"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
"Modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" justifies an illegal and violent home breakin for "no reason at all?"
We have fallen far from the roots of our liberties, from the vision of guys like William Pitt (the elder.)
"Modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" justifies an illegal and violent home breakin for "no reason at all?"
We have fallen far from the roots of our liberties, from the vision of guys like William Pitt (the elder.)
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail -- its roof may shake -- the wind may blow through it -- the storm may enter -- the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter! -- all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
Or is it declasse to remember what some of those old dead white guys said?
If anyone is collecting money to make air space over the Indiana Supreme Court a no-fly zone, put me down for a hundred bucks.
--
H/T Roberta
5 comments:
One more axe-blow to the Tree of Liberty. Actually two, the article stated that police don't need a judge to give permission to enter a house unannounced.
Comply citizen!
I don't know what "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudece" those clowns are reading, but I have a feeling the Supremes will eventually set them on the right path. JAGSC
My long subjugation to the rule of elastic constitutional law persuades me that the term "modern" in a judicial ruling is a warning to batten down the hatches. Let's hope you're right, Jags, that the higher robes fix this one quickly and without a test case involving blood.
Stranded: Does "Comply!" come before or after "Your papers, Citizen. Quickly!"
Some careful research produced the "modern jurisprudence" the Indiana Subprime Court relied on in issuing their ruling re keep breaking by the constabulary. It is a JP case out of South Soybean Justice Court, styled Ralph Sorehead vs. the City of South Soybean. The case involved a citizen complaining about the local constable, while taking a break from his arduous speed-trap duties, insisted on using the citizen's loo. The Justus Piece ruled in the City's/constable's favor. Now, I ask you, how can you critize precedent like that? JAGSC
:) :)
But, in rural Indiana, an indoor loo would have the attraction of novelty that even a trained officer of the law might nnot be able to resist.
Post a Comment