Random house to house searches possible?? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Random house to house searches possible??


Teej
05-16-2011, 20:01
This sheriff states that random house to house searches are now possible. And he stated that, "he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal."

Not on my watch!!! :steamed:

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

Stang_Man
05-16-2011, 20:07
when do elections roll around?

Calico Jack
05-16-2011, 20:08
The Onion???

hpracing007
05-16-2011, 20:11
Try that in TEXAS!!!

buckcr250r
05-16-2011, 20:18
i can happily imagine how terribly bad this will be for some cops. you can push a mans rights soo far before he pushes back.

beatcop
05-16-2011, 20:20
I gave up after the 5th page....thread....not as reported.

Tarowah
05-16-2011, 20:24
Yeah, good luck with that.

Teej
05-16-2011, 20:26
I gave up after the 5th page....thread....not as reported.

Not sure what your computer is going to. I just rechecked, clicked on the link and it went directly to the story as reported... :dunno:

THEPOPE
05-16-2011, 20:27
I have a Constitutional Right to no search or seizure........un-warranted ?


NO way in Hades.....I am out, so there, ya knibs.......:cool:

Rabbi
05-16-2011, 20:28
i can happily imagine how terribly bad this will be for some cops. you can push a mans rights soo far before he pushes back.

The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

bowbender7
05-16-2011, 20:29
Better have their damn hats on :rofl:

*ASH*
05-16-2011, 20:40
that would be a very very bad idea to think people would take that . im one of those who would not .

Ragnar
05-16-2011, 20:40
I'm all for it as long as that sheriff is the first one thru the door.

banjobob
05-16-2011, 20:58
Glad to know someone else is listening to the great Mike Church, he and Wilkow are the only talk radio worth listening to.

Mike's new movie, Road to Independence, comes out in a couple of weeks, I recommend all lovers of liberty pick it up as well as his others.

South Fla
05-16-2011, 21:02
I wonder if he has heard of the 4th Amendment.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2011, 21:37
Think again if you think this can't happen in Texas, Indiana, or anywhere else. It was Ross Perot who advocated this very thing when he ran for president. His justification was to combat drugs in Dallas. He had support for the idea.

Remember Hitler and those Jewish people? Complacency means that somebody--somewhere-anywhere--will try to get away with it.

CAcop
05-16-2011, 21:54
Here is my professional opinion of this sheriff:

:crazy:

In this day and age with federal civil rights lawsuits being the way they are that county of 14,000 would be bankrupted with him pulling this on one house. Usually chiefs and sheriffs see liability with everyday policework where there is none.

About the only time house to house searches will fly is if a dangerous criminal is on the loose and you need to make sure they aren't hiding somewhere. The search would be limited to places a human could be hidden.

Mushinto
05-16-2011, 21:55
The people in the Sheriff's jurisdiction should be swarming the state capital about now. The Governor can remove him.

stevelyn
05-16-2011, 22:30
I'm sure it makes the drug warriors happy.

The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

The badge is not a license to violate people's rights and the end DOES NOT justify the means.

ray9898
05-16-2011, 22:34
I fail to see how any case law can over ride the 4th amendment. I think the Sheriff may want to contact the county attorney before he implements his grand plan.

Ragnar
05-16-2011, 22:58
About the only time house to house searches will fly is if a dangerous criminal is on the loose and you need to make sure they aren't hiding somewhere. The search would be limited to places a human could be hidden.

Nope, not even then. Knock on my door and ask me if there is anyone else in the house. I'll answer. You don't believe me, come back with a warrant.

OldScribe2009
05-16-2011, 23:20
Nope, not even then. Knock on my door and ask me if there is anyone else in the house. I'll answer. You don't believe me, come back with a warrant.

+1

I agree.

We spoke about this in class once. I believe a police officer was present. And he stated the police have to be in "hot pursuit" to enter a home without a warrant. For example, if they're chasing some guy down the sidewalk and he dives through your bedroom window. The police don't have to throw their hands up and exclaim, "Darn, we have to go get a warrant now!" No, they'll dive inside right behind him, follow him through your home, and if he dives out the back window, they'll pursue.

buckcr250r
05-17-2011, 07:21
The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

under these circumstances, yes.

Mayhem like Me
05-17-2011, 07:31
I would not participate in such lunacy...


Consent house to house is one thing, I can see no basis to FORCE entry into law abiding citizens homes..in the manner described here.

Fixxer
05-17-2011, 07:33
Those pesky oaths. Darn those pesky oaths.

I do solemnly swear that the oath I made yesterday don't count.

HollowHead
05-17-2011, 07:37
+1

I agree.

We spoke about this in class once. I believe a police officer was present. And he stated the police have to be in "hot pursuit" to enter a home without a warrant. For example, if they're chasing some guy down the sidewalk and he dives through your bedroom window. The police don't have to throw their hands up and exclaim, "Darn, we have to go get a warrant now!" No, they'll dive inside right behind him, follow him through your home, and if he dives out the back window, they'll pursue.

This has always been my understanding also. HH

Ragnar
05-17-2011, 07:39
+1

I agree.

We spoke about this in class once. I believe a police officer was present. And he stated the police have to be in "hot pursuit" to enter a home without a warrant. For example, if they're chasing some guy down the sidewalk and he dives through your bedroom window. The police don't have to throw their hands up and exclaim, "Darn, we have to go get a warrant now!" No, they'll dive inside right behind him, follow him through your home, and if he dives out the back window, they'll pursue.

Thats a lot different from just searching your house because they "think he might be there".

rhone89
05-17-2011, 08:05
The idea of bad things happening to BAD LEOs makes you happy?

fixed that for you.

.264 magnum
05-17-2011, 08:16
The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

I don't think that's what he meant.

His point, I believe, is that these myriad erosions into our liberties and personal freedoms - bordering on a mindset of, "guilty until proved innocent" - will be met with consternation and sometimes determined resistance.

.264 magnum
05-17-2011, 08:22
Think again if you think this can't happen in Texas, Indiana, or anywhere else. It was Ross Perot who advocated this very thing when he ran for president. His justification was to combat drugs in Dallas. He had support for the idea.

Remember Hitler and those Jewish people? Complacency means that somebody--somewhere-anywhere--will try to get away with it.

Perot wanted to do in prectice was have the local PD obtain warrants for several houses sometimes entire neighborhoods and then send in teams of officers. Still a terrible idea I think.

Right on about Hitler and the Jews. Early on it was sort-of an NASDP style redlining of Jews and gun control and before too long it was too late.

Z71bill
05-17-2011, 08:23
I don't think that's what he meant.

His point, I believe, is that these myriad erosions into our liberties and personal freedoms - bordering on a mindset of, "guilty until proved innocent" - will be met with consternation and sometimes determined resistance.

Hit the nail on the head -

It is hard to control the unwashed masses -if you need to bother with the rule of law & due process sort of concepts most Americana's take for granted.

Much easier to just convince people - we are taking away your freedom to protect you from bad things.

.264 magnum
05-17-2011, 08:23
I fail to see how any case law can over ride the 4th amendment. I think the Sheriff may want to contact the county attorney before he implements his grand plan.

I'm thinking there may have been a bunch of phone calls to the guy over the last 24 hrs.

eracer
05-17-2011, 08:30
Did I not see where SCOTUS recently ruled 8-1 that warrantless entry in a suspected drug case is OK if the officer hears 'scurrying'?

"I heard scurrying! And I'm SURE this is the house that alleged drug dealer ran to. BREAK THE DOOR DOWN! FLASH BANGS FOR EVERYONE!!"

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 08:37
This will not end well. But it would be a very useful event in the fight to keep our rights intact.

.264 magnum
05-17-2011, 08:38
Did I not see where SCOTUS recently ruled 8-1 that warrantless entry in a suspected drug case is OK if the officer hears 'scurrying'?

"I heard scurrying! And I'm SURE this is the house that alleged drug dealer ran to. BREAK THE DOOR DOWN! FLASH BANGS FOR EVERYONE!!"

Not exactly. That case, if I'm thinking about the right one, dealt with cops reasonably believing that a known bad-actor was destroying evidence.

It's tough but I think the SCOTUS made the right call. If such a search is shown to be unwarranted (sorry) tainted evidence will be tossed.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 08:42
Not exactly. That case, if I'm thinking about the right one, dealt with cops reasonably believing that a known bad-actor was destroying evidence.

It's tough but I think the SCOTUS made the right call. If such a search is shown to be unwarranted (sorry) tainted evidence will be tossed.

No it won't be tossed. You can thank other recent legislation for that. With the passage of this law and other legislation, cops in that area basically have the right to do whatever they want wherever they want and there are no longer any checks and balances to make sure they follow procedure. They now need no warrants nor do they have to follow procedures, and all of the evidence will still remain valid.

eracer
05-17-2011, 08:48
Not exactly. That case, if I'm thinking about the right one, dealt with cops reasonably believing that a known bad-actor was destroying evidence.

It's tough but I think the SCOTUS made the right call. If such a search is shown to be unwarranted (sorry) tainted evidence will be tossed.What constitutes 'reasonably believing'? Once a warrantless search is OK'd then it's "Katy bar the door" (no pun intended.)

Maybe I misunderstood the ruling, but I believe it gave cops the right to conduct a search without direct evidence of a crime in progress.

Mayhem like Me
05-17-2011, 08:53
You did ,in the case they did have probable cause , but had not secured the warrant yet, they believed the suspects were inside destroying the evidence. From my interpretation.

This only applies where probable cause exists to get a warrant and suspects are known to be destroying evidence or fruits of a crime.

AC37
05-17-2011, 09:02
The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

There's a rather large difference between bad guys doing bad things to law enforcement, and bad things happening to armed thugs who are only maintaining a veneer of legality because of citizens who are fed up with having their rights continually stripped away by the very agencies tasked with protecting them.

I doubt you would have had many problems with the Jewish people resisting the actions of German law enforcement on the Night of the Long Knives. Just because a person has a uniform, badge, and weapon doesn't mean what they're doing is legal, let alone ethically or morally correct.

Being tasked with enforcing the law doesn't mean you get carte blanche to violate whatever other laws you deem to stand in your way when blindly enforcing a single one. A badge is NOT a license to simply do as you please with no regard for anything else.

djpuffnstuff
05-17-2011, 09:07
Will Open Carry prevent this?

RenoF250
05-17-2011, 09:10
Not exactly. That case, if I'm thinking about the right one, dealt with cops reasonably believing that a known bad-actor was destroying evidence.

It's tough but I think the SCOTUS made the right call. If such a search is shown to be unwarranted (sorry) tainted evidence will be tossed.

Bad guys get away all the time. Criminals are stupid, they will do it again. I would rather we miss a few opportunities catching a criminal than give away liberty.

Are they going to be held accountable when they break into a law abiding citizens home to find their tip was garbage?

AC37
05-17-2011, 09:12
I don't think that's what he meant.

His point, I believe, is that these myriad erosions into our liberties and personal freedoms - bordering on a mindset of, "guilty until proved innocent" - will be met with consternation and sometimes determined resistance.

Bingo.

Ask the average citizen if they believe civil liberties are heading in the right or wrong direction in the country. You're going to get a resounding "NO."

Then you're going to get a lecture how the primary institutions tasked with preserving freedoms are now the very ones infringing them the hardest.

AC37
05-17-2011, 09:22
Bad guys get away all the time. Criminals are stupid, they will do it again. I would rather we miss a few opportunities catching a criminal than give away liberty.

Are they going to be held accountable when they break into a law abiding citizens home to find their tip was garbage?

One needs look no further than CATO's map/catalog of the no-knock raids to find the answer.

The problem with kicking doors in, shooting anything that moves, and asking questions later is when you kill an innocent citizen in their own home because you got the wrong address, your information was weeks/months/years out-of-date, or flat-out wrong. You can't unkill them, there is no amount of money that will bring them back, there is no amount of money or time that will relieve the conscience of a group of police officers who now have to live the rest of their lives with the knowledge they directly participated in the murder of an innocent person.

ray9898
05-17-2011, 10:18
Did I not see where SCOTUS recently ruled 8-1 that warrantless entry in a suspected drug case is OK if the officer hears 'scurrying'?

"I heard scurrying! And I'm SURE this is the house that alleged drug dealer ran to. BREAK THE DOOR DOWN! FLASH BANGS FOR EVERYONE!!"

You are misrepresenting the facts of that case. Officers had probable cause but were unable to obtain a warrant in the evolving situation. The actions on scene showed it was reasonable that the suspect was destroying the evidence of the crime which created an exigent situation which allowed officers to enter and secure the scene until the warrant arrived.

There are many situations where situations like this apply. I just had one a few weeks ago on a domestic dispute. Neighbor called because female in adjacent apartment yelled 'help' several times. We get there, knock and hear a commotion inside. We forced entry due to the exigency because it was reasonable she may need help.

What did we find? A beat up woman who was being held down in a back bedroom so she could not come to the door.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 10:48
I don't think that's what he meant.

His point, I believe, is that these myriad erosions into our liberties and personal freedoms - bordering on a mindset of, "guilty until proved innocent" - will be met with consternation and sometimes determined resistance.

No, he cleared it up. That is what he meant.


Most people like the idea of "an eye for an eye"...unless they are the victim, then they want death or grave injury for anything that happens to them.

It is an easily observable thing and shows most people are not interested in justice but revenge based on an over inflated sense of self. I sure understand it and until one realizes it, it is probably instinctual. However, that doesnt change what it is.

.45Super-Man
05-17-2011, 11:55
The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

Cops are supposed to be protecting us from unwarranted break-ins, not conducting them. Therefore, all bets are off.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 12:00
You did ,in the case they did have probable cause , but had not secured the warrant yet, they believed the suspects were inside destroying the evidence. From my interpretation.

This only applies where probable cause exists to get a warrant and suspects are known to be destroying evidence or fruits of a crime.

Then why wasn't it worded as such? You don't establish precedence and say, "But we're only going to use it for this, promise!" Thats not how it works.

glockurai
05-17-2011, 12:09
+1

I agree.

We spoke about this in class once. I believe a police officer was present. And he stated the police have to be in "hot pursuit" to enter a home without a warrant. For example, if they're chasing some guy down the sidewalk and he dives through your bedroom window. The police don't have to throw their hands up and exclaim, "Darn, we have to go get a warrant now!" No, they'll dive inside right behind him, follow him through your home, and if he dives out the back window, they'll pursue.

That is correct.

glockurai
05-17-2011, 12:12
Cops are supposed to be protecting us from unwarranted break-ins, not conducting them. Therefore, all bets are off.

:upeyes:

guns54
05-17-2011, 12:12
under these circumstances, yes. Bad things happeding to leo makes you happy. But when you need them for help and they show up thats makes you happy to?

Carrys
05-17-2011, 12:13
Perhaps this is what they were talking about? It seems the Indiana Supreme Court has indeed OKed warrant less searches, in some cases.

Not sure how this will stand up in other courts.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Indiana-FourthAmendment-search-warrant/2011/05/16/id/396570

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 12:37
Bad things happeding to leo makes you happy. But when you need them for help and they show up thats makes you happy to?

I submit that anyone engaging in this activity is not an LEO, but rather a thug on the state's payroll. LEO implies by its very nature that they're enforcing laws. The supreme law of the land says they can't bust into someone's house for no good reason without a warrant. Any lesser ruling is not binding nor relevant.

Glock20 10mm
05-17-2011, 13:49
The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

No, the idea of LEO's violating the Constitution and abusing their power having bad things does. LEO doesn't impart immunity to reactive responses to a violation of natural law, the Constitution or the rights defined within them.

Glock20 10mm
05-17-2011, 13:53
Will Open Carry prevent this?

No, but it sure will end it quickly.

Mayhem like Me
05-17-2011, 13:58
Perhaps this is what they were talking about? It seems the Indiana Supreme Court has indeed OKed warrant less searches, in some cases.

Not sure how this will stand up in other courts.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Indiana-FourthAmendment-search-warrant/2011/05/16/id/396570

It will stand that is a no brainer..exigent circumstances apply in a domestic violence situation where one may be being held against her will..

CAcop
05-17-2011, 14:29
+1

I agree.

We spoke about this in class once. I believe a police officer was present. And he stated the police have to be in "hot pursuit" to enter a home without a warrant. For example, if they're chasing some guy down the sidewalk and he dives through your bedroom window. The police don't have to throw their hands up and exclaim, "Darn, we have to go get a warrant now!" No, they'll dive inside right behind him, follow him through your home, and if he dives out the back window, they'll pursue.

Hot pursuit is not just what you think it is. There is a little more.

CAcop
05-17-2011, 14:34
Nope, not even then. Knock on my door and ask me if there is anyone else in the house. I'll answer. You don't believe me, come back with a warrant.

Please cite the case law regarding this.

Sam Spade
05-17-2011, 14:35
I read the article (I know, I know...crazy).

I see no quotes, no context, no link to audio...and this thread became longer than the article somewhere around Post #6.

Now, why should I trust this member of the press to have reported anything accurately?

John Galt
05-17-2011, 14:36
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the people may not resist unlawful entry by police.

"In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law"

This being the case the police could conceiveably conduct door to door searches without warrants and the citizenry could do nothing about it.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 14:40
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the people may not resist unlawful entry by police.

"In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law"

This being the case the police could conceiveably conduct door to door searches without warrants and the citizenry could do nothing about it.

Who are you?

geminicricket
05-17-2011, 14:40
The Onion???

Nope. Indiana. It is now the law of that state that police do not need a warrant to enter a private residence unannounced.

Specifically, it is a crime to resist such entry. The judge seems to think that homeowners retain the right to seek redress in court.

CAcop
05-17-2011, 14:41
Did I not see where SCOTUS recently ruled 8-1 that warrantless entry in a suspected drug case is OK if the officer hears 'scurrying'?

"I heard scurrying! And I'm SURE this is the house that alleged drug dealer ran to. BREAK THE DOOR DOWN! FLASH BANGS FOR EVERYONE!!"

There was more to it than that. It was a buy/bust operation where the surveillance team followed the suspect to an apartment complex. The arrest team went to the breeeway where the suspect was last seen going tinto. The arrest team left their car (and radio). They missed the part of the transmission where the suspet went into the door on the right in the breeeway. When they got to the area of the breeeway there were two doors. They smelled weed coming from one. They knocked on the door IDing themselves. Scurrying as if destroying evidence. Boot the door. See weed and coke (original by/bust was for coke IIRC). Make arrest. Surveillance team says wrong door. They get a twofer.

And yes we have apartment complexes like this in town. I would sleep with a shotgun in my lap if I lived there.

Rohniss
05-17-2011, 14:42
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the people may not resist unlawful entry by police.

"In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law"

This being the case the police could conceiveably conduct door to door searches without warrants and the citizenry could do nothing about it.

Except, you know, SUE.

The Citizen doesn't have the right to determine what is a lawful or unlawful search, its for the Courts to decide, therefore they can't determine if its lawful to resist a search... seems pretty much a no brainer to me.

CAcop
05-17-2011, 14:44
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the people may not resist unlawful entry by police.

"In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law"

This being the case the police could conceiveably conduct door to door searches without warrants and the citizenry could do nothing about it.

So they can't file a civil rights lawsuit? Look up 1983 actions.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 14:45
Except, you know, SUE.

The Citizen doesn't have the right to determine what is a lawful or unlawful search, its for the Courts to decide, therefore they can't determine if its lawful to resist a search... seems pretty much a no brainer to me.

See, its a no brainer in that its unconstitutional. Its this simple. If they've got a warrant its a lawful search. If they point at a 6 foot pot plant next to my door (I don't have any pot plants, but lets say hypothetically) and say, "Thats a pot plant," then they've got Probably Cause. If some nutcase with a badge and gun decides he wants to come in for no reason, he is a criminal and should be dealt with as such.

"Take it to the courts" doesn't apply when you're in your own damn house. That is YOUR castle and you can protect it against unlawful entry.

Rohniss
05-17-2011, 14:59
See, its a no brainer in that its unconstitutional. Its this simple. If they've got a warrant its a lawful search. If they point at a 6 foot pot plant next to my door (I don't have any pot plants, but lets say hypothetically) and say, "Thats a pot plant," then they've got Probably Cause. If some nutcase with a badge and gun decides he wants to come in for no reason, he is a criminal and should be dealt with as such.

"Take it to the courts" doesn't apply when you're in your own damn house. That is YOUR castle and you can protect it against unlawful entry.

This goes right to your mindset right here.

Anyways, good luck with your confrontation with the Man that everyone seems to be looking forward to so eagerly.

John Galt
05-17-2011, 15:01
Except, you know, SUE.

The Citizen doesn't have the right to determine what is a lawful or unlawful search, its for the Courts to decide, therefore they can't determine if its lawful to resist a search... seems pretty much a no brainer to me.

If and when the police start cordoning off city blocks and going door to door without warrants in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, (ever heard of writs of assistance?) I can pretty well determine that there is a moral right to resist, legality be damned.

And I don't need lawyers, politicians, or cops to decide that for me.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 15:02
This goes right to your mindset right here.

Anyways, good luck with your confrontation with the Man that everyone seems to be looking forward to so eagerly.

Sorry, Charlie. Florida has the Castle Doctrine and there will already be a civil war going on before our legislators say something as blatantly unconstitutional as that. But hey, the world needs statists too (not really, but I'm trying to throw a positive in there somehow) so you keep on keepin' on.

buckcr250r
05-17-2011, 15:02
...But when you need them for help and they show up thats makes you happy to?

Can't answer that. I never felt the need to call them.

CAcop
05-17-2011, 15:04
If and when the police start cordoning off city blocks and going door to door without warrants in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, (ever heard of writs of assistance?) I can pretty well determine that there is a moral right to resist, legality be damned.

And I don't need lawyers, politicians, or cops to decide that for me.

Pay up your life insurance if you plan to shoot it out. Or be ready to spend the rest of your life in jail.

The courts will have no sympathy for you when civil courts are available to you after the illegal search.

I suspect though you just posted the above to make yourself feel like the tough guy you aren't.

John Galt
05-17-2011, 15:07
This goes right to your mindset right here.

Anyways, good luck with your confrontation with the Man that everyone seems to be looking forward to so eagerly.

I don't know of anyone that wants confrontation, I certainly do not, but there comes a time when men have to stand up for principle. Hopefully this can be overturned through the courts, so we don't have to deal with worst case scenario's.

Glock20 10mm
05-17-2011, 15:08
Bad things happeding to leo makes you happy. But when you need them for help and they show up thats makes you happy to?

Only time I will need one is to clean up the mess of some twit dumb enough to break into my home while I am there. The only people that NEED a cop are the ones that are either incapable (elderly or mentally infirm) to effectively defend/protect themselves, or the unwilling (read the greater majority of left wing liberals.)

Most average citizens are more than capable of taking care of themselves, what is lacking is the willingness to do so, hence the illusion that they NEED police.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:15
Only time I will need one is to clean up the mess of some twit dumb enough to break into my home while I am there. The only people that NEED a cop are the ones that are either incapable (elderly or mentally infirm) to effectively defend/protect themselves, or the unwilling (read the greater majority of left wing liberals.)

Most average citizens are more than capable of taking care of themselves, what is lacking is the willingness to do so, hence the illusion that they NEED police.

Ah...I see, you are delusional.

What do you do when your wife is killed? Do you have the training a resources to "take care of it yourself?" How will you find the person who did it? (assuming it was random)

What do you do when your daughter is involved in a hit and run?

What do you do when your business is broken into at night, while you are not there?

What do you do when your car is stolen?

What do you do when your childrens school is taken hostage? Are you going to take care of it all by yourself? Do you think the parents of other children want you to do that? What about there wishes? What gives you the ability to solve that problem?

...and those are just some very obvious ones.

John Galt
05-17-2011, 15:16
Pay up your life insurance if you plan to shoot it out. Or be ready to spend the rest of your life in jail.

The courts will have no sympathy for you when civil courts are available to you after the illegal search.

I suspect though you just posted the above to make yourself feel like the tough guy you aren't.

You do not know me or anything about me. Leave the personal jabs out of it.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the court system. That is fine, but what happens when the courts begin to continually destroy the rights of the people?

Is there no line in the sand where you would feel personally compelled to resist tyranny if it were crossed? Or would you just assume they know better than you what rights you have?

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:20
Is there no line in the sand where you would feel personally compelled to resist tyranny if it were crossed? Or would you just assume they know better than you what rights you have?

There are other options/philosophies. Your view (and often people who think like you) often frame this in a very myopic way. It isnt a black and white issue.


It isnt that you are 100% wrong. What you often overlook (besides the facts you disagree with) is you cant have it ALL your way.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 15:27
You do not know me or anything about me. Leave the personal jabs out of it.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the court system. That is fine, but what happens when the courts begin to continually destroy the rights of the people?

Is there no line in the sand where you would feel personally compelled to resist tyranny if it were crossed? Or would you just assume they know better than you what rights you have?

Dude, look at his name. What do you think?

This thread is quickly turning into "us" vs. "them".

If a simple thread on the internet can devolve into this so quickly, imagine what happens when they actually start busting down doors illegally.

Mushinto
05-17-2011, 15:31
Except, you know, SUE.

The Citizen doesn't have the right to determine what is a lawful or unlawful search, its for the Courts to decide, therefore they can't determine if its lawful to resist a search... seems pretty much a no brainer to me.

I do not agree with this Indiana decision however, it is true that the average arrestee has no clue what is lawful and what is not. I wish I had a .45 cartridge for every client who told me that I couldn't do what I was doing.

I think the intent of the court was that the average citizen is most likely wrong in judging the legality of the police actions, and should not physically resist and instead seek later remedies.

I still think the court is wrong. Police like other mortals should have to think twice before acting unlawfully, and to do so at your own peril is a good deterrent.

Sorry, Charlie. Florida has the Castle Doctrine and there will already be a civil war going on before our legislators say something as blatantly unconstitutional as that. But hey, the world needs statists too (not really, but I'm trying to throw a positive in there somehow) so you keep on keepin' on.

In Florida, you can't be convicted of resisting if the action of the police were unlawful.

843.01 Resisting officer with violence to his or her person.—Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, ...

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree,...

784.07  (2) Whenever any person is charged with knowingly committing an assault or battery upon a law enforcement officer, a firefighter, ... is engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:...

The key words are "in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty" or "is engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties"

Bottom line is if the cops are doing something illegal, your resistance is not illegal. Be aware that not thinking you are guilty or even not being guilty does not make the actions of the police illegal.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:34
Dude, look at his name. What do you think?

This thread is quickly turning into "us" vs. "them".

If a simple thread on the internet can devolve into this so quickly, imagine what happens when they actually start busting down doors illegally.

There is no "us" vs. "them" as most people have a general neutral or better feel for Law Enforcement.

"Them" is a vocal monority of people. Some of who have very real and valid issues against LE. However, plenty are just people who, in some way, think themselve should be exempt from the social contract because they are special in some way.

John Galt
05-17-2011, 15:37
There are other options/philosophies. Your view (and often people who think like you) often frame this in a very myopic way. It isnt a black and white issue.


It isnt that you are 100% wrong. What you often overlook (besides the facts you disagree with) is you cant have it ALL your way.

I do not want it all my way, and I realize there are other philosophies. But there are certain principles that should not sacrificed on the alter of "peace".

I'll ask again. Is there a point, a line in the sand that if crossed, you would not feel morally compelled to resist?

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 15:40
There is no "us" vs. "them" as most people have a general neutral or better feel for Law Enforcement.


False.


"Them" is a vocal monority of people.


False.


Some of who have very real and valid issues against LE. However, plenty are just people who, in some way, think themselve should be exempt from the social contract because they are special in some way.

While that element does exist, there are also lots of people fed up with the ever-increasing authority of police and their gradual surrender of freedom. They're fed up with the corruption in police ranks, fed up with the shady tactics, fed up with their own tax dollars being used to strongarm them, just plain fed up. Us vs. them comes because police don't seem to give a damn about what rights or civil liberties they violate, just so long as they think they can get away with it.

Don't believe me? Post this in the cop forum and see the responses you get. I promise to stay way out of it in there.

They push and push and push, and call me crazy all you want, but at a certain point people WILL push back. The fact that that push will be violent is unfortunate, however both the police and the politicians and legislators empowering them don't seem to respond to anything else.


But as posted, my state already has laws on the books that stop this kind of Gestapo behavior, so its not a personal concern of mine. Just a shame to see happening to other parts of the country.

tslex
05-17-2011, 15:41
The trouble with Barnes v. Indiana isn't just what they did in that case, on those facts, so much as what they wrote and how broadly they decided.

As one dissent points out, they could have accomplished the same thing by finding on these facts that an active domestic violence investigation constitutes exigent circumstances, thus no need of a warrant for entry.

No argument there from most people; Constitutionally sound. Simply clarifies a particular set of exigencies.

But that's NOT what they did. Instead they said: You cannot use even reasonable force to resist a wrongful entry into your home. You may not resist it at all. You may not, one supposes, even stand in the door. Ignoring the 4th Amendment, which codified the common law right, they said there is no such right. That precedent is a huge breach in the protections of the Constitution, not so much in what it limits citizens from doing as in what it licenses the government to do.

As one dissent said: "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances."

Read the entire decision -- it's not awfully long. This is a terrible and dangerous ruling.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:43
I do not want it all my way, and I realize there are other philosophies. But there are certain principles that should not sacrificed on the alter of "peace".

I'll ask again. Is there a point, a line in the sand that if crossed, you would not feel morally compelled to resist?

Of course I have lines, just as you have lines.

However, there is a cost to those lines. If you draw yours here, you are saying "I set my line at inconvenience." As significant as it may or may not be.

You would sacrifice your life and take life over something that you could be wrong about in the moment and could be solved in a way very favorable to you in a system that generally works well.


Good luck with that.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:46
Don't believe me? Post this in the cop forum and see the responses you get. I promise to stay way out of it in there.

.

Did it ever occure to you, that Police see it the way they do because they know the reality of the issues? They know the Law, they know how the system works and they are looking for the facts of the issue?

Post an article on something the police did and people will, without any facts, get very emotional over what the police did. Facts be damned.

muscogee
05-17-2011, 15:47
I fail to see how any case law can over ride the 4th amendment. I think the Sheriff may want to contact the county attorney before he implements his grand plan.

Already happened. We have no knock laws and police can search your car if they have probable cause.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 15:47
Of course I have lines, just as you have lines.

However, there is a cost to those lines. If you draw yours here, you are saying "I set my line at inconvenience." As significant as it may or may not be.

You would sacrifice your life and take life over something that you could be wrong about in the moment and could be solved in a way very favorable to you in a system that generally works well.


Good luck with that.

Yeah, some people still believe in the constitution. Go figure. I wonder what would have happened if the founding fathers thought like that, rather than taking a stand and doing something about it.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:48
BTW, for what it is worth, because facts are not enough for people,(they have to now how you feel as well...) I think it is a bad ruling.

Sam Spade
05-17-2011, 15:52
Already happened. We have no knock laws and police can search your car if they have probable cause.

That might be an argument if:

1) There was actually a "knock" requirement in the Constitution (there's not)

and

2) There was a prohibition on warrantless searches of your wagon in 1789 (there wasn't).

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:52
Yeah, some people still believe in the constitution. Go figure. I wonder what would have happened if the founding fathers thought like that, rather than taking a stand and doing something about it.

Uh, the Bill of Rights was not even suppossed to be in the Constitution. Before you toss out the "Founding Fathers" card, you need to get caught up on the histroy of all of that.

The Constitution is a document of compromise (a pretty good one at that) between a bunch of people who were very factional that resorted to all manner of things to get their side heard.

On another note, if this is the hill you would die on. I get that. I cant change your mind nor am I trying. I am just pointing out, this is your line. You would die and kill for this.

And again, good luck with that.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 15:54
Did it ever occure to you, that Police see it the way they do because they know the reality of the issues? They know the Law, they know how the system works and they are looking for the facts of the issue?


That is an incorrect statement. Police do not know the law, the facts, or 'the issues' anywhere near as well as some people make them out to. Thats why everything from citations to convictions get thrown out all the time. To cite one example, I can't remember the last time I read about a bust where police estimated the value of drugs properly. These are their specially trained squads, and they can't even price out drugs?


Post an article on something the police did and people will, without any facts, get very emotional over what the police did. Facts be damned.

Sure they will. Because its par for the course at this point to hear about police screwing something up. This goes back to my previous post.

So what you get, is you get politicians passing all these laws to make up for gross incompetence. You get laws that say, "Well, if the officer screwed up we'll just disregard that and convict anyways, due process be damned." Problem is, thats the wrong end to tackle the issue from. That violates the constitution. You need to tackle it from the end of raising the bar for police. They need higher standards and requirements and better compensation.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 15:55
Already happened. We have no knock laws and police can search your car if they have probable cause.

There is not a warning requirment for warrant service in the Constitution.

There is also a lot of case law and pre/post constitutional writtings about carriage laws. They are not and have never been looked at in the same way as your home.

Bogey
05-17-2011, 15:55
In NC's concealed carry class, it is specifically stated that a person may shoot through their door if there is someone trying to break through it. WITHOUT having to verify WHO is breaking it in. (silly, I know...but that's what it is)

Once the person has broken in, one may NOT use deadly force to deter the intruder unless they are in fear of great bodily harm, or is in fear for their life.

So, according to our State law, I do not have to verify WHO is breaking through my door before shooting.

I don't ever want to test this law, but I wonder how any LEO would react should they hear bullets whizzing by their head at 900 fps?

Mushinto
05-17-2011, 15:56
... However, plenty are just people who, in some way, think themselve should be exempt from the social contract because they are special in some way.

Fortunately for us, more of them exist in cyberland than in the real world.

Sam Spade
05-17-2011, 15:57
There is not a warning requirment for warrant service in the Constitution.

There is also a lot of case law and pre/post constitutional writtings about carriage laws. They are not and have never been looked at in the same way as your home.

:tongueout:

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 15:58
Uh, the Bill of Rights was not even suppossed to be in the Constitution. Before you toss out the "Founding Fathers" card, you need to get caught up on the histroy of all of that.

The Constitution is a document of compromise (a pretty good one at that) between a bunch of people who were very factional that resorted to all manner of things to get their side heard.


You're right, its a damn good one. And if we'd just stop violating it, and look to it for guidance we'd be a lot better off.



On another note, if this is the hill you would die on. I get that. I cant change your mind nor am I trying. I am just pointing out, this is your line. You would die and kill for this.

And again, good luck with that.

Yes. Someone unlawfully storming my house is my hill. Quite frankly, its a hill that a lot of people 'round these parts reside on, and I'm not sure how anyone can feel otherwise. I couldn't imagine living life feeling that even in your own house you're subject to unlawful actions of someone else and are expected to just sit there and take it. Thats pretty much complete and total subjugation at the hands of a police state, you realize that?

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 16:00
That is an incorrect statement. Police do not know the law, the facts, or 'the issues' anywhere near as well as some people make them out to. Thats why everything from citations to convictions get thrown out all the time. To cite one example, I can't remember the last time I read about a bust where police estimated the value of drugs properly. These are their specially trained squads, and they can't even price out drugs?



Sure they will. Because its par for the course at this point to hear about police screwing something up. This goes back to my previous post.

So what you get, is you get politicians passing all these laws to make up for gross incompetence. You get laws that say, "Well, if the officer screwed up we'll just disregard that and convict anyways, due process be damned." Problem is, thats the wrong end to tackle the issue from. That violates the constitution. You need to tackle it from the end of raising the bar for police. They need higher standards and requirements and better compensation.

You dont know what cases get thrown out if you think it is the Police.

Also, considering how many things the police do, how many millions of contacts they have, it is a mathematical anomaly when they egregiously do something wrong. The headlines actually prove that. As gun people like to say to prove a point.....today, 80 million gun owners DID'NT do anything wrong....

The simple truth is, you and I will never agree on this issue but the sad thing is, you are unwilling to learn the things you dont know. You are not wrong in all you believe and if you dont like or trust the police, that is fine as well. It is a valid, real opinion that I have no desire, need or right to try to take from you. However, you really dont understand what police do, why they do it and the math of the issue nor do you want to. You think you already know it all.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 16:02
Fortunately for us, more of them exist in cyberland than in the real world.

I dont know about that... :rofl:

In the real world, I arrest such people all the time...Online, it is the blowhards who always talk about what "I would do...." because they know everything and can win every fight....

muscogee
05-17-2011, 16:04
That might be an argument if:

1) There was actually a "knock" requirement in the Constitution (there's not)

and

2) There was a prohibition on warrantless searches of your wagon in 1789 (there wasn't).

In the Sixties police had to knock and announce themselves before coming into your house and they could not search your car without permission. These were considered unreasonable searches.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 16:06
You're right, its a damn good one. And if we'd just stop violating it, and look to it for guidance we'd be a lot better off.




Yes. Someone unlawfully storming my house is my hill. Quite frankly, its a hill that a lot of people 'round these parts reside on, and I'm not sure how anyone can feel otherwise. I couldn't imagine living life feeling that even in your own house you're subject to unlawful actions of someone else and are expected to just sit there and take it. Thats pretty much complete and total subjugation at the hands of a police state, you realize that?

No, it is not "total subjugation" if you have a fair system of redress. It isnt anything close to total subjugation. It is a system that you dont like.

Again, you see "this sucks...a lot, right now" as "total subjugation" and would die and kill for an inconvenient event that you could have a very favorable outcome for.

Once more, if this is the hill you are willing to die for, I get. I am just pointing out what it is. Your hyperbole doesnt make the hill any higher.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 16:07
:tongueout:

Hey, I was wasting my time arguing on the internet with other posts. :rofl:

So...you win.

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 16:10
No, it is not "total subjugation" if you have a fair system of redress. It isnt anything close to total subjugation. It is a system that you dont like.

Again, you see "this sucks...a lot, right now" as "total subjugation" and would die and kill for an inconvenient event that you could have a very favorable outcome for.

Once more, if this is the hill you are willing to die for, I get. I am just pointing out what it is. Your hyperbole doesnt make the hill any higher.

No, see, this is what YOU don't understand. Its already been ruled that if police find something illegal, even if their tactics were unlawful or illegal, that the conviction would stand.

Now its been ruled in a state that the police can barge in illegally (please let that take a moment to sink in. The POLICE can barge in ILLEGALLY) and you can't do anything about it.

So its ruled, in total, that police can barge in and go looking with absolutely no legal backing or even halfway valid reason and you have to sit there and let them. And if they find anything, even if it was done illegally, you're going to jail. And if they don't find anything...no harm no foul. You go to court, maybe get a new front door, they might get a mild slap on the wrist, and then they move onto the next victim.

I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can be. Do you understand the concept of due process and how this violates it? I studied it a fair amount in my law classes, court cases and all. They are violating due process. They are violating the constitution. You have to stand up against that. You have to stand up for your rights or you will lose them. You've already consented to giving up this right in your line of thinking.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 16:16
No, see, this is what YOU don't understand. Its already been ruled that if police find something illegal, even if their tactics were unlawful or illegal, that the conviction would stand.

Now its been ruled in a state that the police can barge in illegally (please let that take a moment to sink in. The POLICE can barge in ILLEGALLY) and you can't do anything about it.

So its ruled, in total, that police can barge in and go looking with absolutely no legal backing or even halfway valid reason and you have to sit there and let them. And if they find anything, even if it was done illegally, you're going to jail. And if they don't find anything...no harm no foul. You go to court, maybe get a new front door, they might get a mild slap on the wrist, and then they move onto the next victim.

I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can be. Do you understand the concept of due process and how this violates it? I studied it a fair amount in my law classes, court cases and all. They are violating due process. They are violating the constitution. You have to stand up against that. You have to stand up for your rights or you will lose them. You've already consented to giving up this right in your line of thinking.

In all of these classes about law....you must have missed the day where they talked about "Fruit of the poisonous tree"

Again, this is not a black and white issue. You are willing to kill and die because you want to believe something. Not because of all the facts.

While it isnt very healthy it is pretty common. It's your life. Good luck with that.

michael e
05-17-2011, 16:21
If they want to come into my house and act like it is there property they need to start paying for my bills and everything related to house expense. Untill then they will not be coming in my house uninvited

John Rambo
05-17-2011, 16:21
In all of these classes about law....you must have missed the day where they talked about "Fruit of the poisonous tree"

Again, this is not a black and white issue. You are willing to kill and die because you want to believe something. Not because of all the facts.

While it isnt very healthy it is pretty common. It's your life. Good luck with that.

Well, the only facts I'm interested in discussing that could be of any relevance in moving this conversation forward are the concept of due process and the rulings that have been passed which I feel that violate it. If you have anything to say about them, I assure you that I've studied up enough on it (in real textbooks with real instructors, not just reading the internet) to be a decent conversation partner.

If you agree that this violates due process and just don't care, because as long as you weren't doing anything wrong you can sue and take your chances, then we have a difference in beliefs and no amount of conversation will change that.

If you deny that the two rulings I mentioned exist, I can provide them for you. If you deny that they do what I've said they do, then we can certainly discuss them starting with me posting the rulings.


Since we're both keeping it civil, if there is a constructive avenue to continue this conversation down, I'd very much like to do so.

Rabbi
05-17-2011, 16:29
Well, the only facts I'm interested in discussing that could be of any relevance in moving this conversation forward are the concept of due process and the rulings that have been passed which I feel that violate it. If you have anything to say about them, I assure you that I've studied up enough on it (in real textbooks with real instructors, not just reading the internet) to be a decent conversation partner.

If you agree that this violates due process and just don't care, because as long as you weren't doing anything wrong you can sue and take your chances, then we have a difference in beliefs and no amount of conversation will change that.

If you deny that the two rulings I mentioned exist, I can provide them for you. If you deny that they do what I've said they do, then we can certainly discuss them starting with me posting the rulings.


Since we're both keeping it civil, if there is a constructive avenue to continue this conversation down, I'd very much like to do so.

I actually do agree that it violates due process. However, due process is not the only part of the law that matters. It is just the only part you want to apply in this case.

Because it violates due process doesnt mean "And because of that you can kill people"

Sam Spade
05-17-2011, 16:30
In the Sixties police had to knock and announce themselves before coming into your house and they could not search your car without permission. These were considered unreasonable searches.

You remember wrong.

The auto exception to the search warrant requirement dates to 1925. It quoted law from the First Congress, the same one that did the work on the BoR.

The requirement for knock and announce was decided in 1995, in Wilson v Arkansas.

Jason D
05-17-2011, 16:55
Ding dong......



Just a sec, I need to grab my 870

buckcr250r
05-17-2011, 17:01
Ding dong......



Just a sec, I need to grab my 870

hmmmm,

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/3254924/detail.html

schild
05-17-2011, 17:22
Somehow I don't feel secure knowing the 4th amendment is now worthless, yet tons of drugs continue to pour over our "secure" border with Mexico.

I guarantee that once the "random" searches start the police will start removing "dangerous" stockpiles of weapons and ammo.

I'm pretty certain some people won't mind.

Glock20 10mm
05-17-2011, 17:28
That's right! Guilty until proven innocent!

































Errrr.... wait, is that right?

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

G36's Rule
05-17-2011, 17:32
:steamed: :50cal:

buckcr250r
05-17-2011, 17:42
:fallenofficer::headscratch::couch::soap::bringiton::50cal:

surety agent 1
05-17-2011, 17:48
The idea of bad things happening to LEOs makes you happy?

When they violate the U.S. Constitution, very much !

surety agent 1
05-17-2011, 17:51
The people in the Sheriff's jurisdiction should be swarming the state capital about now. The Governor can remove him.

Bet they're to busy playing Xbox or watching sports !

THEPOPE
05-17-2011, 21:19
I don't, CAN'T , agree with the ruling, BUT I can understand, sorta, why they did it......

Protecting and supporting the officers involved in a search or bust, I would love to think this is designed to keep the armed populous from shooting expensively trained officers from having holes blown into 'em, a fine and desirable end-game is to have them come home un-scathed after doing their jobs.

Police screw up, and yep, can open the wrong door at the wrong resident at the wrong time, and I think this could be the reasoning behind the ruling, to save officers' lives in case of an error, after all, they put their lives on the line doing a job they choose, and risk is part of it....

That being said, the home-owner should not be subject to having doors kicked open and gun-pointed having little or no recourse to that action.

HOWEVER, I believe the cops should make every effort to identify themselves so as not to get into this predicament to begin with, with good intel...

The ruling opens up the possibility of abuse , and I also believe the Powers that Be would love to get rid of that pesky Constitution along with those un-reasonable Rights, we the People tend to up-hold as our own.....



My 2 centavos are worth much less these days, so I am out....:cool:

Dragoon44
05-17-2011, 21:48
I read the article (I know, I know...crazy).

I see no quotes, no context, no link to audio...and this thread became longer than the article somewhere around Post #6.

Now, why should I trust this member of the press to have reported anything accurately?

After seeing all the pages and then reading the linked article I was wondering the same things where are the quotes? where is the audio? what were the questions that were asked?

Was that what he actually said or is that the reporters "interpretation" of what he said? if was indeed a reporter to begin with.

muscogee
05-17-2011, 21:56
You remember wrong.

The auto exception to the search warrant requirement dates to 1925. It quoted law from the First Congress, the same one that did the work on the BoR.

The requirement for knock and announce was decided in 1995, in Wilson v Arkansas.

Knock Down for Knock and Announce

The ruling was a blow to the knock and announce rule established by the Supreme Court in the 1960's. At that time, the Court imposed an exclusionary rule which made evidence obtained in an improper search inadmissible in a trial. http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/supreme-court-alters-knock-and

Rabbi
05-19-2011, 17:40
After seeing all the pages and then reading the linked article I was wondering the same things where are the quotes? where is the audio? what were the questions that were asked?

Was that what he actually said or is that the reporters "interpretation" of what he said? if was indeed a reporter to begin with.

Demanding proof? Who do you think you are?

guns54
05-20-2011, 10:00
Can't answer that. I never felt the need to call them. Hi. I never had to ,But if i did i would hope they would get here fast,and not an hour later.

Sam Spade
05-20-2011, 11:40
After seeing all the pages and then reading the linked article I was wondering the same things where are the quotes? where is the audio? what were the questions that were asked?

Was that what he actually said or is that the reporters "interpretation" of what he said? if was indeed a reporter to begin with.

Well fancy that. The bizarro web site got it a bit wrong. And the lemmings followed the nutters right off the cliff.

http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/

Prediction: People who should neither be allowed to vote nor breed will not be bothered by some inconvenient truth.

Sam Spade
05-20-2011, 11:45
Ah, what the heck. To remove some of the willful blindness alibi, here's what the Sheriff has to say about the brouhaha.


On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station.* Her question
concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random
warrantless searches.* I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she
then asked how the Sheriff’s Office conducted searches of residences.* I informed her that
searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot
pursuit.* When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police
officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch.* This reporter then
asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights.* This State Supreme Court ruling in my
opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will
be revisited. *

When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave
her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee.* I advised her that if people were aware
of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if
it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission. *

This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search
without due cause.* Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. *
I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.

I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County
Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or
probable cause to do so.* I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.

Imagine that---the press that makes people foam at the mouth because of the way they deal with lawful gun use by guys like you....can't be trusted on subjects that feedyour bias either. Whodathunkit?

Sam Spade
05-20-2011, 12:05
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/supreme-court-alters-knock-and

Let me get this straight---I gave you the Supreme Court decision that addresses knock and announce, and you counter with legalzoom.com?

rhone89
05-20-2011, 12:11
So, lets say Joe cop decides to bust into my house in the middle of the night with a weapon drawn and I instinctively draw and cap his ass. No knock, no announcement.

Am I at fault?

Sam Spade
05-20-2011, 12:15
So, lets say Joe cop decides to bust into my house in the middle of the night with a weapon drawn and I instinctively draw and cap his ass. No knock, no announcement.

Am I at fault?

Probably not. But there're going to be a lot of other factors involved, and we'll doubtless spin off into the differences that tip things one way or the other.

Rabbi
05-20-2011, 12:16
So, lets say Joe cop decides to bust into my house in the middle of the night with a weapon drawn and I instinctively draw and cap his ass. No knock, no announcement.

Am I at fault?

There really is no "Fault" in a criminal event. You are charged (and then all the paths after that)

I dont know Indiana law but it sounds like, if you did that, you would go to the grand jury first. You could still be "No Billed"

While no one wants to be a test case, what you are talking about is what could give someone "standing" to challenge the whole thing.

Mayhem like Me
05-20-2011, 12:16
Case law is a draw on this how good is your lawyer, does he have PC??A warrant??

guns54
05-20-2011, 12:32
I submit that anyone engaging in this activity is not an LEO, but rather a thug on the state's payroll. LEO implies by its very nature that they're enforcing laws. The supreme law of the land says they can't bust into someone's house for no good reason without a warrant. Any lesser ruling is not binding nor relevant. You are right about the thugs. Have a safe day Sir.

muscogee
05-20-2011, 16:07
Let me get this straight---I gave you the Supreme Court decision that addresses knock and announce, and you counter with legalzoom.com?

I'm not an attorney so I don't have access to the resources I would otherwise. I just remember when the police had to knock and announce their presence and then give you a chance to open the door before they entered. My car was never searched during a routine stop until the Seventies. You can claim otherwise, but I know how it was.

Sam Spade
05-20-2011, 17:33
I'm not an attorney so I don't have access to the resources I would otherwise. I just remember when the police had to knock and announce their presence and then give you a chance to open the door before they entered. My car was never searched during a routine stop until the Seventies. You can claim otherwise, but I know how it was.

Not only do I claim otherwise, I gave you the definitive cite as proof. Police have been searching cars without warrants since at least 1925, when Carroll v US was decided. There is no knock/announce requirement in the Constitution, and that was not the law of the land until 1995, when Wilson v AR was decided. You're welcome to google and read the decisions---one of the great things about them is that you don't have to be a lawyer to access them or understand.

I'm sorry, it just wasn't the way you remember.

Bucky69
05-20-2011, 17:33
Bet they're to busy playing Xbox or watching sports !

So it won't even faze them when the Sheriff does an unanounced entry through a locked front door and searches their house without a warrant.

CAcop
05-20-2011, 17:55
I'm not an attorney so I don't have access to the resources I would otherwise. I just remember when the police had to knock and announce their presence and then give you a chance to open the door before they entered. My car was never searched during a routine stop until the Seventies. You can claim otherwise, but I know how it was.

Please cite case law.

The knock/announce requirement is to notify the occupants of you identity and your reason to demand entry. There is no requirement for you to be able to answer the door. As to time limit the courts have only said a "reasonable" time.

What's reasonable? That is for attorney's to pad their billable hours.

greenman19
05-20-2011, 19:48
this thread has been greatly entertaining to say the least, to bad the probable cause for the arguement evaporated. i would like to say that i think these rulings could lend themselves to abuse by "less energetic" LEO's.

something that i find humorous is the apparent belief that if if someone kills an officer serving a warrant the rest of the department would run away.

Mushinto
05-21-2011, 14:17
Random House, to House Searches, Possible??
Subtitle:

A major publishing company is building shelters for Mr. and Mrs. Searches, a homeless family, and the OP does not believe it?

You guys are getting upset over nothing.

ICARRY2
05-21-2011, 16:05
I would like for Sherrif Hartman to produce 100 random people who live in his county who support his idea to search random houses in order to catch criminals.

Sam Spade
05-21-2011, 16:13
I would like for Sherrif Hartman to produce 100 random people who live in his county who support his idea to search random houses in order to catch criminals.

Entry #1 in the "I didn't read the thread" contest...

ICARRY2
05-22-2011, 02:01
I would like for Sherrif Hartman to produce 100 random people who live in his county who support his idea to search random houses in order to catch criminals.

Entry #1 in the "I didn't read the thread" contest...

I read the story. The Sheriff was pretty clear.

What is it that you think I missed?

No I didn't read everyone's post.

ICARRY2
05-22-2011, 02:43
Okay Sam, I went back and reread every post. I saw your post where you quoted (without a link) the Sherrif clarifying his statements made to the reporter.

Glad to hear the Sheriff doesn't actually intend to randomly search homes looking for bad guys. I wonder how the reporter misquoted the Sherrif so badly?

However, why do you think many here (including myself) believed the original story from the link? I hate to say it, but there are leo's who have that mindset. The government (i.e. police/politicians/etc.) are the masters and the citizens are the slaves and shall not question the master's authority.

People are starting to feel very claustrophobic regarding their freedoms and liberty as a result of court rulings like this one in Indiana and they are sick of it. People are lashing out. It is only going to get worse if the people in government don't start using a little common-sense and learn some self-control with the power and trust held by them.

BTW, I have many many years ago given police permission to look through my backyard and shed who were searching for a man with a gun who commited a violent crime.

ICARRY2
05-22-2011, 02:57
Entry #1 in the "I didn't read the thread" contest...

BTW Sam, this link to your quote would have been much more useful than your comment.

http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/

Lior
05-22-2011, 03:32
IMO this ridiculous "suspicionless random house to house search" idea can only work in societies in which keeping and owning firearms is not a pervasive part of mainstream culture.

Search
05-22-2011, 04:11
Wtf people..

The ruling does not make unlawful entries by police lawful. It just tells people they cannot resist an unlawful police entry.

Any evidence collected in such searches would be inadmissible in court.


Edit: Yup I went from the first post and replied without reading that it was already established earlier in the thread.

However you might also notice that I don't care and you can read it again.

tantrix
05-22-2011, 04:45
Did it ever occure to you, that Police see it the way they do because they know the reality of the issues? They know the Law, they know how the system works and they are looking for the facts of the issue?

:rofl:

No, that's just 1 of the 5000 things wrong with the justice system in this country. In quite a lot of cases the police don't know the laws they are enforcing. I've schooled more than one LEO on the "laws they thought they knew" and a few minutes later had the Sgt come over the radio and tell the officer to leave me alone and let me go. I was out of town of course, so once the officer saw that on my license I guess he figured he could do what he wanted and I wouldn't be back in town to fight him on it in court. After me and the officer had a little "discussion" and I handed him my cell phone with my attorney on the other end, I was driving away minutes later.

Mayhem like Me
05-22-2011, 07:48
:rofl:

No, that's just 1 of the 5000 things wrong with the justice system in this country. In quite a lot of cases the police don't know the laws they are enforcing. I've schooled more than one LEO on the "laws they thought they knew" and a few minutes later had the Sgt come over the radio and tell the officer to leave me alone and let me go. I was out of town of course, so once the officer saw that on my license I guess he figured he could do what he wanted and I wouldn't be back in town to fight him on it in court. After me and the officer had a little "discussion" and I handed him my cell phone with my attorney on the other end, I was driving away minutes later.

Riiiiiight!:upeyes:

Dragoon44
05-22-2011, 08:05
I wonder how the reporter misquoted the Sherrif so badly?

Because it is a libertarian blog and has an agenda. Why would a legit "report" deliberately avoid any direct quotes from the Sheriff?


why do you think many here (including myself) believed the original story from the link?

Because it fits your mindset, and affirms your bias so you swallow it without one shred of critical thinking getting in your way.

Rabbi
05-22-2011, 08:45
:rofl:

No, that's just 1 of the 5000 things wrong with the justice system in this country. In quite a lot of cases the police don't know the laws they are enforcing. I've schooled more than one LEO on the "laws they thought they knew" and a few minutes later had the Sgt come over the radio and tell the officer to leave me alone and let me go. I was out of town of course, so once the officer saw that on my license I guess he figured he could do what he wanted and I wouldn't be back in town to fight him on it in court. After me and the officer had a little "discussion" and I handed him my cell phone with my attorney on the other end, I was driving away minutes later.

Are you claiming that an Officer allowed you to make a call, on a stop, to your attorney, and then the officer took the call...and the result was "you got the best of him" (Officer)

That didnt happen. That is not how a stop works. That is like claiming you were an Army SEAL who won a classified MOH. It's a great story but is flawed enough for people who know better...to know better.

BTW, even if the story was true and includes unicorns and pots of gold at the end of a rainbow. The math is still against you. While neither is an "expert" in the law, the average person knows far less about the law than the average LEO. a single anecdotal exception doesnt change that and claiming such says more about you and your understanding of very sound logic that it does about the Police.

Sam Spade
05-22-2011, 09:38
BTW Sam, this link to your quote would have been much more useful than your comment.

http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/

Post #119:
Well fancy that. The bizarro web site got it a bit wrong. And the lemmings followed the nutters right off the cliff.

http://www.newtoncountysheriff.com/

Prediction: People who should neither be allowed to vote nor breed will not be bothered by some inconvenient truth.

Sorry, only one contest entry per poster. Employees and family of Spade & Archer LLC not eligible. :cool:

It's all good, bro.

ICARRY2
05-22-2011, 14:20
Post #119:


Sorry, only one contest entry per poster. Employees and family of Spade & Archer LLC not eligible. :cool:

It's all good, bro.

Thanks for pointing it out. My big oversight.

In threads where there are tons of posts I usually just skim over posts or skip around.

ICARRY2
05-22-2011, 15:11
ICARRY2, why do you think many here (including myself) believed the original story from the link?


Because it fits your mindset, and affirms your bias so you swallow it without one shred of critical thinking getting in your way.

So what you are telling me is that you never once in all your years as a leo, NEVER, NEVER EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, came to a conclusion based on your experiences as a leo that turned out to be incorrect and you had to change your initial conclusion based upon additonal or corrected information.

If there weren't some cops out there with the mindset of "I am the master, so do as I say and don't question my authority", then there wouldn't be cause for anyone to believe stories like this one without taking a second look.

Look at the Indiana Supreme Court's decision. This is the mindset of what people are resenting. When you see things like this, coupled with "Junior", why would anyone not just assume the Sheriff didn't say he was considering searching homes randomly. These things aren't being made up. They are happening. There are so many of these acts by gov't occuring regularly that it just doesn't surprise people anymore that a Sheriff would say something like this. People in gov't are doing it to themselves. The citizenry is not drawing these conclusion on there own, the conclusions are being drawn by the previous acts of persons in gov't.

Look at the Philly Sgt. who made contact with Viper. "Hey Junior!" Based on your posts here at GT, this is actually how I perceive you when you were a leo.

Whites and Blacks, rich and poor, men and women, management and labor, cops and citizens, etc., each perceive the other differently based upon our experiences with the other. Some of it is valid and some of it is not.

Like I told SamSpade, I was glad to see the Sheriff comments were taken out of context. Not being from Indiana, I was not familiar with this reporter's views. I made a comment based upon the original article alone.

The comment I made (before seeing the additonal info from Sam) was about the Sheriff finding 100 random people to support randoms house searches.

But once again Dragoon44, the only way you know how to make an arguement is to belittle the other person. :upeyes:

Talk about mindset and bias. :whistling:

tantrix
05-22-2011, 16:44
Are you claiming that an Officer allowed you to make a call, on a stop, to your attorney, and then the officer took the call...and the result was "you got the best of him" (Officer)

That didnt happen. That is not how a stop works. That is like claiming you were an Army SEAL who won a classified MOH. It's a great story but is flawed enough for people who know better...to know better.


You are either very stubborn or very ignorant today...I'm not sure which. You are actually comparing a bad traffic stop to that of a heroic war story with unicorns, pots of gold and rainbows? That's bold even for you Rabbi...:rofl:

And yes, I was in fact easily able to speed-dial my attorney's cell phone from mine during the stop (which the officer didn't know) and then after I informed him my attorney was overhearing the stop which had been going on for damn near 30 minutes (harassment, anyone?) the entire thing was pretty much over with.

But, I guess I must have been standing on the side of the road dreaming then, because according to you it didn't happen, and "that is not how a stop works." I guess with you there's either 1 million variables in a conversation, or none at all. :whistling:





The math is still against you. While neither is an "expert" in the law, the average person knows far less about the law than the average LEO. a single anecdotal exception doesnt change that and claiming such says more about you and your understanding of very sound logic that it does about the Police.

Again, another bold claim...the average person knows more about the law than the average LEO? Ok, I'll take my stab...if that is in fact true, the majority of LEO's are dumb-asses when it comes to knowing the law. Oh wait, that's right...it's because they didn't go to law school like attorneys did and also make 5x less pay.


I get so sick of any discussion with the word "cop" or "officer" in it because it simply shows yet again how simply nature of a profession can put it on a pedestal. Oh and let's not forget the many 21-22 years old are cruising around in patrol cars because they went through the grueling P.O.S.T. certification.

Remember that everyone next time you get pulled over by an officer that is barely out of high-school...you heard it here first from Rabbi: the average person knows far less about the law than the average LEO

Rabbi
05-22-2011, 17:00
You are either very stubborn or very ignorant today...I'm not sure which. You are actually comparing a bad traffic stop to that of a heroic a war story with unicorns, pots of gold and rainbows? That's bold even for you Rabbi...:rofl:

And yes, I was in fact easily able to speed-dial my attorney's cell phone from mine during the stop (which the officer didn't know) and then after I informed him my attorney was overhearing the stop which had been going on for damn near 30 minutes (harassment, anyone?) the entire thing was pretty much over with.

But, I guess I must have been standing on the side of the road dreaming then, because according to you it didn't happen, and "that is not how a stop works." I guess with you there's either 1 million variables in a conversation, or none at all. :whistling:







Again, another bold claim...the average person knows more about the law than the average LEO? Ok, I'll take my stab...if that is in fact true, the majority of LEO's are dumb-asses when it comes to knowing the law. Oh wait, that's right...it's because they didn't go to law school like attorneys did and also make 5x less pay.


I get so sick of any discussion with the word "cop" or "officer" in it because it simply shows yet again how simply nature of a profession can put it on a pedestal. Oh and let's not forget the many 21-22 years old are cruising around in patrol cars because they went through the grueling P.O.S.T. certification.

Remember that everyone next time you get pulled over by an officer that is barely out of high-school...you heard it here first from Rabbi:

You're lying. It didnt happen like you say it did.

Second, if you are honestly going to take the stand that "the average LEO knows more about the law than the average person knows about the law" is a flawed statement. There is no way to have a conversation with you. That is like having an argument with someone who is making his stand that 1 + 1 = blinker fluid or 4. Your feel so strongly about this that you cant even accept a simple statistic.

Nothing is going to stand in the way of how you feel. So call me an idot and exclaim how I dont know what I am talking about, or whatever else. There is nothing productive to be said about this with you.

My statements stand.

tantrix
05-22-2011, 17:42
You're lying. It didnt happen like you say it did.

Like I said...there's no arguing with the Rabbi, the all-knowing...:upeyes:




My statements stand.

Your statements always "stand", and sometimes on 1 leg (like this thread)...that's the entire problem. You either try to confuse people into believing what you say, or (like this thread) just flat-out say "I'm right, your wrong...doesn't matter if this happened 600 miles away from me and I wasn't there."

I didn't call you an idiot, but I can say with confidence there are more than a few things you've posted in this thread are definitely idiotic. Sometimes people try to sound so smart they sound stupid. I'm getting that vibe right now, so I'm gonna bow out and let you be the "victor" or else you'll be pulling out a calculus or trigonometry book and this thread will go on for the rest of time and overload GT's servers.

TBO
01-31-2013, 21:00
It's been a few years now, did the sky fall?

Mushinto
02-01-2013, 10:19
Yes.

I miss the old days of May of 2011.

plainsman
02-11-2013, 16:30
Good to know the police will only invade homeowners property in places a criminal might hide. This seems to mean where all of us, soon to be peasants without rights, live.

Great to know places like my goldfish bowl and places like inside my vacume cleaner won't be seached at present.(too small to hide anyone other then a pigmy)

May as well flush that useless Bill of Rights down the toliet, if it impedes the nannie state.