Worst jurisprudence ever? Indiana rules against right to privacy.
The Northwest Indiana Times is reporting that the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to prevent a police officer from illegally entering their homes.
The official decision can be downloaded here. The decision was by no means unanimous, with two justices believing that the ruling goes against the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
From the article (emphasis mine):
“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,” [Justice Steven] 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.”
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. […]
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“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,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”
Based on Justice David’s opinion and the court’s subsequent ruling, in order for citizens to protest a decision of a law enforcement official, they must do it through the same system that instigated the transgression. As Americans, our rights should be granted to us, and should it want to take them away, the government must provide a damn good reason. A serious infringement is created in a situation where Hoosiers must defend their rights to privacy within the very system that is trying to take them away. This may be the worst example of nanny-state politicking in place today. Here’s hoping Oregon never decides go down this path.
NGA, the first part of the argument was about why this court decision wasn’t about an example of “nanny state” politics. The last part was talking about how calling this court decision “nanny state” would be as silly as calling Obama a “socialist”. Two different arguments.
Although if you’re wondering, the reason why requiring people to buy health insurance ISN’T nanny state politics is because EVERYONE pays for health care at some point in their lives, and people who don’t buy insurance end up costing the system (and thus all of us) significantly more than if they’re covered – much the same reason why you’re required to carry car insurance to drive (to protect society from the effects of your actions, not just yourself)
Curtis says, “‘Nanny state’ doesn’t mean “government doing something I don’t like”, it’s a very particular term used to describe when the government regulates some action that boils down to a personal choice with effects that only really affect the choice-maker.”
Then Curtis says, “You might as well start calling Obama a socialist for enacting health care reform that requires people to buy insurance from a privately-owned insurance company.”
Curtis, how is requiring me to buy health insurance not a perfect example of a nanny state? Is it not the government telling me that the best choice for me is to have insurance? Is the purchase of health insurance not a personal choice?
“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.”
…Clearly they just what what’s best for their little darlings.
The lack of reading comprehension wounds me to my core.
OMG! I realized my flaw. I should have written police state instead of nanny state.
That one’s on me.
This decision is horrible and illogical. The resiting arrest statute itself says it’s only resisting arrest if the cop is acting lawfully. These guys simply ignor those words. From the decision.
“To prove that Barnes committed Class A resisting arrest, the State needed to demonstrate that Barnes knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties. I.C. § 35-44-3-3(a).”
WTF do the last 12 words say again?
The statute itself gives them the right nevermind the 4th amendment which seals the deal.
Curtis, will you start using your own email address when you post so I don’t have to approve your comments every time? Thanks.
I agreed with literally every word of this article until I got to “nanny state”. That is the most absurd and disappointing meme to creep out of this blog in a while. “Nanny state” doesn’t mean “government doing something I don’t like”, it’s a very particular term used to describe when the government regulates some action that boils down to a personal choice with effects that only really affect the choice-maker. Taking away the factor of how society absorbs costs of medical care, the “nanny state” is the government telling you you need to wear a helmet while riding a bike – in other words, something a nanny might tell you. It IS NOT the government telling you that you no longer have the right to resist an unlawful search or seizure because people get understandably upset and even violent toward police when they occur.
I’m not upset because that term is a pejorative toward policies I may support, I’m disappointed that you would start throwing it around whenever you don’t like something as some kind of inane shorthand for “bad”. You might as well start calling Obama a socialist for enacting health care reform that requires people to buy insurance from a privately-owned insurance company