• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Indiana & 4th amendment

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

Cops came over to my house - wanted to search I refused & they said they did not need a warrant.

This lead to a stand-off and one of the cops tried to gain entry. I stopped him and was charged with assault.

They had no probable cause, no warrant ; nothing was going on, a normal mid-western day.

Is the assault charge legit?
 


I_Got_Banned

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

Cops came over to my house - wanted to search I refused & they said they did not need a warrant.

This lead to a stand-off and one of the cops tried to gain entry. I stopped him and was charged with assault.

They had no probable cause, no warrant ; nothing was going on, a normal mid-western day.

Is the assault charge legit?
They wanted to search for what/who?

And what did you do to "stop him"?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Hey Billy, is your real name Richard Barnes?

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

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Clearly this references the recent, horribly decided, case. The main point for the court's decision that you cannot prevent illegal acts done by the police (essentially) is that there are adequate civil remedies and the social reasoning of the common law since the Magna Carta is no longer required.

That's a hoot. As we all know, there is rarely civil damages which exceed the cost of a lawsuit and qualified immunity is a huge barrier.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Better and Better

Well, the decision just gets better and better. At:
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will
By: Allison Bricker
Contributing Editor

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.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone call to Newton County Indiana - Sheriff's Department, May 16th, 2011
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I believe they are stretching what "rights" the decision allows. While the ruling removes a residents right to refuse the cops entrance, it does not remove the requirement for PC for an actual search. As such, an illegal entry and search would demand that any evidence obtained due to the illegal entry be suppressed in any subsequent prosecution.

It didn't make the entry legal, it simply stated a resident could not rebuff the entrance in a substantial manner. I would suggest that all residents always make an initial stand refusing entry in a verbal manner and without being forceful, remain in a doorway to show there was no permission or acquiescence allowing the entry. If ordered to stand aside, it is no longer permissive and then becomes a search and requires PC or exigent circumstances present for it to be a legal search.


In a similar note, there is a recent SCOTUS opinion regarding a situation in Kentucky.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf
 
Last edited:

tranquility

Senior Member
I believe they are stretching what "rights" the decision allows.
And yet, it's not a sheriff or a police officer saying what it allows, but The Sheriff and The Police Chief (of a small town). The decision was terrible, as was the Supreme Court decision. How they got 8-1 on that rubbish is beyond me.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
And yet, it's not a sheriff or a police officer saying what it allows, but The Sheriff and The Police Chief (of a small town). The decision was terrible, as was the Supreme Court decision. How they got 8-1 on that rubbish is beyond me.
I agree. That was my intended point. The court ruled what it ruled. In your post, it was the Sheriff doing the stretching. I have conversations on other forums that they and other LEO's they speak of with similar thoughts would make up the remainder of "they". Sorry about that.

I surely hope the state AG does something proactively to prevent just such searches as the Sheriff describes.

and yes, I agree that both decisions were bad.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top