I have just one thing to say to the Indiana Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court, and that is:
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.
“Unlawful” is unlawful, and “unlawful” under the color of the law is especially bad.
The good news is that I do not live in Indiana or Kentucky so I am not bound by any rulings in those states, and while I might have hoped that this blatantly unconstitutional “legislating from the bench” in Indiana might be overruled by higher scrutiny, apparently the Kentucky case dashed those hopes all over the Constitution. Regardless, if I did live in those states, and someone was attempting to unlawfully gain access to my house while wearing a get-up that might resemble a police officer’s uniform… well, my response would remain the same as it always has been.
(More here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Suffice to say, we “average” citizens are less than impressed with the output of our legal system’s “higher” minds.)
It gets even worse!
Did you see this?
They had no warrant, the guy refused to let them in and said they needed a warrant, and they kicked down the door and shot him in the chest.
This was in Colorado, where they had yet to annul the 4th amendment by judicial fiat.
Supposedly, anyway. Maybe all those people talking about the burgeoning police state are onto something.
Suddenly, the “Come back with a warrant” welcome mat doesn’t look so humorous….
The problem is the 4th has that waffle word… “unreasonable“
@ wfgodbold: Rage initiated. Post scheduled for tomorrow morning. Thanks for the info. At least those thugs are facing criminal charges – though, sadly, not the most appropriate ones.
If it’s true that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, then this twit either is a terrible prosecutor, or he wasn’t really trying. I know which one I think it was.
[...] wfgodbold, in a comment at Walls of the City, linking to Random Nuclear Strikes) from → Civil Rights, Cowards, [...]
Interestingly enough, the county sheriff who supposedly said this was an excellent ruling because it opens the door for him to do more searches is based in the town (Kentland, in Newton Co.) where I work.
I had a conversation with him a few years back when I applied for my non-resident Indiana concealed carry permit. He was unaware that IL residents may apply for a license if they work full time in IN, but he called the INSP office in Indianapolis for confirmation of the law. He gave me no problems throughout the process.
Over the weekend I read a newspaper article saying that he never said those things, and that the county prosecutor vowed that this would never happen so long as he was in office, for whatever that is worth.
I may yet call him and find out exactly what he said and what his opinions are on the subject.
alcade wrote:
I would love it if you could do that. As I noted when I posted about his supposed statement, “the story I linked to seems to be the only source I can find, and does not contain any actual quotes from the sheriff in question. [...] Secondly, the story I linked to seems to be both the original source, and the only source – everything else I have found links back to that story. No other news outlets – local, mainstream, or otherwise – seem to have anything on this. It is not independently verifiable.”
This is such a serious matter, and such a damning accusation, that I must hesitate to believe it without either hearing a recording of those words coming out of his mouth, or reading an actual quote that can be verified by a second and independent source.
The media lies so often that I’ve come to expect them to lie if doing so meets their goals. I would love to see some sort of independent verification.
@ wfgodbold: I have been waiting to comment on that, desperately hoping that some kind of rational, believable, reasonable explanation would be forthcoming… Unfortunately, those hopes appear to have been in vain, and I will probably be forced into writing a very… angry… post in the near future.
@ Rustmeister: Apparently it would just be used as a shooting rest as they blast into your house…
@ John Hardin: And, predictably, the common definition of that word has significantly degraded over the years…
@ Jake: Unfortunately, the growing trend is that police get off from those kinds of charges, no matter how serious their particular crimes might be… Whereas if an “average” American were to do such a thing (or anything even close), they would be up on charges faster than their little heads could spin…
As for the radio show, I, too, will be interested to see if the actual transcript of the conversation ever comes out… People hear different things, and do not always remember what it is they are saying, and while I can certainly believe a police officer saying such a thing, independent verification would be beneficial.
@ alcade: Considering the reports that are coming out about him, a phone call to him might prove to be useful…