Hoosier Hospitality or Fourth Amendment Violation?


The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Hoosiers do not have the right to resist unlawful entry of their homes by police.

Think about it for a moment; the court ignored nearly 800 years of common law, dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215 – and the U.S. Constitution as well.

Justice Steven David, writing for the court: If a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner has no right to stop the officer’s entry.

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.”

The right to resist unlawful police entry is against public policy? Does anyone else find it laughable that this dopey judge actually uses the term UNLAWFUL police entry in this ridiculous ruling? And public policy? What “public policy” nullifies the U.S. Constitution?

Incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? What exactly is “modern” Fourth Amendment “jurisprudence”? No Fourth Amendment rights at all, I guess.

“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.”

Resisting unlawful activity is a no-no because it escalates the level of violence? Let’s extrapolate that logic: A man about to be murdered or a woman about to be raped shouldn’t resist because it will escalate the level of violence? What planet are we on?

Maybe it’s just me; the whole thing reads more like a page out of a police-state manual than a ruling by a justice of an American court, let alone the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment IV

“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.”

I’m no constitutional attorney, but the Fourth Amendment reads pretty clearly to me; especially the part about “oath or affirmation describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

As a Hoosier, the idea that “Hoosier Hospitality” now means that we must allow the police into our homes whenever they choose to “stop by” sickens me. Mussolini would be proud.

About these ads

Categories: Constitution, Fascism, Law Enforcement, Liberty, U.S. Constitution

11 replies

  1. The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Hoosiers do not have the right to resist unlawful entry of their homes by police.

    The Earth has just tilted on its axis.

  2. I was going to write about this. This is an ugly, ugly, ugly ruling. Not only does it violate the 4th Amendment, its an attempt to circumvent the 2nd as well, whats the point of owning a gun if you do not have a right to use it against a thief in the night? Make no mistake, a cop entering your property without a warrant or atleast probable cause is no different than an armed criminal.

    “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.”

    Oh, thank you judge dipsh*t. Tell me this, arseclown, what exactly is “modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence” last I checked the Amendment has not been changed over the last few centuries. People spend their entire life studying law so that they can ignore the clear meaning of a bloody sentence in the Constitution. Expect alot more Waco style sieges as a result of this.

  3. Who appointed this unqualified bozo to the Indiana Supreme Court?

  4. “…incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”
    Modern? Modern? These geniuses think they are writing the Constitution. They are judges not authors!

  5. You should also make Hoosiers aware that this tool, David Stephen, was appointed by so-called “conservative Mitch Daniels. What do you get when you elect a fiscal ONLY conservative? Liberal judges who overturn the Constitution and hundreds of years of common law!

    Be careful who you vote for!!

  6. What we need to remember is that this means in the short term very little or nothing at all: The Fourth Amendment wasn’t abolished. You can’t repeal an amendment by way of a court ruling. You need another Amendment for that. The big problem comes down the road. This case will have become a precedent for such an amendment.

  7. People need to remember the difference between emotion and the Constitution. That pastor in florida that tried to burn the Koran in a protest is a perfect example. Emotionally it is wrong. Constitutionally it is right. The men at the Constitutional Convention wanted to create a document that transcended emotion so as to create a stable government. Just look to the French. They had 3 constitutions in 6 years! Not exactly stable!

  8. The problem with appointing judges at the state level, is this. In Texas, he would have a hard time getting elected again. That’s why we fight those liberals who want the governor to appoint the judges. This just give us another reason to keep them elected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,356 other followers

%d bloggers like this: