It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indiana Supreme Court Threatened After Allowing Warrantless Searches

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod



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?

edit on 17-5-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)


Oh yes, by all means terrorize the neighborhood, to catch 1 pot smoker.
And of course the shoot the dog first thing upon entry, and if you get overly emotional about it they shoot you too.





posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I guess if you live in indiana it's time to move...either that or voice your outrage and get them to overturn the ruling or something...I'd personally just move



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
I guess if you live in indiana it's time to move...either that or voice your outrage and get them to overturn the ruling or something...I'd personally just move


Moving isn't solving ANYTHING! In fact, it is a cowardly solution. You are going to let a bunch of politicians and LEO gangsters run you out of town?

Umm,

NO. Not only no, but HELL NO!




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


You aren't damned if you do damned if you don't.

The probability of the police showing up to a door, with a woman being gang raped inside, has got to me like 1 and a few million odds...

Just because things CAN happen, doesn't mean they often happen, or happen at a rate that new rules need to be in place. Make it so cops can come into anyones home, and they will harass 100,000's of thousands of people a year... out of that few hundred thousand, they may get 20,000 criminals.

Not worth it...... So to remove the freedoms of the people.... you actually cause more danger.... for how many of those few hundred thousand illegal entries is going to have a police officer injured, or the innocent people of the home injured/killed, by mistake.

In a perfect world, Police would have to be prove their intelligence to be an officer... maybe if they knew the laws, and had some respect... and stopped treating innocent people like gang bangers this would be okay...

But it's not. The world we live in is so fundamentally broken.... and they keep giving more power to the people that are breaking it.

Never sacrifice freedom for security. It's your house, you have the right and privledge to provide your own security. Catching no violent criminals by allowing cops to randomly enter anybodies home is NOT cool by me....

Randomly entering one home and causing the stress and anxiety that they often do, does far more damage then some one growing marijuanna... and this isn't even close to an opinion.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 



The probability of the police showing up to a door, with a woman being gang raped inside, has got to me like 1 and a few million odds...


I think the odds are a lot better if the police are going door to door looking for something in particular.

Sure, the ruling is a slippery slope, and I don't like the way the Constitution is so regularly trampled these days, but I have to assume that most of the time police are going to be conducting police business.

If they are searching for a missing kid, and they have narrowed it down to a small geographical area, then most people will voluntarily offer to let them search a home, and if my kid is missing, we will be going into those homes that don't volunteer.

Here is the rub though, if they are searching for a missing kid, and they find a pot farm, I don't think they should be able to press charges for that. That is where warrants become important. A warrant is for a specific thing, not just general searches. If the police use this new power, they better use it with the same narrow purpose.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Laokin
 

If they are searching for a missing kid, and they have narrowed it down to a small geographical area, then most people will voluntarily offer to let them search a home, and if my kid is missing, we will be going into those homes that don't volunteer.


I understand voluntarily letting police search their home, but for those that refuse, is that not their right? Sure the police would be justified in obtaining a search warrant. But on the other hand, if you entered someone's home as a citizen, would this person not be justified in using deadly force against you? That is what this discussion is about, being safe from illegal search and seizure, right?


Here is the rub though, if they are searching for a missing kid, and they find a pot farm, I don't think they should be able to press charges for that. That is where warrants become important. A warrant is for a specific thing, not just general searches. If the police use this new power, they better use it with the same narrow purpose.


The only problem here is cops can already bust you for anything in plain view, most especially if you consent to the search. No warrant no foul, because you consented to the search. Why do you think cops arrive at a home and try to squeeze their way in the door to see what's going on? If they can see something in plain view, that is their justification to enter. Now, it's even easier with the Indiana ruling and the Supreme Court ruling. We are getting screwed either way we go. I don't disagree with you, these rulings have made it even worse than it has been.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Everyone should just sell out, pack up and move the hell out of Indiana, then all the doogooders can play pocket pool with themselves since no one has time to play along with their Gestapo bullS#.

Move to Missouri where you can shoot people in your yard that threaten you



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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.


The Constitution forbids this sort of thing. But of course the Constitution is now simply a document held in egregious regard by us domestic terrorists.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
It is sad it had to come to this because I feel it will take the unwarranted deaths of a few petty criminals, some accidental ones (like wrong address), and maybe even the loss of a few officers and some people losing their domesticated animals because of itchy trigger fingers during search entries before the masses rise up. I could even image some rare scenarios where grouped criminals use this and impersonate officers to gain entry into some homes.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Glad I don't live in Indiana!

I can't wait for the news article that says this sheriff tried to walk into a home and was blasted back out the door by a shotgun wielding granny. I wonder how many Indiana cops it'll take getting killed trying to do this to make them realize this is a bad idea. Or are the people of Indiana push overs?

I can tell you if they tried this in my town we'd need a whole new police force. I posted the story on our local forum and we're all in agreement that if it was tried here it would mean a war between the cops and citizens.

Gotta love rednecks. Don't tread on me means something around here!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Just so I'm clear on this...if an off duty officer has his door busted down..regardless of just cause..

He/She's good with that correct?

Or is the secret handshake in effect?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Isn't it amazing how most discussions involve people who say "there should be a law agin it" and then it turns out that there is, and it's in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights?
And yet some would rather pantificate on what they'd do if the cops came into their house.
The United States was founded on principles which included the right to dismiss government that is found to be operating in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people. So many are controlled by so few!



Two thousand years ago, a Roman Senator suggested that
all slaves wear white armbands to better identify them.

"No," said a wiser Senator,
"If they see how many of them there are, they may revolt."



The authority of the people to dismiss irrepresentative government is also in the Constitution is it not? Near the back I think

Isn't government supposed to be of, by, and for the people? When's the last time that happened?
DD



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by niceguybob
Just so I'm clear on this...if an off duty officer has his door busted down..regardless of just cause..

He/She's good with that correct?

Or is the secret handshake in effect?


Well you ask a pertinent question. I suppose the ultimate "bit yourself in the rear" scenario would be just such a thing: several LEO's shooting and killing each other over the unlawful breaking and entering of another LEO's home.

Call me cruel. Call me insensitive. Call me anything the HECK you want to call me. But I for one will laugh my freaking ass off and say they deserve what they get for such overt, wanton dictatorial laws that ended up killing some of their own. No one to blame but themselves.

And I will also send patriotic good will to any citizen who blows a cop's head off illegally entering their home. Any king has a right to defend his castle, no matter WHAT laws they make. They want it to be Amerika, but no, this is America. Land of the sheeple, land of the ignorant, land of the slaves, but land of the ARMED and DANGEROUS.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


I agree with this post.

Case by case basis ,with the facts available at the time.

I hear too many stories about cops that abuse their powers. I forget that the majority are really just trying to protect us,and do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

At least I hope so


Thankyou for posting this story,it sheds some light on situations that need immediate action.
edit on 17-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
this is what we get when we allow criminals to run the store

a gun and a badge
allows cowards to think they are men

what i would like to know is what happens
at 3 am when the cops enter a house with out a knock
or warrant

and the home owner defends him self and his family
against armed invaders

i know what i would do
regardless of some unconstitutional law passed by tyrannical bastards
without the will or consent of the people



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
This is one possibility that I can foresee-

There are still many people who do not use the internet. Especially not on a daily basis.
Such as some rednecks, farmers, country folk, Amish, senior citizens, etc. etc.

Many will know nothing of this new ruling, but will still know of the older laws that do not allow an officer to enter a residence on a warrantless search. That is, at least they will not know of it until after a couple officers are killed while entering a house in this fashion. Most likely followed by the death of the resident(s) also.

Nothing good can come of this. See below for examples of 'nothing good.'



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
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.

No.

Regardless of your opinion of this sheriff and this ruling, your solution given here, is not the answer. This man's wife and kids have nothing to do with this.

I can already hear it now. "yeah, but that's what the police would do to my family, if they committed an unlawful search against me."

Probably true, but that does not make it right, nor is that a legit reason to want to injure and/or scare a woman and her children. Or to shoot a dog.

 

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
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."

What you are saying here is- You advocate the actions that Pajoly mentioned?

That is not the correct solution. Actually, that is the antithesis of the correct solution. This solution will only cause these types of rulings to continue, and become much more drastic.

 

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
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.

I am in no way defending warrantless search and seizure, but I am opposing your solution. These statements that you continue to make, are the exact reason rulings like this are passed. If you were to act from this anger that you are expressing, it will only get much worse. This type of anger, is what brought these ideas in the first place.


 

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
you know what we need?

A Citizens Assassination Team

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

Yeah, Vigilante Justice and Lynch Mob Mentality for the WIN FAIL!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AlexKintner
 


Actually I know of several events in NM where the Mexican Mafia guys will don DEA and FBI gear and go out and rob pot growers and the like so it does happen more than you would think...by the time you realize you been had you been had. Now before someone says "oh well that they're criminals too" medical marijuana is legal in NM and they're not all doing it illegally...



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I have the to actually live in this dump, and have seen the sheriff out in public. Your right he couldnt be further from a Nazi.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
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.


I think it's time to start boobie trapping our homes folks. The revolution has started.

BTW, to the pigs who are itching to bust down my door now.........the plans are already in the works.




top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join