Attention: If you live in Indiana and home invasion robbery is your thing, start dressing like a cop.
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.
The language is pretty unequivocal, but those three Hoosiers feel that the language is a bit dated, saying (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.
Stunning. The reference to "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" implies that the nature of our rights as enumerated in the Constitution is adaptable and subject to change over time, yet I'm not sure what part of "shall not be violated" the justices fail to understand. As for the "public policy" language, I'm not even sure where to begin except to say that I'm pretty sure public policy has little to do with our rights under the Constitution. The bottom line, though, is that this is what happens when liberals' notions of a malleable Constitution meet reality.
OK, so the Indiana justices didn't actually rule that cops can enter anyone's home without a warrant or probable cause, but that's the end result. Further in the ruling they say that the proper course of action when a cop commits an unlawful armed home invasion is to take it up with the courts. The same courts, presumably, that issue shit decisions such as this one.
I, for one, wouldn't physically resist an armed man forcibly entering my home. I would, however, grab the phone and dial 911 and tell them that an armed man has just forced his way into my house. Even assuming the dispatcher was aware that a cop was already at my home for some reason, the ensuing confusion might be amusing.
But far better that this craptastic decision never needs to be tested and is brought to the US Supreme Court and struck down. Better yet, maybe Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will read Alex Kauffman's open letter to him and act before it even gets to the Supremes.
2 comments:
This is more 'living Constitution' krap - the campaign for 2012 is: IT'S ABOUT THE JUDGES, STUPID! (and it is, because there are three Supremes that were born in the 30's - Obomber has named two already - we cannot let him get three more!)
WHERE ARE YOU GUYS??????
Post a Comment