fourth amendment, where'd you go?

[OCGuy]

If you are going so far as to issue a no-knock warrant, I am willing to bet that the guy you are investigating is armed, even if he does not have a firearm registered to his name.

Nope. ICE just no-knocked a suspected child porn host in NY recently....scared the crap out of the guy. Turns out it was the neighbor kid accessing his router.


Things never turn out how they are supposed to. That guy could have lost his life for no reason.

 

[spidey07]

now, now.

spidey has yet to comment.

Shitty ruling is shitty.

 

[DrPizza]

That is seriously fucked up. So cops can simply go anywhere they want and nobody can stop them? Warrants and due process be damned?

So, what's stopping the cops from going anywhere they want? The court system.

I'm almost amazed at how no one seems to be using any common sense here. All the ruling says is that you can't beat up a cop for making a mistake. If a cop makes a mistake, you take it through the court system. Common sense ought to say "if the cop makes a mistake, don't fight back, because the cop is suppose to be trained to be capable of escalating the situation so that he wins." All the court seems to be doing is affirming common sense.

I challenge anyone to come up with a plausible example of how the police could use this to their advantage. If they barge in without a warrant, and should have known that a warrant would have been required, then they're going to lose a very easy lawsuit that even a graduate of the "Hollywood Upstairs Law School" could win.

 

[Fern]

Nowhere in the Constitution are you prohibited OR permitted to physically resist. The Constitution is silent on the issue, as it is with every possible remedy for violations of the 4th Amendment. Hence, it is for legislators and courts to decide, UNLESS you subscribe to the notion of reading things into the Constitution that aren't there. Note how this argument has been framed: not that disallowing this is merely wrong, but that it violates the 4th Amendment. Does it really? Which part?

- wolf

I don't believe the Constitution is silent at all. The constitution describes the powers the federal government has, and the rest are ours (and the states).

Ours need not be listed out.

It has to do with the construction of the Constitution itself. Some of the FF were worried that a view you describe might take over. I.e., what's not specifically mentioned as a right to us may be denied as a right to us.

But it works the opposite. If it's not specifically denied us (e.g., we have no right to impose taxes, that's reserved for government), or inferentially denied us (e.g., can't kill whom we please because it denies their right), then the right os ours.

Moreover, I find that this ruling just means that we will have no right to the 4th, instead they are working out a way to compensate us for the loss of that right.

You don't have a right if you don't have the ability to defend it. An example would be the right to live. What does it really mean if the state is able to take my right to life, but then they describe how I will be compensated for it's loss?

What good does it do me? I'm dead. I really did not have that right, they're unilaterally taking it and deciding how much they will pay (or my heirs) for confiscation of said right.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I really dont wanna go to jail as a cop killer.
On the other hand, if I were a rapist I should think wearing a uniform would be the perfect method to get in without resistance.

Funny you should imagine that.

I lived in Miami when the Marielitos came over form Cuba. (They were criminals and other people Castro wanted out of Cuba). They quickly developed a criminal tactic where they would counterfiet police unforms and then do home invasion robberies dressed as police etc.

I.e., it's already been done.

Fern

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Holy fuck.

Is Indiana a castle state?

And if so, would a resident be justified in capping a police officer that bursts into their home unannounced and unlawfully?

:hmm:

Except that the ISC just ruled that any police entry is lawful? So capping the cop might not go so well. At least for now anyway... someone is going to have to take this to the USSC to bring the ISC back into reality.

I think even a kid in 5th grade social studies would tell you this ruling is complete BS.

 

[zinfamous]

Shitty ruling is shitty.

OK, I'm satisfied.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't believe the Constitution is silent at all. The constitution describes the powers the federal government has, and the rest are ours (and the states).

Ours need not be listed out.

It has to do with the construction of the Constitution itself. Some of the FF were worried that a view you describe might take over. I.e., what's not specifically mentioned as a right to us may be denied as a right to us.

But it works the opposite. If it's not specifically denied us (e.g., we have no right to impose taxes, that's reserved for government), or inferentially denied us (e.g., can't kill whom we please because it denies their right), then the right os ours.

Moreover, I find that this ruling just means that we will have no right to the 4th, instead they are working out a way to compensate us for the loss of that right.

You don't have a right if you don't have the ability to defend it. An example would be the right to live. What does it really mean if the state is able to take my right to life, but then they describe how I will be compensated for it's loss?

What good does it do me? I'm dead. I really did not have that right, they're unilaterally taking it and deciding how much they will pay (or my heirs) for confiscation of said right.

Fern

You have made a couple of points here.

The first is legally incoherent and amounts to a essentially a non sequittur. Powers and rights are not the same thing. The implication of what you argue is that because the Constitution doesn't grant the "power" to resist the police to the federal government, that power rests with the people... Even if we are talking of "powers" here, which we're not, per the 10th Amendment, the states can take whatever powers are not granted the federal government. At issue here was a state law, after all. In any event, what we're discussing has nothing to do with enumerated powers. It has to do with protected rights.

Your second point is coherent and at least has a valid premise. You claim without the ability to physically resist the intrusion, you have no "right," and that the existing remedies are just ways to compensate you for the loss of the right. I think that's rather debatable, as it depends on what the 4th amendment was intended to protect. Is it a general right of privacy in your property and possessions, which is lost the moment an intrustion is made, or is it a right not to be incriminated by that which was obtained without warrant or probable cause? It's debatable either way as neither remedy is specified. However, the 4th amendment is expressed in a criminal context (hence the word "warrants") so its arguable that the right is protected at the moment any incriminating evidence is excluded. Even if not, the exclusionary rule is a powerful deterrent against unreasonable search and seizure, because the police will likely not get another opportunity to obtain the incriminating evidence after it has been thrown out.

DominionSeraph also has a valid point. Do we really want the police to operate in constant fear of being shot at by a citizen who incorrectly thinks a search is unreasonable, or even correctly thinks it for that matter, but where the police are honestly mistaken? Ordinary citizens have no idea of what constitutes probable cause under the law, and being innocent of any crime doesn't mean there isn't probable cause. Yeah, that's all we need, every time the cops enter a crack house where 10 year olds are shooting up, if the residences think they did so without probable cause, they'll open fire on them.

I find it fascinating that the GOP used to be the "tough on crime" party, very recently in fact, if not still. Now conservatives want to cut the nuts off the police to protect the right of rednecks to blow cops away. Of course, if it's the crack house scenario instead, I suspect the analysis will somehow come out differently.

 

[BoberFett]

To the current Ayn Rand idolizing, far right conservatives that are the Republican party, each individual person is expected to believe that they ARE in fact the center of the universe. The idea behind this ruling makes sense, the overly broad generalization of the ruling does not however. Remember, most conservatives hate any form of public servant and believe they should receive the smallest amount of funding possible. They hate teachers because they teach conservative children to think for themselves which flies in the face of being conservative. They hate police because an active police force gives them fewer opportunities to shoot and kill people. They hate industry regulators because they believe that corporations will treat everyone fairly and not fucking screw over everyone until it eventually comes back to bite them in the ass even though they know if they were in charge of that corporations they'd act the exact fucking same.

Also, as has been shown, we know conservatives are more prone to fear. They think a ruling like this which is intended to protect the safety of police will end in a 1984 police state sometime this November. They fail to realize that the protections in the Fourth Amendment are still in place and that there are legal recourses to protect yourself against violations of the 4th Amendment. But conservatives want to be able to shoot cops and take that law into their own hands, when even with this ruling if a cop illegally enters then they face consequences.

You must be all out of strawmen after that post.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Now conservatives want to cut the nuts off the police to protect the right of rednecks to blow cops away. Of course, if it's the crack house scenario instead, I suspect the analysis will somehow come out differently.

I think the conservative position has always respected the position people should be independant and/or self reliant. Hence people should be willing and able to defend their own rights. This ruling seems to criminalize that and therefor seems contrary to general conservative principals.

Nor do I think my position is wanting "to cut the nuts off the police". Police are always going to face the prospect of dangerous resistence, criminals won't care about this ruling as they don't care about laws in general (that's why they're criminals). And police should be expecting to face criminals, not regualr law abiding citizens, when they execute these entries. Why else pursue the entry?

I prefer the status quo that I believe exists in every other state. You resist and you take your chances, both physically and in court, on whether or not you are correct in your assessment that the entry/search was unreasonable/illegal. If you were correct, you win.

I'm afraid now even if you were correct you lose. And I wonder what affect this will have on cases where the police acted illegally, but the citizen but resisted.

I suspect this may have the effect of blanket immunity for police actions even if illegal in cases where the citizen resisted.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

So, what's stopping the cops from going anywhere they want? The court system.

I'm almost amazed at how no one seems to be using any common sense here. All the ruling says is that you can't beat up a cop for making a mistake. If a cop makes a mistake, you take it through the court system. Common sense ought to say "if the cop makes a mistake, don't fight back, because the cop is suppose to be trained to be capable of escalating the situation so that he wins." All the court seems to be doing is affirming common sense.

I challenge anyone to come up with a plausible example of how the police could use this to their advantage. If they barge in without a warrant, and should have known that a warrant would have been required, then they're going to lose a very easy lawsuit that even a graduate of the "Hollywood Upstairs Law School" could win.

We all know how well the court system works against pigs.

 

[DrPizza]

Except that the ISC just ruled that any police entry is lawful? So capping the cop might not go so well. At least for now anyway... someone is going to have to take this to the USSC to bring the ISC back into reality.

I think even a kid in 5th grade social studies would tell you this ruling is complete BS.

The ISC did NOT rule that police entry is lawful. Get your head out of your ass and stop making things up. They ruled that you can't shoot or otherwise resist the police IF they enter unlawfully.

 

[DominionSeraph]

We all know how well the court system works against pigs.

See, this is why we need a better educational system
As society gets more complex, the stupid become disenfranchised. They cannot process how society works, so they cannot see how they fit within it. They see themselves as powerless leaves caught in the wind of the magical "system." They beat against its externality and demand freedom from it because learning the steps of the dance is beyond them.

Conservatives, please go back to elementary school. You missed a lot of important information back there that is required to navigate the world in which we live. There is no going backwards unless you live like the Amish -- the genie is out of the bottle.
You can't have a modern technological growth-based economy without lots of protections against things going awry. You need central power to regulate the capitalistic functions. We have protections within the regulatory structure -- we do not need freedom from it. There is no universal ideal there, it's just stupidity.

 

[alkemyst]

It's not disenfranchised, it's people have irrational fears. Everyone thinks they will never be the victim of a bad traffic stop or cops getting the wrong house. They don't fear they will shoot and kill a police officer since they don't even own a gun.

All I have to say on this is if someone broke into my home I am going to shoot first, just as the cops say they have a fear that if they announce themselves they will be harmed...so do I.

 

[jlee]

It's not disenfranchised, it's people have irrational fears. Everyone thinks they will never be the victim of a bad traffic stop or cops getting the wrong house. They don't fear they will shoot and kill a police officer since they don't even own a gun.

All I have to say on this is if someone broke into my home I am going to shoot first, just as the cops say they have a fear that if they announce themselves they will be harmed...so do I.

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.

Yeah, because that's clearly the police breaking into the home with their identities unknown.

Stop being a dumbass.

The ISC did NOT rule that police entry is lawful. Get your head out of your ass and stop making things up. They ruled that you can't shoot or otherwise resist the police IF they enter unlawfully.

Yep, and if they ruled that you could, then you have a whole bunch of idiots who think it's an 'unlawful entry' and then think they can do whatever they want.

You can't resist an unlawful arrest in NH, but that doesn't mean officers are going to go around making unlawful arrests just because people aren't allowed to resist.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's not disenfranchised, it's people have irrational fears.

It's fear due to a feeling of powerlessness, so it's the same thing. If they didn't feel put upon by the system with no avenue within it, they wouldn't be afraid.

All I have to say on this is if someone broke into my home I am going to shoot first, just as the cops say they have a fear that if they announce themselves they will be harmed...so do I.

You are not going to have the chance to pick up a gun before the cops rather loudly announce that they are the police. If you still pick one up and try to shoot at them, don't expect to come out of it alive.
If the cops ended up having the wrong house, you'll still be dead. Them being wrong does not make shooting at them right, and their administrative punishment over having the wrong house will not resurrect you.

 

[alkemyst]

It's fear due to a feeling of powerlessness, so it's the same thing. If they didn't feel put upon by the system with no avenue within it, they wouldn't be afraid.



You are not going to have the chance to pick up a gun before the cops rather loudly announce that they are the police. If you still pick one up and try to shoot at them, don't expect to come out of it alive.
If the cops ended up having the wrong house, you'll still be dead. Them being wrong does not make shooting at them right, and their administrative punishment over having the wrong house will not resurrect you.

Well chances are with my security system I will know they were here already. If they are in marked cars and if they ANNOUNCE they are police then there is not a problem.

If some plain clothes guy kicks my door in and there is just a black charger pulled in my lawn, I am assuming he is not a cop.

The whole basis of the warrant system was to have an additional/impartial set of eyes on the process.

 

[MotF Bane]

You must be all out of strawmen after that post.

He emptied the field to stuff them all.

 

[thraashman]

You must be all out of strawmen after that post.

Strawmen? Hell this is the nicest I could be. The conservatives I meet in person, nothing like this. The vast majority of ATPN conservatives, pretty much exactly this. The conservative lawmakers out there, damn near dead on like this. Quit being so damn scared of this ruling. All it's saying is that you're not allowed to attack the cops if they enter your home. It in no way removes your legal protections of the 4th amendment, it just says you're not allowed to shoot cops because you think they might not be justified in entering your home. This should just be referred to as the "anti vigilante psycho conservative" ruling.

 

[Triumph]

The ISC did NOT rule that police entry is lawful. Get your head out of your ass and stop making things up. They ruled that you can't shoot or otherwise resist the police IF they enter unlawfully.

You have to admit that this wording is pretty intimidating, to say the least.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I got my pitchfork. Is it time to light the torches yet?

 

[fskimospy]

Has anyone thought about the practical implications here? If the cops want to get into your house, they will do it. Period. There is no amount of force you can apply that they cannot easily meet and exceed to get what they want. With that in mind, I think it's safe to say that police entry to your house, lawful or not, is a foregone conclusion if they decide to do that.

So now the only question is, how do we want to deal with this? By enshrining some right to attack the cops who enter your house unlawfully, we are creating a situation where lots of people are going to get hurt by the cops unless we radically change the way our police do business. (something I think we are unwilling to do) The evidence the cops get in an illegal entry is inadmissible, they open themselves up to internal discipline and civil liability by performing illegal searches.

A good counter argument to this is that police get off way too easily for violating people's rights, and in this respect I agree. I don't see how allowing people to attack them would be a good way to address that though. It's far more likely a good way to get a lot of innocent people beaten up.

Anyone on here who has read my posts should know I'm a huge defender of the 4th amendment. I for one just can't see how the interests of the 4th amendment are advanced by allowing citizens to attack police if they think a search is unlawful.

 

[BoberFett]

Dorkminion isn't even worth responding too. He blew his troll wad a long time ago.

 

[Fern]

Has anyone thought about the practical implications here? If the cops want to get into your house, they will do it. Period. There is no amount of force you can apply that they cannot easily meet and exceed to get what they want. With that in mind, I think it's safe to say that police entry to your house, lawful or not, is a foregone conclusion if they decide to do that.

So now the only question is, how do we want to deal with this? By enshrining some right to attack the cops who enter your house unlawfully, we are creating a situation where lots of people are going to get hurt by the cops unless we radically change the way our police do business. (something I think we are unwilling to do) The evidence the cops get in an illegal entry is inadmissible, they open themselves up to internal discipline and civil liability by performing illegal searches.

Under your thinking above we surely had people lots of people getting hurt by cops in Indiana (and likely the rest of the USA as I believe they are all operating under the same rules as Indiana before this new case); care to link to evidence of this?

Personally I see reduction in violence during resistance as the least of all possible outcomes. The vast majority of people don't resist anyway. Then there are criminal who aren't going to be deterred by the law, or any other for that matter. Then you've got people who are mad as hell and irrational, think he's gonna stop and go "oh crap, there's that new court case I better let 'em in? I don't.

We also have cases where cops serve the no knock warrants, or come in plain clothes/under cover and we don't even know they are police. How's this law gonna help in that situation? It won't.

IMO, what we've just done is screwed people who properly resist and worse, invalidated the 4th (you've no right against unreasonable searches etc, but you do have a right payment when we search illegally; that is if you have enough money to hire your own lawyer and go against the government's unlimited resources etc).

A good counter argument to this is that police get off way too easily for violating people's rights, and in this respect I agree. I don't see how allowing people to attack them would be a good way to address that though. It's far more likely a good way to get a lot of innocent people beaten up.

Anyone on here who has read my posts should know I'm a huge defender of the 4th amendment. I for one just can't see how the interests of the 4th amendment are advanced by allowing citizens to attack police if they think a search is unlawful.

Before this court case people were NOT allowed to attack police (merely) if they thought a search was unlawful.

It was if it was in fact was unlawful. I see no reason to change that.
---------------

What we have here strikes as an awful lot like eminent domain, only it's worse and far more reaching.

Yeah, the Constitution guarantees property rights unless it's in it's in the gov's interest (too broadly defined now) to take your property away. At least in emonent domain it goes case-by-case and it must litigated BEFORE your rights are violated.

Under this ruling, we're just gonna deny everyones' 4th amendment rights and do it right NOW, before it's even litigated. And then they suggest you can go to court to get your payment (just as you get reimbursed for violating your prop rights).

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Under your thinking above we surely had people lots of people getting hurt by cops in Indiana (and likely the rest of the USA as I believe they are all operating under the same rules as Indiana before this new case); care to link to evidence of this?

Personally I see reduction in violence during resistance as the least of all possible outcomes. The vast majority of people don't resist anyway. Then there are criminal who aren't going to be deterred by the law, or any other for that matter. Then you've got people who are mad as hell and irrational, think he's gonna stop and go "oh crap, there's that new court case I better let 'em in? I don't.

We also have cases where cops serve the no knock warrants, or come in plain clothes/under cover and we don't even know they are police. How's this law gonna help in that situation? It won't.

IMO, what we've just done is screwed people who properly resist and worse, invalidated the 4th (you've no right against unreasonable searches etc, but you do have a right payment when we search illegally; that is if you have enough money to hire your own lawyer and go against the government's unlimited resources etc).



Before this court case people were NOT allowed to attack police (merely) if they thought a search was unlawful.

It was if it was in fact was unlawful. I see no reason to change that.
---------------

What we have here strikes as an awful lot like eminent domain, only it's worse and far more reaching.

Yeah, the Constitution guarantees property rights unless it's in it's in the gov's interest (too broadly defined now) to take your property away. At least in emonent domain it goes case-by-case and it must litigated BEFORE your rights are violated.

Under this ruling, we're just gonna deny everyones' 4th amendment rights and do it right NOW, before it's even litigated. And then they suggest you can go to court to get your payment (just as you get reimbursed for violating your prop rights).

Fern

If you need news stories about people getting in altercations with police breaking into their house to search it, just type something like 'person shot during police search' into Google. If you want more examples, feel free to mix and match your search terms.

You basically have this entire thing backwards, this is not creating new law, it is simply affirming that you do not have a positive right to attack police during a search if it is in fact unlawful. There's no 'new' law being passed at all, in fact this is the exact absence of new law. People were never allowed to attack police attempting to search their house. Most of what you're arguing against was and is the law as it has always existed, the only difference being litigated here was if people could get a pass for attacking police if the search was unlawful. The idea that we want people playing constitutional scholar and attempting to determine in the heat of the moment if a search is unlawful enough to attack the police over is an absurdity.

Can you maybe provide some reasons why you think we would be better off if people were able to assault police in this situation? We've already covered that the search is going to take place regardless of whether or not the person resists. Do you believe this would lead to fewer injuries and deaths during searches? Do you believe that these assaults on police would act as a deterrent against unlawful searches that is greater than the statutory and departmental punishments against such behavior already?

I mean the idea that if someone's going to be searched unlawfully that their rights are better protected by a shootout with police than through the legal system is absolute silliness. It might feel right in your gut, but in reality it just gets people killed. If you want to talk about increased penalties for unlawful police action, if you want to talk about a better way to redress grievances, that's great. It's not accomplished by barricading yourself in your house.