What Fresh Hell Is This?: On Illegal Police Entry in Indiana

Have you hugged your Fourth Amendment today?  This Indiana debacle would be hilariously stupid if it weren't so distressingly serious.  



I leave with quotations by the two dissenting justices:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree." 

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling. 

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

Y'THINK?


You know, this reminds of a conversation I had a while back with a lawyer friend of mine.  We'd be cheerfully arguing about which Amendment we thought was the most important to personal liberty.  I had argued for the First Amendment.  He had argued for the Fourth.  Essentially, he said that it's all fine if you can spout off your opinions without reprisal in the public square, but it doesn't matter much if the government can engage in illegal search and seizure of your goods and property.  I'm beginning to think that he was right, after all.