges? Sure. In regards to this? He supports the system. Says he sees no defect and thinks it is to be emulated. In my book, it’s his greatest failing.

(Yes, I know you’re being sarcastic. I, on the other hand, am not being sarcastic when I refer to the remarkable number of bullshit charges I’ve been coming across.)
Bob Reed says:

May 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm

I agree that it is a big strike bh, all the rest is rhetoric; this is action. The people should indirectly effect the choices any politician makes for supreme court justices, at the state and federal level. That or there should be some method to impeach them as well.

I’m glad you appreciated my sarcasm. I was actually shamelessly using a line Ernst used a few months ago.
geoffb says:

May 16, 2011 at 1:21 pm

A couple of links to this being discussed at “Indiana Law Blog”.

My objection is to the placing the burden upon the homeowner to determine, in a split second, in the middle of the night, precisely who is breaking down the door to the house. This ruling along with a previous one in which,

Tuesday, the court voted 5-0 to allow warrantless entry into homes, where before there had to be some probable cause to enter a private residence.

will make the decision to defend your home from the violent entry of strangers much more complex even in the daytime much less at 4am.
newrouter says:

May 16, 2011 at 1:29 pm

sounds like grounds for impeachment for the lot of them
mojo says:

May 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm

If SWAT is busting down your door, your chances of surviving the experience is already below 50/50. Trigger happy bastards, they are.

So what the f*ck, right? Taking a couple of honor guards with you on the way to hell might not sound that bad, in the middle of the night, with armed goons stomping around.

What are they gonna do, sue your corpse?
Joe says:

May 16, 2011 at 7:44 pm

Mitch Daniels whould not be the first Republican burned by a judicial pick. I am more interested in what Mitch’s reaction is to this Indiana ruling.

And that was not the only legal news today. It is a sad day when I support Ruth Bader over the rest of the United States Supreme Court. She was right, we do not want to give cops more power to knock in doors when they suspect something.
newrouter says:

May 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm

“when I support Ruth Bader over the rest of the United States Supreme Court. ”

yes. effin drug war idioits. “they smelled pot?” yea kick the door down. ’cause we got union police to pay off.
JD says:

May 17, 2011 at 7:27 am

How would I do that, Bob?
Entropy says:

May 17, 2011 at 7:35 am

It will only go to the US Supremes if the Indiana SC ruling is deemed to be contra the US constitution

It is, via the 14th or whatever.

Do you really think, in this climate of statism and living documents, that is gonna be deemed to have happened?

Well…. No.
Entropy says:

May 17, 2011 at 7:36 am

“they smelled pot?” yea kick the door down.

Don’t forget to shoot the family dog in front of the children.
Entropy says:

May 17, 2011 at 7:38 am

Grandma has glaucoma and an attack shitzu better call SWAT and get the snipers on the neighbors roof.
Entropy says:

May 17, 2011 at 7:41 am

Bonus, we’re going to let Shaquille O’Neil raid your underwear drawer cause he’s famous or something.

Super super uber dangerous drug raid requires paramilitary tactics to enforce safely! Super super uber dangerous drug raid is fine to take celebrities on and film for TV entertainment though.

Except if we fuck if it up. Then we have to supress the video of us kicking in the door 2 numbers down and shooting an innocent man to death in is own home.

Won’t see that on COPS.
Entropy says:

May 17, 2011 at 7:53 am

allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence

Is that like unhelpfully escalating the level of violence?
geoffb says:

May 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm

A discussion of this at Volokh which has some interesting information on the case and some good comments as to the judgement.

In this case, the officer had come to the home in response to a domestic violence call. He found the defendant, Barnes, outside. The officer and the defendant exchanged heated words, and the defendant started yelling at the officer. The officer threatened to arrest the defendant if he didn’t calm down, and the defendant threatened to have the officer arrested if he arrested him. At this point the defendant’s wife came outside, threw a duffel bag in the defendant’s direction, and told him to take the rest of his stuff. She then went back inside the home. The defendant then reentered the home following his wife, but once inside he blocked the officer (and another officer) from entering. The officers asked if they could enter the home, and the defendant’s wife pleaded with the defendant to let them enter. The defendant refused. The police then entered anyway, and the defendant “shoved [an officer] against the wall.” The officers then tazed the defendant and arrested him.
[…]
At trial, he wanted to argue to the jury that it was lawful to shove the officer because he had a citizen’s right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into his home. He sought the following jury instruction:

When an arrest is attempted by means of a forceful and unlawful entry into a citizen‘s home, such entry represents the use of excessive force, and the arrest cannot be considered peaceable. Therefore, a citizen has the right to reasonably resist the unlawful entry.

The trial judge refused to let the defendant make that argument to the jury.
geoffb says:

May 17, 2011 at 9:36 pm

Also connected.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department will release no more information about the circumstances surrounding the killing of Jose Guerena during the serving of a search warrant by the department’s SWAT officers May 5 at his home.
[…]
On May 5, five members of the SWAT team fired 71 shots at Guerena while serving a search warrant at the 7100 block of South Redwater Drive. He was shot 60 times.

The 26-year-old former Marine was sleeping at about 9:30 a.m. after working the graveyard shift at Asarco’s Mission Mine when his wife woke him saying she heard noises outside and saw a man was at their window. Guerena told his wife to hide in a closet with their 4-year-old son, his wife said. He grabbed an AR-15 rifle and moments later was slumped in the kitchen, mortally wounded from a hail of gunfire.

Guerena did not fire a shot and his gun had the safety on, deputies said, after initially saying he had fired on the SWAT officers.