Legal Home Invasion

Indiana, where random house searches by the police could easily become a reality:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ayup, we've been bombarding the state govt. with letters and calls about this shit, of course to no effect. I'm so happy I'll move out of Indiana within the month, this place is going to complete and utter donkey cock.

So that whole thing about not having "unreasonable searches and seizures"... weeeelll never mind that.

Does this mean that if someone comes home one day and finds their place has been tossed by the cops, that they'll be told it was tossed by the cops if they call up their local police station and report a burglary? Or does this just apply to walking into the person's house if they're there?

Malganis wrote:

Does this mean that if someone comes home one day and finds their place has been tossed by the cops, that they'll be told it was tossed by the cops if they call up their local police station and report a burglary? Or does this just apply to walking into the person's house if they're there?

Quote :

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

There's no way this will survive appeal.

I went over and read the actual opinion, and there is a very easy way to distinguish the broad, quite unreasonable, opinion and find a much more narrow holding that protects a citizen's right to defend their own home whilst preventing them from using that as a shield against public safety:

Indiana Supreme Court wrote:

We note, however, that the officers were investigating a ―domestic violence in progress‖ in response to a 911 call. A 911 call generally details emergency or exigent circumstances requiring swift police action. In these cases, the officers are responding to rapidly changing or escalating events, and their initial response is often based on limited information. The officers cannot properly assess the complaint and the dangers to those threatened without some limited access to the involved parties. It is unrealistic to expect officers to wait for threats to escalate and for violence to become imminent before intervening. Here, the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances.

Malganis wrote:

So that whole thing about not having "unreasonable searches and seizures"... weeeelll never mind that.

This is actually very much in line with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence over the last half-century or so. There are numerous legitimate exceptions to the Fourth Amendment (exigent circumstance, hot pursuit, search incident to a lawful arrest, discarded items, protection of officers from potential threat, etc.), while the most egregious abuses have been curtailed (such as using infra-red technology to look into a home).

Penguin wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Does this mean that if someone comes home one day and finds their place has been tossed by the cops, that they'll be told it was tossed by the cops if they call up their local police station and report a burglary? Or does this just apply to walking into the person's house if they're there?

What now?

Malganis wrote:

What now?

Point is, the answer to your question was in the first sentence of the second link. RTFA, as we say on Fark.

Spotts1701 wrote:

(such as using infra-red technology to look into a home).

That'd be a neat trick, since infrared sensors can't even see through windows. At best you'd be able to figure out if the people inside said home were running a very hot piece of machinery.

EDIT: Since I'm bored, I'll go on a bit of a tech rant. You see, contrary to what sci-fi might tell you, using infrared/thermal sensors to see people through walls is completely impossible. Why? Because in order to see someone through a wall, they would have to radiate enough heat to heat up the air around them and both sides of the wall. The human body doesn't generate enough energy to do this in its entire lifetime, let alone in a way that would let you see them through a wall in real time. And even if they did, you wouldn't see anything resembling a human through the wall: Just a massive blob. And if something warmer than room temperature won't show through, a bag of weed or an AK-47 sure as hell won't.

Hell, I've watched people in a smoke pit through a Sniper pod before. Their burning cigarettes made a flickering ball bigger than their heads.

IR and thermals can be used to do a lot of nifty tricks; you can even follow footprints with them (for a limited amount of time of course) but the near godlike abilities these expensive pieces of equipment bestow upon the user in Hollywood is exactly that: Hollywood.

Penguin wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

(such as using infra-red technology to look into a home).

That'd be a neat trick, since infrared sensors can't even see through windows. At best you'd be able to figure out if the people inside said home were running a very hot piece of machinery.

Which is precisely why they were doing it - Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (conviction overturned after police used thermal imaging of defendant's home to illegally obtain evidence he was cultivating marijuana plants).

Spotts1701 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

(such as using infra-red technology to look into a home).

That'd be a neat trick, since infrared sensors can't even see through windows. At best you'd be able to figure out if the people inside said home were running a very hot piece of machinery.

Which is precisely why they were doing it - Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (conviction overturned after police used thermal imaging of defendant's home to illegally obtain evidence he was cultivating marijuana plants).

Well damn. That's an important, if seemingly unrecognized case. Thanks!

I can see allowing warrantless police entry to a home after a 911 call from the home, but this decision seems to cover way too much territory.

Lady Anne: That was what most people are complaining about around here. Honestly, they didn't HAVE to write the police a blank check - if they had covered "well, we were sure there was violence going on in there after having been called over there to begin with" as an exception in reference to the case that caused all this, all would have been okay. But this? This is ridiculous, and considering that most Indiana cops I know personally are utter morons and/or corrupt douchebags, I'd really rather not have them be able to legally enter my home regardless of circumstances.

Saleha wrote:

Lady Anne: That was what most people are complaining about around here. Honestly, they didn't HAVE to write the police a blank check - if they had covered "well, we were sure there was violence going on in there after having been called over there to begin with" as an exception in reference to the case that caused all this, all would have been okay. But this? This is ridiculous, and considering that most Indiana cops I know personally are utter morons and/or corrupt douchebags, I'd really rather not have them be able to legally enter my home regardless of circumstances.

I was able to find rumors that some county sheriff had said that random house searches will become a reality in his jurisdiction just because he can, but I wasn't able to find any article that actually said this; that's just a rumor as far as I can tell.

But, with this, there would be nothing in place to stop any cop who did want to do that.

Notanoni wrote:

But, with this, there would be nothing in place to stop any cop who did want to do that.

Legal protections aside, going around and entering people's homes without permission is still dangerous.