Indiana and the 4th Amendment

[Shellback]

What are people's opinions and reactions to what's happening in Indiana? (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html)

[Kyle Reese]

Definitely not something I'd expect out of Indiana. Illinois, maybe, but not Indiana.

[joshs]

Indiana has one of the most liberal/statist supreme courts in the country. For example, the only place where lawsuits based on the criminal misuse of firearms against the gun industry have been allowed to continue is in Indiana.

The court even admitted that it was rejecting hundreds of years of common law jurisprudence in its "no force to resist an unlawful search" opinion. Earlier in the same week the court released an opinion that stated that it is up to the arresting officer (and not the issuing magistrate) to determine whether a knock or no knock warrant is appropriate.

I think it will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS grants cert in these cases. I really don't know that they will in the resisting an unlawful search case because the case deals not with whether a 4th amendment violation occurred, but rather what the appropriate remedy is for the violation. The court found that modern civil remedies, namely 42 U.S.C. S 1983, were an acceptable remedy, so the traditional remedy, using force to resist the unlawful search/arrest, is no longer needed.

[John Ralston]

That's kind of like guilty until proven innocent...we'll do what we want, and it is up to you to find a lawyer, file a suit, and take us to court to show that we shouldn't have done it.

Won't be long until we (at least Indiana) have a police state.

I am all for supporting the men and women in blue (especially since many of them are my customers), but you have to draw the line to what is acceptable...not move it every time it seams convenient.

[Shellback]

I am all for supporting the men and women in blue (especially since many of them are my customers), but you have to draw the line to what is acceptable...not move it every time it seams convenient.

Absolutely and my reason for posting this wasn't to get down on LEOs doing their job. This in my opinion is so completely anti-American and unconstitutional that it's hard for me to fathom.

[Shellback]

Typically I like a lot of Judge Napolitano's stances on Constitutional matters and this one's no different. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVAEonEkSyo&feature=share)

[Shellback]

Indiana citizens protesting decision. http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201121/7199/Live-Indiana-s-Fourth-Amendment-problems-and-protests-Update-1

[Chipster]

In a discussion with fellow LE today the most common statement was, "What a great way for criminals to conduct home invasions".

However, as a person who has was led to believe that I was hitting the "right" house on a drug raid, later to find out it wasn't and that the person who told me that the house was the "right" one was wrong, wrong, wrong! I am glad that the persons whose house we wrongly hit did not resist as I would not have wanted to defend myself or my fellow officers only to find out that this other officer made a mistake.

I see both sides and as such I will become somewhat of a fence rider on the subject. It goes against my personal beliefs, but professionally it makes sense (somewhat).

[John Ralston]

I see both sides and as such I will become somewhat of a fence rider on the subject. It goes against my personal beliefs, but professionally it makes sense (somewhat).

As noted above, I do support LEO's - however, this tramples on the rights of many (every law abiding citizen in Indiana) for the benefit of a few (the LEO's). I am totally against it.

I am also against the whole no-knock warrant thing. As you yourself have experienced, you were at the wrong house, but didn't meet any restistance. If someone kicked in my door, they would likely be staring at the wrong end of a firearm. As there is no reason for a warrant to be served at my home, I would assume it was a home invasion. I am not sure what the courts would determine in the aftermath, but the law should be on the side of the law abiding every time.

As always, there is no good solution, since I wouldn't want to be the LEO going into a drug house after telling them I had a warrant for their arrest either.

[Chipster]

"No Knock" warrant service has a very limited place in LE. As one who has sat across from a judge trying to get one (and failing miserably) can attest, there are a lot of prongs that have to be looked at and validated before attempting this type of warrant service. It cannot be just for the sake of convenience. You better be ready in court to articulate the reason for it and be prepared to be grilled by the defense attorney. Heck, I get grilled for wearing a tactical vest and carrying a "fully automatic machine gun" (my rifle is semi-auto only anyways, I can show the court the difference if you would like).

It doesn't surprise me that Indiana is the first to do these type of things and I hate to be a testing ground for the rest of the US, but I am pretty sure it will be over ruled here shortly.

John, I am not saying that I agree with everything our courts say and it does put me in precarious situation at times. I am just saying that I would rather not have to shoot somebody because of a mistake that another officer made. If this ruling keeps me from shooting somebody, I am all for it. I wholly believe in the right to defend your home, and I would hope that LE never makes that kind of mistake again so we don't have to test this ruling out. It is difficult at times balancing the rights of many (carrying guns/protecting your homes) with the strong sense of self-preservation that at times takes you into harms way. I would like to think that we have the frame of mind and thought process to keep us from getting into these kill or be killed situations but sometimes crap just goes wrong. I apologize for kind of being all over the place on this like a squirrel with ADHD, I just though I might be able to add a little LE insight. I am sure not all of LE feels the same way I do so please don't assume that they do. I am kind of different (or so I have been told).

[John Ralston]

I was referring to Indiana putting the decision to knock or not in the hands of the officers...very slippery slope.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Chipster]

If at the academy, we were given significantly more training on case law and due process (and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY more time), I would feel comfortable with the officers making the decision at the scene. This would require them to double our time in the academy though (14 weeks last time we sent someone through) and that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

I do agree that the slope is slippery because it removes the impartial judge/magistrate but again, things happen at the scene and sometimes we are forced to act sooner than we would like.

On a side note, I have a lot of Knock and Talks tomorrow and I hope that this conversation is not jinxing me!

[John Ralston]

If at the academy, we were given significantly more training on case law and due process (and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY more time), I would feel comfortable with the officers making the decision at the scene. This would require them to double our time in the academy though (14 weeks last time we sent someone through) and that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

I do agree that the slope is slippery because it removes the impartial judge/magistrate but again, things happen at the scene and sometimes we are forced to act sooner than we would like.

On a side note, I have a lot of Knock and Talks tomorrow and I hope that this conversation is not jinxing me!

Not trying to bicker with you by any means, but I think that unless you have the same knowledge of case law as the guy who issues the warrant, you aren't qualified to decide if you can knock or not (and I am not referring to you personally). Putting that level of decision making in the hands of the officer kind of takes away some of the checks and balances of the system. Next, we will be questioning if we even need a judge to issue the warrant (think another 50-60 years).

[Shellback]

I am glad that the persons whose house we wrongly hit did not resist as I would not have wanted to defend myself or my fellow officers only to find out that this other officer made a mistake.

That's the crux of the situation in my opinion. Would you have been defending yourself or would the person whose house was invaded wrongfully been defending themself? I'm not speaking out of bravado or anything of that nature but anybody kicking in my front door can expect to find armed resistance. Mistake or not my assumption would be that it is a home invasion and not the good guys, regardless of how they're dressed and what they're yelling.

I know it's a difficult situation to be in but I think there needs to be more research done prior to issuing and acting on a warrant. There are far too many incidents where people are killed, maimed or injured due to hitting the wrong house. When we have over 40,000 SWAT raids a year they're definitely being utilized in a capacity that they weren't intended for. Last week in AZ a 2 tour Iraq veteran was shot 71 times by a SWAT team conducting a raid on the wrong house, inexcusable in my eyes.

I know police are going to make mistakes but giving them carte blanch to kick in any door at their own discretion is begging for trouble in my opinion. With that being said please be careful and get home to your family safely.

[Wheeler]

Looking at this a a non-LEO I see this as an invasion of my rights. The stance that this will save lives, both the homeowner and the LEO's is fallacious, in my estimation. This takes away quite a bit of responsibility from the officer(s) to have their intel correct, it forces normal citizens to depend on the efficiency of the bureacracy that screwed up in the first place to set things right, and tells people that once again, the government has the power, you do not.

I'm sorry guys, some things are unforgivable, invading my home, threatening my family with the threat of bodily harm, because you didn't do your job of investigating and proving (at least to a judge), that you have the correct address, there are certain specific illegal activities going on in this house, we know they done it, etc. is inexcusable.

When I joined the Air Force, and then later on in the National Guard, I heard over and again "Our job is to get in the way of bullets so that civilians don't have to doge them" or words to that effect. I realize that Law Enforcement is not the same as military. I also realize that it's a very dangerous job, especially in today's society. That does not mean that the courts and Law Enforcement get to screw up and not have to face the same consequences that any other unlawful forcible entrant into a private domicile would potentially face.

I consider myself lucky that I don't live in Indiana.

Wheeler

[Chipster]

Let me say it loud and clear, I do not believe that a police officer should be lax in his investigation, application for, and service of a search/arrest warrant. As someone who has handled hundreds of investigations, it is paramount that I do my job correctly so that no one wrongly hits the wrong house or arrest the wrong people. I am not trying to justify the job of a pathetic officer, who because of laziness, malice, or just poor investigation makes a mistake and hits the wrong property. The case where I was at where the wrong house was hit (not my investigation) was due to the fact that I relied on a fellow officer to conduct his investigation like I do. That was not the case, and as such, I will never just go on another officers word. It is not worth it to me and I am one who does believe in the constitution.

I am not trying to bicker with anyone either, just trying to show another side. I hope not to offend anyone with my posts and if I do, I apologize.

I talked to another officer today and we were trying to determine how much time an attorney (who can run for judge in Indiana) has to take in this type of law to be able to make an impartial and legally sound judgement on these type of cases.

Before I post anymore on this, I am going to try and read the rulings to see exactly what they say so I don't keep talking out my arse! :)

[Chipster]

Here is the official court decision

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

Pretty interesting read and a valid dissent. As I continue to read some of the others cases, my opinions may change.

[John Ralston]

I didn't think you were bickering, and I only made my comment so that my words would be taken as discussion and not argument.

[Wheeler]

Let me say it loud and clear, I do not believe that a police officer should be lax in his investigation, application for, and service of a search/arrest warrant. As someone who has handled hundreds of investigations, it is paramount that I do my job correctly so that no one wrongly hits the wrong house or arrest the wrong people. I am not trying to justify the job of a pathetic officer, who because of laziness, malice, or just poor investigation makes a mistake and hits the wrong property. The case where I was at where the wrong house was hit (not my investigation) was due to the fact that I relied on a fellow officer to conduct his investigation like I do. That was not the case, and as such, I will never just go on another officers word. It is not worth it to me and I am one who does believe in the constitution.

I am not trying to bicker with anyone either, just trying to show another side. I hope not to offend anyone with my posts and if I do, I apologize.

I talked to another officer today and we were trying to determine how much time an attorney (who can run for judge in Indiana) has to take in this type of law to be able to make an impartial and legally sound judgement on these type of cases.

Before I post anymore on this, I am going to try and read the rulings to see exactly what they say so I don't keep talking out my arse! :)

If I came across strongly, well I meant to. On the other hand, I don't want to bicker or argue. I feel strongly about this type of subject. I hope you did not think my remarks were directed at you specifically, as they were not. Unfortunatly as in all trades, there are law enforcement officers who don't put forth even the minimum effort required to do their job properly. It was at that class of leo that my remarks were directed at.

[Shellback]

I am not trying to bicker with anyone either, just trying to show another side. I hope not to offend anyone with my posts and if I do, I apologize.

I think it's the complete opposite and I appreciate your participation as I'm sure most others do. My comments weren't directly related to you, it may have seemed that way, but were meant in a more general sense, if that makes sense. :) I don't think this is an us VS them thread and is centered more on the decision and the possible repercussions that come along with it.

I think it shows a certain amount of maturity when people can discuss things of this nature and not be blindly devoted to an ideology and will think outside of their "box". For me the Constitution and the rights of the people come before the security of a few as once that is given up it is gone forever.

[Chipster]

Well I want you guys to feel the same way. My comments are not meant to be disrespectful towards any one individual. I do respect all of your opinions and to some extent they have me looking at things slightly different than before.

[joshs]

As much as I disagree with the Indiana Supreme Court's holding, I don't think that it effects what most of the posters in this thread are worried about. In the Barnes case, the defendant knew that the person he used force against was a LEO. What most posters in this thread seem to be worried about is a situation where they are unsure if the person kicking down their door is a home invader or a LEO. In that case, the Barnes holding would be unimportant because you would use a straight forward self-defense claim: you simply thought that the person kicking down your door was a home invader. However, once the home owner knows (this has to be more than just hearing "POLICE" or seeing uniforms because there are a number of home invaders that have impersonated LEOs during home invasions) the people entering his home are LEOs, Barnes would prohibit the further use of force.

[Chipster]

^^^^^^^Very well stated.

[John Ralston]

That is only one aspect - the decison says that you can't resist illegal entry by an LEO - and that your only recourse is the legal system. That's just plain bull shit in my book. Many LEO's take an oath to protect the constitution - not trample on it.

[Mjolnir]

That is only one aspect - the decison says that you can't resist illegal entry by an LEO - and that your only recourse is the legal system. That's just plain bull shit in my book. Many LEO's take an oath to protect the constitution - not trample on it.

And therein lies the rub...

Unrestrained constitutional abuses.

[Wheeler]

And therein lies the rub...

Unrestrained constitutional abuses.

Well said sir.

[joshs]

- the decison says that you can't resist illegal entry by an LEO

First, I don't see how this sentence and my post are incompatible; you still have to know that they are LEOs before Barnes applies. The law of self-defense does not look what the defender knows after the shooting, only what he believed at the time of the shooting to be true and whether that belief was reasonable.

Second, even if you are correct that the court was making a bright line rule that use of force against LEOs is per se unreasonable, even if the person using the force does not know at the time that he is resisting a LEO, the Barnes court could not rule on that issue. American courts are generally limited to ruling on the facts that are before them. Since Barnes knew he was resisting a LEO, the statement that you paraphrase from the courts ruling is dicta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum).

[John Ralston]

First, I don't see how this sentence and my post are incompatible; you still have to know that they are LEOs before Barnes applies. The law of self-defense does not look what the defender knows after the shooting, only what he believed at the time of the shooting to be true and whether that belief was reasonable.

Second, even if you are correct that the court was making a bright line rule that use of force against LEOs is per se unreasonable, even if the person using the force does not know at the time that he is resisting a LEO, the Barnes court could not rule on that issue. American courts are generally limited to ruling on the facts that are before them. Since Barnes knew he was resisting a LEO, the statement that you paraphrase from the courts ruling is dicta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum).

It really has nothing to do with the home owner using deadly force to prohibit a home invasion type entry (which is what the thread evolved into) - it has more to do with law enforcement showing up in your home and demanding to be let in for whatever reason they deem necessary. You have no right to refuse them entry per the decision. Your only recourse is to let them in and then take them to court for the illegal entry. IT has nothing to do with presumption of a home invasion (that thread drift was in regards to their equally disturbing decision that an officier could decide to knock or not when serving a legal warrant-and possibly having the wrong house).

This has nothing to do with that - it has everything to do with the decision that the police can enter any domicile, legally or not, and that the only recourse the public has (when it is illegal) is to take them to court.

Quoting the decision:

"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."

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.




Even though this might only apply in some very small percentage of all cases, it is, whithout a doubt, an erosion of a Constitutional Right...which is unacceptable. Anyone who is willing to let their rights be eroded is disrespecting those that faught and died for them.

[Shellback]

it has more to do with law enforcement showing up in your home and demanding to be let in for whatever reason they deem necessary. You have no right to refuse them entry per the decision. Your only recourse is to let them in and then take them to court for the illegal entry...
This has nothing to do with that - it has everything to do with the decision that the police can enter any domicile, legally or not, and that the only recourse the public has (when it is illegal) is to take them to court.

This was my understanding as well. It basically eviscerates the 4th Amendment. This may seem a little blown out of proportion but it sounds more like a standing army and them being able to kick in any door at their own discretion and you have nothing to say about it other than to possibly take them to court if you can afford it. Even then good luck convincing a judge to rule against the state.

[John Ralston]

This was my understanding as well. It basically eviscerates the 4th Amendment. This may seem a little blown out of proportion but it sounds more like a standing army and them being able to kick in any door at their own discretion and you have nothing to say about it other than to possibly take them to court if you can afford it. Even then good luck convincing a judge to rule against the state.

Exactly...

I have said my .02 - if you don't agree, it is likely that I won't convince you either! :cool:

[Chipster]

I would hate to the police officer demanding entry into someone's house "for whatever reason they deem necessary". His career and livelihood will soon be over (and rightfully so)

I think after reading the decision, I can see how many in Indiana are asking it to be limited to Domestic Violence and other "exigent" circumstances. The problem is what might be exigent to me, is different than the officer I may be working with. And as we all know, it is easier to issue a blanket decision than limit the wording and leave that up to interpretation.

"This has nothing to do with that - it has everything to do with the decision that the police can enter any domicile, legally or not, and that the only recourse the public has (when it is illegal) is to take them to court".

Not be argumentative and such, I am just wondering what recourse would you rather have? I hate to go in to much detail on my specific situation but, it would have devastated me to have someone resist much to the point where I had to physically restrain or stop their behavior all because another officer made a mistake and I was simply assisting in the service of a search warrant. This has bad written all over it from many, many directions.

[joshs]

John,

You don't have to convince me that the Barnes decision is both bad policy and a reduction to the protections granted to individuals by the Fourth Amendment (at least in Indiana) because on those points I completely agree with you. I was just trying to address the home invasion thread drift.

I hope SCOTUS grants cert in the no knock case. The SC has previously invalidated states' attempts to create laws that always allow for no knock entries in certain types of cases, but, as far as I know, the SC hasn't addressed whether the discretion can be left up to the officer executing the warrant. Usually, for the gov't to justify a no knock decision made at the scene, the officers/prosecution have to show that there were exigent circumstances.

[Wheeler]

I would hate to the police officer demanding entry into someone's house "for whatever reason they deem necessary". His career and livelihood will soon be over (and rightfully so)

I think after reading the decision, I can see how many in Indiana are asking it to be limited to Domestic Violence and other "exigent" circumstances. The problem is what might be exigent to me, is different than the officer I may be working with. And as we all know, it is easier to issue a blanket decision than limit the wording and leave that up to interpretation.

"This has nothing to do with that - it has everything to do with the decision that the police can enter any domicile, legally or not, and that the only recourse the public has (when it is illegal) is to take them to court".

Not be argumentative and such, I am just wondering what recourse would you rather have? I hate to go in to much detail on my specific situation but, it would have devastated me to have someone resist much to the point where I had to physically restrain or stop their behavior all because another officer made a mistake and I was simply assisting in the service of a search warrant. This has bad written all over it from many, many directions.

Something that does not erode constitutional rights, does not grant the police powers that remove their responsibility of "getting it right" before they decide to to kick in the door, something that does allow you or any other LEO to come into MY home, without invitation or probably cause and a warrant issued my an impartial judge. If it makes your job harder, so be it. Your convenience should not superceed my rights.

Chipster, when I say you, I don't mean you specifically but am referring to Law Enforcement in general.

Wheeler

[John Ralston]

John,

You don't have to convince me that the Barnes decision is both bad policy and a reduction to the protections granted to individuals by the Fourth Amendment (at least in Indiana) because on those points I completely agree with you. I was just trying to address the home invasion thread drift.

I hope SCOTUS grants cert in the no knock case. The SC has previously invalidated states' attempts to create laws that always allow for no knock entries in certain types of cases, but, as far as I know, the SC hasn't addressed whether the discretion can be left up to the officer executing the warrant. Usually, for the gov't to justify a no knock decision made at the scene, the officers/prosecution have to show that there were exigent circumstances.

Got it ;)

[Chipster]

Something that does not erode constitutional rights, does not grant the police powers that remove their responsibility of "getting it right" before they decide to to kick in the door, something that does allow you or any other LEO to come into MY home, without invitation or probably cause and a warrant issued my an impartial judge. If it makes your job harder, so be it. Your convenience should not superceed my rights.

Chipster, when I say you, I don't mean you specifically but am referring to Law Enforcement in general.

Wheeler


Wheeler,

I think most law enforcement agree with much of what of you and the others are saying. I am not trying to say our safety and convenience trump your right to be safe and secure in your home.

As for me, if LE performs a "no knock" warrant on my home, I will comply with their orders and not resist them. I will however, go after the officer's job that is responsible for my house being hit wrongly and promptly sue whatever department is involved in for however much money I can get out of them. I am not going to have myself or my family shot over someone else's mistake.

I know my opinion on this may be influenced by what I do or who I am, and I know many will not agree with me. But I do appreciate everyone acting like adults and playing nice with each other in light of our differing opinion. Never thought of myself as a liberal socialist but it is starting to look that way ;)

John,

Hope this doesn't effect my order when you make that AIWB available :)

Take care all,

Chip

[Wheeler]

Wheeler,

I think most law enforcement agree with much of what of you and the others are saying. I am not trying to say our safety and convenience trump your right to be safe and secure in your home.

As for me, if LE performs a "no knock" warrant on my home, I will comply with their orders and not resist them. I will however, go after the officer's job that is responsible for my house being hit wrongly and promptly sue whatever department is involved in for however much money I can get out of them. I am not going to have myself or my family shot over someone else's mistake.

I know my opinion on this may be influenced by what I do or who I am, and I know many will not agree with me. But I do appreciate everyone acting like adults and playing nice with each other in light of our differing opinion. Never thought of myself as a liberal socialist but it is starting to look that way ;)

John,

Hope this doesn't effect my order when you make that AIWB available :)

Take care all,

Chip

Chip,

I think it's very easy to get focused on how things affect us at work, especially given your line of work and how this affects you specifically. It really reflects poorly on the Indiana legal system, both legislative and judicial that this would even be considered. The term "modern 4th ammendment" shows a belief that the Constitution is a Living Document, and can be interpreted any which way we want, rather than how it was actually written and intended. What a shame.

Wheeler

[Wheeler]

Two things. One of which I'm ashamed to admit I just noticed. Shouldn't the thread title be Indiana and the 4th Ammendment?

Secondly; I just found this article from The Rutherford Institute. I think it sums up the history or the erosion of what is supposed to be a Constituionally Guaranteed Right quite nicely.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=712

Best Regards,
Wheeler

[Shellback]

Two things. One of which I'm ashamed to admit I just noticed. Shouldn't the thread title be Indiana and the 4th Ammendment?

Secondly; I just found this article from The Rutherford Institute. I think it sums up the history or the erosion of what is supposed to be a Constituionally Guaranteed Right quite nicely.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=712

Best Regards,
Wheeler

I had a brain fart and tried to back and edit the title without success. That article is a good read.

[Shellback]

As for me, if LE performs a "no knock" warrant on my home, I will comply with their orders and not resist them. I will however, go after the officer's job that is responsible for my house being hit wrongly and promptly sue whatever department is involved in for however much money I can get out of them. I am not going to have myself or my family shot over someone else's mistake.

I'm in no way trying to single you out because of your profession but I think there is a certain amount of naivety in this statement and attitude, please don't be offended by that. The reason I say that is there are many, many examples of people's houses having been raided and they get stuck with the bill from the police kicking in the door to tearing shit up in their house and they get in return a tough shit, oh well attitude from the police and courts when it comes to restitution.

Time to crack a beer and fire up the BBQ. I hope everyone enjoys their Memorial Day holiday and remembers the sacrifices that have been made by our forefathers.

[Chipster]

I'm in no way trying to single you out because of your profession but I think there is a certain amount of naivety in this statement and attitude, please don't be offended by that. The reason I say that is there are many, many examples of people's houses having been raided and they get stuck with the bill from the police kicking in the door to tearing shit up in their house and they get in return a tough shit, oh well attitude from the police and courts when it comes to restitution.


Again, I can't comment specifically on other situations. I can however tell you that when I break down a door, I have to secure that residence somehow, someway. I cannot imagine (not saying it hasn't happened) a LE agency or the courts somehow sticking someone with a bill if there home was wrongly hit when it comes out that was the case. I know in my specific case, when I talked to a LE lawyer, I was told "IF they make a stink of this expect to pay WHATEVER they ask". And I did expect to pay for it, even though it was not my fault. I acted on another LE officers word and did not verify it, so I expected to have some negative fallout. Luckily for me, a resolution was reached between that LE officers department and the homeowner.

Am I naive about other areas cases? I am. However, I try to stay current on at least Indiana laws and am unaware of a case where LE hit the wrong house, damaged property, and was not held liable for the damage as well as sued for other damages. If this is the type of behavior that is being performed by LE people that I work around, then I am unaware of it. I do not associate myself with people that would violate peoples rights willy nilly like and not care about it. If there are LE officers out there that do, I would be ashamed of them.

Chip

[Shellback]

Rather interesting and along the same lines. Louisiana Supreme Court allows warrantless searches of vehicles based on a hunch. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3517.asp) The PDF ruling can be read here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/la-search.pdf)

[Wheeler]

Rather interesting and along the same lines. Louisiana Supreme Court allows warrantless searches of vehicles based on a hunch. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3517.asp) The PDF ruling can be read here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/la-search.pdf)

No such thing as a Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion in NOLA huh?

[SouthNarc]

Guys I've been on the job for 21 years with the vast majority of that working dope and the NO case is simply not in the same league as what's going on in IN. IMO there was plenty of reasonable suspicion for the stop and the search is articulable with furtive movement as the basis for it within the wingspan warrant exception and under the Carroll doctrine which includes the vehicle exception considered as a mobile conveyance which equals exigency. Carroll is at least 70 year old case law.

And I'm one of the biggest critics of NOPD.......

[Shellback]

Lawmakers Begin Hearings On Indiana High Court Ruling (http://www.wfpl.org/2011/06/29/lawmakers-begin-hearings-on-indiana-high-court-ruling/)