Indiana Sheriff Don Hartman Sr. is delighted. Under Barnes vs. Indiana he can now conduct random house-to-house searches when ever he thinks it necessary. No warrant needed. Not necessarily even a knock before kicking in your door.
His use of "necessary" marks a third and new standard of what cops must do before putting you on the floor of your living room. We already had probable cause and the weaker reasonable suspicion. To that we now add the sherf's hunch.
You'll recall the new Indiana Supreme Court decision forbids you to resist if the police decide to invade your home, even the police are doing so illegally.
Sheriff Hartman says he's on firm political ground because "...people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal." The Hell of it is, he may be as much right as wrong. The Fourth Amendment is not a popular discussion item at your average American lunch counter.
N.B. -- Hoosiers in Hartman's Newton County jurisdiction who care to comment should disagree with me, loudly and firmly. Sheriff Hartman may well be one of armed Only Ones who think criticizing NKVD-style jurisprudence is criminally anti-social. That might move him to pay you a call about 3. a.m. Just on a hunch, y'know.
12 comments:
I wonder how long it is until some "racist, homophobic, terrorist Neanderthal" that missed the official revocation of the Constitution decides to protect his castle, and some JBT dies of instantaneous airborne lead poisoning?
Not soon enough for me.
I'm in TX, hoping and praying this gets burned - along with the arses of the 3 of 5 who voted for it - by a subsequent federal court.
I'll hold my breath.
In the meantime, should Sheriff John Q. Texas decides some random door-to-door time is in order, the law-abidingness of the Me that answers the door will vary in proportion to whether or not his search goes past my door when I say, "No."
tweaker
This insane decision offers the perfect opportunity for the ACLU to earn some respect. This should be just their cup of tea. However,...
In the meantime, everyone should take a deep breath and recognize the fact that this decision applies only to Indiana, bless their hearts. JAGSC
Yeah, I'm taking that sole-source quote with a grain of NaCl.
Incidentally, the sheer idiocy that has been spewed on this decision is hilarious.
It's fun watching the various plumbers and auto mechanics and IT geeks offer their opinions on a legal decision.
Me? I asked my two lawyer friends: One who plays defense and the other who's on offense. You'll note that, while I think it's a dumb ruling and needs to be overturned ASAP, I'm not one of the people running around saying things like "This invalidates the 4th Amendment! They can just come in your house and get whatever evidence they want!" or "This gives the cops the right to walk in your door whenever they want!"
No, it doesn't. It says that you will be prosecuted if you shoot a cop that comes in your front door, even if they did it in error.
To Anon 11:50: You go 'head and shoot the next cop that comes through your front door and tell me whether or not you get prosecuted, and I don't care WHAT state you hang your hat in.
Yes, the Hartman piece could use a little buttressing as a couple of us agreed over at Guffaw's place. I've been watching for the sheriff to deny, or explain, or clarify.
Anon 11:50 has spent his full fair share of time in legal libraries and court rooms, and the next time an opposing counsel walks out with his ass in his hands won't be the first.
The issue isn't "shooting" an invading cop. It is "resisting," and Barnes may well be cited some day as precedent to define loud talk as resistence. On its face it already forbids you to bar you dooway with an arm or to close your door.
And it isn't just us rustic morons who are concerned.
This was a narrow decison, 3-2, and the Rucker/Dickson dissent holds that the majority "breathtakingly" erred by applying reasoning about resisting +unlawful arrest away from your home+ to your right to a certain sanctuary in your home.
As to the scope of damage to the Fourth Amendment, Justices Rucker writes:
"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.++ And that
their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena."
Jim,
I gathered that from the "JAG" part of the "JAGSC" signoff, which is why I only addressed the last sentence specifically to him, and not the preceding grafs. Perhaps I should have been more clearer. ;)
Point of personal privilege here. I am the Anonymous who signs off as "JAGSC"--I am NOT the Anonymous 11.50. My comments about the Indiana SC decision were limited to its stupidity and its limited application. In case no one noticed, my comments about its precedent was sarcasm JAGSC
Those timeoffs are prone to misreading due to their placement, and you do show here as 11:50. The more important point is that you never threatened to shoot anyone. Nor can I imagine you doing so over a matter of judicial interpretation, however contentious.
Jim,
I am apparently phrasing myself very poorly, here, and for that I apologize.
It probably would not surprise you to know that this was at the root of last Friday's big shouting match at Roseholme cottage, then? :(
Sorry for digging it up in your comments section.
That was gracious, Tam, and I would accept the apology if an apology were necessary.
It isn't as though a misunderstanding in Blogville is a condition so rare as to require examining the most obscure medical journals. :)
Pax.
Post a Comment