>Frikkin’ State Supreme Court

14 May

>…Argument over the recent decision continues here at Roseholme. This is another reason Justice Steven David must be impeached, ‘cos I want to eat breakfast in peace and harmony.

The debate is not over what the ruling said or that it needs to be overturned ASAP; it’s over how much to read into it:

Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block 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,’ David said. ‘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.'”

Emphasis mine. Yes, please note that ancient, inescapable wisdom: if the police have to come for you, they’re bringin’ a whuppin’. And it’s not because they’re thugs — most aren’t — or that they like it — most don’t; it’s because their job is to get control of the situation and get the principals off to where things can be resolved without swapping fisticuffs or hot lead (etc.). In that statement, the judge is simply indulging in a bit of realpolitik.

What got under my skin like scabies was this: “David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.” Which means while the judge recognizes some right to be free inside your own skull, your person may indeed be hauled off; and as for your property, why, Mr. Impeach Justice Steven David appears to be no less than a follower of Proudhon. And heavens forfend you should not be able to hire a sharp lawyer!

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, Valparaiso University School of Law: “…[I]f the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.” Help me out here: “…your remedy…is to bring a civil action….” means it’s on your dime, doesn’t it? Or the ICLU/ACLU, if you smell interesting enough to them; and otherwise, well, tough, sucker, buy yourself a new door, a new dog, a new cat, and replacements for all the things folks removed while you were locked up and your house wasn’t, plus hire yourself a lawyer to sue the Local Police all the way up the appeals process — if you can. Pretty thin damn’ shield for your “right […] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” isn’t it?

(Though I do wonder if Mr. Impeach Justice Steven David doesn’t take the ellipsis “of the people” from my Fourth Amendment quote as meaning a collective rather than an individual right and thus reads it as protecting the “persons, houses, papers and effects” of the State from the like of you and me? That would be consistent with what I’ve seen of what the man fobs off as “legal thinking.”)

The good news is, I don’t think the ruling will ever be read this broadly until tested, if then; and the dissenting Justices didn’t disappoint, to wit: Justice Robert Rucker: “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;” Justice Brent Dickson: “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.” (See how kewl they are when they agree with me?)

But I do regret coming home irked and griping that the ruling spits in the face of the Fourth Amendment and that it is Time To Do Something. Tam’s point — and she’s right — is that it has been that time our whole lives and long before; and wottinhell had we been doing? Whatever it was, if it’ll push the culture out of this mudpit, do it even more.

And beg Tam to keep doing it, too, please:
Tam said…
Thanks for the legal advice.
You’re right. 1984 has come to Broad Ripple, and so this is the end of VFTP.
See ya.

8:24 PM, May 13, 2011
Dammit. I’m almost sure that’s hyperbole, but….

PS: Impeach Justice Steven David! And Justices Randall Shepard and Frank Sullivan, Jr. right beside him!

PPS: Relatedly, our Hoosier Supremes ruled police may do no-knock executions of warrants at their own discretion, no need to convince a judge. –And this is supposed to increase officer safety? Not likely! Criminals have little to lose and innocents at the wrong address have no way to tell. Please knock first at my house. Please.


24 Responses to “>Frikkin’ State Supreme Court”

  1. westofthewest 14 May 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    >Ain't too proud to beg. Tam keep it going One way or another. If you don't, the zombies with the laser beam eyes win.

  2. Odysseus 14 May 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    >I also love the other ruling your state's supreme court just made.Basically leaving it to the individual cop to decide wither to knock or just kick your door in to serve that 3am warrant.The one-two punch against liberty say's, "Better make that split second Police or Home invader decision correctly or even if they kicked in the wrong door your boned"Also I would like to plead for Tam not to give up, the rest of us aren't as eloquent(snarky) as she is.

  3. Anonymous 14 May 2011 at 10:24 pm #

    >Guess they just kicked the stuffin out of the Indiana real estate market. Why buy a house in Hoosierville if it doesn't buy you security, and the right to at least resist unlawful entry. Why rent?Do you think wannabe rapists when deciding on their occupation would really like joining the police? After all, their victims are forbidden to resist unlawful entry by law. I am sure that rapists know what to do to prevent their victims from availing themselves of bail, civil actions etc. That is they murder the victim afterwards.

  4. Roberta X 14 May 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    >Um, to "kick the stuffing out of the Indiana real estate market," there would have had to have been some stuffing in it to begin with. I got a heck of a good deal on Roseholme Cottage. Four years later, it is worth considerably less than I paid.

  5. Joseph 14 May 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    >"'We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy…" So…it is WRONG to resist an illegal entry? Does this include burglars, druggies, murderers and rapists? An unlawful police entry is ILLEGAL. That's what unlawful means.

  6. Bubblehead Les. 14 May 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    >Tell your Roomie Tam that if she is taking Legal Advise from Me, she needs to Fire the Bum! I said it "Looks Like", not that it HAS Happened. I'm sure this will be headed to SCOTUS, even if the ACLU has to carry the water.But if she wants to get off Blogger, and keep VFTP up, that is a good idea. Frackin' Useless Piece of Software!But it ain't no use moving right now, either. But I would check on my stockpiles of "Beans, Bullets and Bandaids", 'cause I think it's going to be a Bad Summer for Everyone in the U.S. But I think mostly "Beans".Take Care, but Don't Panic! And Carry a Towel!

  7. Roberta X 15 May 2011 at 12:33 am #

    >Jack: and I would commute to Indianapolis how? This is where my work is. This is where the bank owns most of my house, which I could not sell for what I paid. Can't run from this one.

  8. Charles Pergiel 15 May 2011 at 12:41 am #

    >Something is definitely wrong when a State Supreme Court make a decision like this.Still, "the zombies with the laser beam eyes" is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

  9. Anonymous 15 May 2011 at 1:20 am #

    >Yes they could set bail, but does that mean it will be at the cost that you can afford?So the defendent may be a flight risk, bail set at $1,000,000.You can't pony up 10% as cash? Sit in jail till your trail date.Just foolish.Gerry

  10. perlhaqr 15 May 2011 at 1:46 am #

    >Holy smokes! Is that Teddy Roosevelt as a bear riding Zombie Laser Lincoln at the Battle of San Juan Hill?wv: "yestes" Well, all right then.

  11. North 15 May 2011 at 1:59 am #

    >"I got a heck of a good deal on Roseholme Cottage. Four years later, it is worth considerably less than I paid."I hate hearing that. I really do. I can only hope that things improve.

  12. North 15 May 2011 at 2:04 am #

    >Hurry up and invent time travel, hon. Or transporters. A lot of good people need miraculous technology.

  13. Roberta X 15 May 2011 at 2:45 am #

    >North: on my house? Aw, what do I care? I didn't buy it as an investment, I bought it to live in and so far, it's done that pretty well. The main difference between this place and the rented duplex I lived in for fourteen stupid years before (because ex flat refused to be involved in buying a house) is that some day, I can stop payin' the bank for it and only have to pay the .gov; while that's suboptimal, they do take a much smaller cut. Sure wish I'd started earlier, though: I'd have a nicer house (if I'd been able to keep it) and it would be paid off well before retirement. As it is — gonna be close.

  14. North 15 May 2011 at 3:32 am #

    >Oh, OK.

  15. Anonymous 15 May 2011 at 10:07 am #

    >We hopes that Tam and Roberta keeps the blogses going. We wants to read their precious snarky bits. We hopes that the nasty rude po pos don't beat down the door and cause troubleses. Word Verification: warbr- past tense for cold.

  16. Roberta X 15 May 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    >I'm not goin' away. Tam? –She makes up her own mind. If I argue with her, she'll just dig in. But she listens to some people.

  17. perlhaqr 15 May 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    >Tam's sure enough got the absolute right to commit bloggercide, but she is loved and will be missed.Not that it imposes any sort of obligation on her, of course, but my life will definitely be a less awesome place without her cutting wit dissecting our world.

  18. Drang 15 May 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    >It is being suggested in some quarters that Justice David just killed Mitch Daniels' shot at the presidency.

  19. Roberta X 16 May 2011 at 1:10 am #

    >No, Mitch did: he could have dumped the Missouri Plan nomination method that put Steven David in the big chair, but he vetoed that bill — ahead of David's being put in the "nominee pool." Payback's painful, eh, Mitch? I have been kinda lukewarm on his side 'til now. He lost me over this.

  20. nicholas 16 May 2011 at 7:03 am #

    >I just started a political debate page for people from every political orientation to go to and debate current events. If you are interested in checking it out, send me a friend request on facebook and Ill add you in(packersfanrvc@yahoo.com). ~Thanks

  21. Anonymous 17 May 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    >Please pass this around. People need to be informed of their rights as citizens. The Dec. of Indep, in the very 1st paragraph, states that it is the DUTY of the citizens of the US, to toss out those who do not follow the rule of law. These justices who voted in favor, need to be impeached. Read the following and pass it around:http://www.loupainter.com/Impeach.html

  22. Anonymous 18 May 2011 at 3:18 am #

    >Would somebody please take Steve out to water the tree of liberty?

  23. Roberta X 18 May 2011 at 5:10 am #

    >Aw, we can vote him out, fair and square, and make fun of him afterward. It's civilized; also, he'll hate it more.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: