Indiana Supreme Court Threatened After Allowing Warrantless Searches

It started with this:

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

Nazi Sheriff Don Hartman Sr.

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

www.mikechurch.com...

And now, this:

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – The Indiana Supreme Court has received numerous threats via telephone and email following a controversial decision handed down last Thursday, May 12th, 2011, that “authorizes” police to search homes randomly according to Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman, Kathryn Dolan. In a 3-2 ruling in BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA, Justice Steven David, appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels wrote that under “modern” (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence, Hoosiers must submit to the violent force of any and all UNLAWFUL searches instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion due to individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law.

A Natural Inherent Right of humanity first acknowledged in the English Magna Carta in 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court decreed both the 4th Amendment to the federal constitution and Section 11 of the Indiana state Constitution, null and void, although no mention was given to Indiana’s governing document, despite it being directly in the line of fire.

www.mikechurch.com...

You just keep it up, governments GONE WILD.

What do you expect when YOU won't even follow the constitution?

What, do you expect people just to bend over and hand you the grease?

Or perhaps you would prefer to keep raping us on the highways with insane forfeiture laws that let you steal people's money by just claiming that you "suspect" the money an average citizen is carrying is going to be used to commit a crime? (This is totally true.)

GOOD. I hope people scare you into next week, because that's what you deserve, you fricken morons.

You know what. This is a good thing that this came to pass.

Maybe now people will get involved and lobby their congressmen to pass laws forbidding this sort of thing.

When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Sure I bet people would love for the police to go door to door and search their homes and root through their stuff, tear everything up and then leave when nothing is found....... They should do this every week!

As long as the criminals are caught too eh?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I won't say this surprises me. When people run out of options and the State makes clear its intentions to in effect install a police state, this is bound to happen. In fact, I would have been surprise if it di not happen. I don't advocate violence, but I would not shed tears for those actively working to revoke our most basic human rights. As for the sheriff quoted in the story, maybe the state police ought to start with his house, say at 3AM with his wife and children at home. Maybe he'd see things differently as he watches his dog shot, his wife forced to the floor in her night gown and witnessed his own children scream in terror of an early morning assault by masked armed men.

things cannot go on like this much longer. i would fight to the death to prevent an officer illegally entering my home.

doesn't federal law trump state law? i don't understand how they can get away with this. doesn't this fall under "unlawful search and seizure"?

reply to post by pajoly


Yeah well I took the extra time to upload his pic, so all can see the Nazi TRAITOR this man is. Spread his pic far and wide, and let fate befall those who seek to disregard proper authority.

"I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore."

This sheriff is a traitor to the American Constitution!
If this persists, then truly the end has begun! We are no longer safe within our homes.
SnF

reply to post by TrueAmerican


You know, if he tried to pull this, I bet there would be a number of cops who would refuse to participate. I seriously hope this sheriff tries to enact his plan. The sh*tstorm would be immense. As it is, it already will hurt Mitch Daniels in a presidential run when the public learns he appointed the SOB who wrote the majority opinion on this twisted ruling. Mark my words. On this, even FOX News and MSNBC will likely take the same side.

reply to post by Violater1


I swear, you know what we need?

A Citizens Assassination Team

To go in an covertly take out scum of the earth like this.

I am just WAITING for a single one of you to come into this thread defending warrantless house to house searches as a good thing. Cause I will go off on you.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
It started with this:

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

Nazi Sheriff Don Hartman Sr.

Looking at his photo, I notice that one eye is larger than the other and is not the same size. This may indicate a neurological deficit as well a an endocrinological disorder. A prime short lived puppet for the NWO.

This is very disturbing.
I cannot believe that any state supreme court would make such a ruling.
If we are not free from unwarranted intrusion in our homes we are not free at all but living under the muzzle of police weapons.
I would heartily support non-violent protest to overturn this ruling and hope the people of Indiana will step up to the plate.
Should that fail we are left with few other options, none pleasant or non-violent.
I'm hoping the media will get all over this and more than just Judge Napolitano.

sing along: Indiana wants me, Lord I can't go back there...

And now this from the U.S. Supreme Court today:
US Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Searches

In an 8-1 decision Monday, the Supreme Court said that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment barring "unreasonable searches and seizures" when they smelled marijuana outside a Lexington, Kentucky apartment, knock loudly, announced themselves and -- after hearing what they thought was the sound of evidence being destroyed -- entered without a warrant.

8:1 folks. Astounding. With that sort of vote it makes me think the Indiana law might be upheld by the current Court.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I would heartily support non-violent protest to overturn this ruling and hope the people of Indiana will step up to the plate.

And while you are out there protesting non violently, how many more people are going to be VIOLENTLY murdered by cops like this breaking and entering ILLEGALLY into people's homes?

HUH?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The ruling is unbelievable, and so is that sheriff! I am outraged and appalled.
*
*
*
On the other hand, cops have had this right all along if they believed a crime was in progress. They could always do house to house "voluntary" searches, and if they heard a noise, or had any suspicion, they could go right on in.

My ex-wife worked a case here in town where a drunk college girl came home with her friends, and as her friends were fumbling for keys, the neighboring apartment opened up the door and let the drunk friend collapse into their apartment, and then they locked the door back. They ignored the girls beating on the outside of the door, they ignored the cops when they showed up, and they demanded a warrant before allowing anyone inside. 6 hours later, the cops finally got a warrant, rescued the passed out girl. The rape kit turned up 3 different DNA's!

The cops didn't go in, because they had no reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress. Their actions resulted in a better court case and an iron-clad conviction, but they also resulted in a girl gang-raped! The police could have busted down the door, rescued the girl, ruined the case and probably got sued.

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't!

As in all things, it should be judged in a case by case basis with the facts available at the time. There doesn't need to be a Supreme Court ruling, and cops should not be worrying about lawsuits. Cops should be worrying about the safety of their citizens, and Supreme Courts should be making rulings on a single case at a time. A ruling on one case should not affect every other future case, because each circumstance is unique.

All police forces are armed paramilitary organizations formed and manned by members of the community that step forward and enforce the law. A few, such as sherriff's are appointed by direct election of the people. Most police officers are appointed. Many by people that were appointed themselves but always there is someone who is elected by their peers somewhere in the chain. Such as the direct election of the mayor who appoints the police chief or the mayor was a council member that was elected to council and then voted by council to be mayor. Some places do things differently.

But one thing remains, somewhere in the equation a person is elected by vote who appoints these people to enforce the law as written and inturpeted.

Militias are a group of people from the community that form up to enforce the peace and rule of law. Militias are paramilitary groups just like police officers. Now militias are limited to only engaging foreign and domestic enemies. That is a group that wishes to remove or alter the retained rights of individuals whether that group is from a foreign country or from within the US. It just so happens that Indiana has a very large armed militia.

Now if the Indiana Supreme Court wishes for this altered inturpetition of the US Constitution to be considered valid then they must hope for two things to not happen.
1. That a militia does not see this as the action of a domestic enemy.
2. That an armed paramilitary group is not granted "law enforcement" status by a person that was voted to a position by their peers...the office of "Person Who Grants Us The Legal Ability To Randomly Kick In The Door Of Whomever We Want In The State Of Indiana Because We Are Now Police Officers" just as an example. Because at this point a mayor could form a police and proclaim unlimited jurisdiction in investigation of a felony. And those new cops could decide to kick in the doors of random judges and other officials at random.

Shame there wasn't a law to protect those officials from such intrusions of their homes, property and person. Oh well, too bad for the officials in Indiana I guess.

reply to post by getreadyalready


In the mean time, the other couple of girls should have called ANYONE else that had a little muscle and broken the door down. It isn't there fault, but lets be honest...police are mostly intended to A) deter by presence; and B) figure out what happened after the fact.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
And those new cops could decide to kick in the doors of random judges and other officials at random.

Shame there wasn't a law to protect those officials from such intrusions of their homes, property and person. Oh well, too bad for the officials in Indiana I guess.

Aww darn, by tomorrow morning at 9 AM there will be legislation in the Indiana Senate to prevent just such a thing. And by 10 AM it will be law.

Oh you bet they can move fast when they need to.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


are you serious? they're excluding themselves from the equation? this pisses me off so much. the amount of rights we're losing is staggering.

and most still think they are free. what a joke. there is only one way to fix this, and it will be messy.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
are you serious? they're excluding themselves from the equation?

Actually, no, I am not.

I was just postulating that since Ahabstar pointed out another potential scenario (and an interesting one), some government shill is likely to see it and legislation will be drafted right away to prevent his scenario from happening. Didn't you know that we pay them to write laws that protect themselves and not the people? Worst investment EVER.

If Prescott Bush and the Zionist bankers financed and supported Hitler, which they did. Perhaps it was only practice for the assault on the greatest experiment of all. America. An America founded on the principals of religious freedom not as a theocracy. An America founded under the ideals of all equal under the law no matter how far our abilities took us, not Monarchy. To paraphrase a statement at the time they were corrupting your political system and insisting you accepted the Fed, The Times of London stated that should you be allowed to succeed your success would threaten every monarchy on earth. Was that not the basis of the idea of the Revolution?
If my quote from The Times is anachronistic excuse me but it is a verifiable quote.