).). You don't have to grant consent, i.e. "let" them in. But I will say it again, if you actually impede the officers in carrying out the search, you may find yourself criminally charged. The police are not required to show you the warrant, despite the implication given by the ACLU write up you linked. The police do not need your consent to enter to carry out the warrant. After all, the whole point of the warrant is to authorize the search without consent. Bear in mind that the ACLU, as an advocacy organization, has a particular point of view it pushes and its advice reflects that. I would not take everything the ACLU says as gospel.I would not let the police into my home unless they can show me a warrant (unless, of course, their guns are drawn and aimed at me
The Indiana code doesn't support the ACLU's position. It does not require that a warrant be shown, just that one exists.
I think the NOLO article does not address the point I'm making: the issue of actually impeding the search.
Your previous post seemed to imply a person should not ask to see a warrant. I wanted to make it clear that you can ask to see a warrant before permitting the police to enter your home.
One can ask, and, legally, the police can refuse to show it prior to entry.
Unless the police are in a situation where they don't have time to safely produce the warrant for the homeowner's review, they should show it to the homeowner. Do the police have to show it. No.
Then did you miss what I said earlier?
(Bolding added.) I have no problem with the occupant asking to see it, which I thought was made clear. But if the police proceed to barge in to execute the warrant without showing it to you, I think it bad idea to impede the police in doing that.
And that's my point: if you don't see the warrant, that still does not give you a right to impede or obstruct the officer in the execution of the warrant.
You don't have that right.
I think you mean you would not give them permission to enter.