• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Indiana Sheriff says RANDOM HOUSE TO HOUSE SEARCHES are now legal

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Don Hartman Sr., Sheriff of Newton County, Indiana, proposed that random house-to-house searches will now be possible under recent Supreme Court ruling, and useful for squashing what remains of liberty in America.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

sheriff_don_hartman.jpg

- Don Hartman, Sr.

FULL STORY HERE => http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html
IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will
By: Allison Bricker
Contributing Editor

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

. . . a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord. . .
 

SShepherd

New member
buuuuuulllll shit he will !!

sorry, but a state courts ruling doesn't supercede the constitution or federal law.

He needs to remove his head from his ass
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
As I understand, the Barnes case didn't say warrantless home entries by LEO's are legal, it just said there's no right to self defense and you can take it up via civil action later.

That's a far cry from okaying random house to house searches.

Get ready taxpayers. You're about to foot the bill for some pretty substantial damage awards for civil liberties violations at the hands of Sheriff Don Hartman, Sr.
 

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
I predict a lot of officers being shot at by angry jackasses who are armed.
Police state anyone?
I think this one should (and will) be overturned.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
As I understand, the Barnes case didn't say warrantless home entries by LEO's are legal, it just said there's no right to self defense and you can take it up via civil action later. . .
That is also my understanding.

I really have to wonder if this sheriff is trying to make a point? Can he actually be serious? As an elected official I can't imaging him being reelected if he starts doing this.
 

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
With my bad hearing and limited uncorrected vision it would not be good for anyone (even LEO) to come in my house without announcing and presenting a warrant to be viewed. And the dogs can't read but do get excited when they hear an action slam shut on a weapon.
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
I predict a lot of officers being shot at by angry law abiding citizens protecting them selves from the totalitarian acts of the out of control government.
Police state anyone?
I think this one should (and will) be overturned.


(Fixed it for ya, PG.)
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
My threshold is a barrier best not crossed by the uninvited or the unwarranted.
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
And then there is this;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ucky-drug-case/2011/05/16/AFHpSD5G_story.html

Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case
Text Size Print E-mail Reprints
By Robert Barnes, Published: May 16
The Supreme Court on Monday gave law enforcement officers new authority to enter a home without a warrant when they have reason to believe that drug evidence is being destroyed.

The court ruled 8 to 1 that Kentucky police who smelled marijuana at an apartment door, knocked loudly and announced themselves, and then kicked in the door when they thought the drugs were being destroyed did nothing wrong.

26
Comments

Weigh In Corrections? Tweet


Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the conduct of the police before they entered the apartment was “entirely lawful” and neither violates nor threatens a person’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches or seizures.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg strongly disagreed.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

Generally, the Constitution requires police to receive permission or obtain a warrant before entering someone’s home, which Ginsburg called “our most private space.” But the court has recognized exceptions in “exigent” circumstances: For instance, when a life might be endangered, a suspect might escape or evidence might be destroyed.

Lexington police said that was the case with defendant Hollis King. Police entered his apartment complex looking for a different man they had spotted selling drugs. They had a choice of two apartments into which the man could have entered, and picked one when they smelled marijuana.

They knocked loudly, announced “Police, police, police” and then knocked down the door when they heard activity inside the apartment that they interpreted as attempts to dispose of the evidence. They found King and others smoking marijuana, plus other drugs and money. (The original suspect, who was in a different apartment, was arrested but never convicted.)

King was convicted, but the Kentucky Supreme Court said the judge in the case should have suppressed the evidence. The state justices said police had created the emergency circumstances that they used to justify their failure to get a warrant to enter the apartment.

But Alito said the police did nothing wrong. If officers don’t create the emergency “by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”

He said King could have told police they could not enter. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police force their way in, he said.

Alito said an exigent circumstance might not exist if police “without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted.”

The case is Kentucky v. King.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I wonder about this. I remember when Nixon was president and declared war on drugs. With that went search warrants in many cases. An example is my neighbor at the time (a fire chef and his family) had their home raided just after midnight at which time they did a lot of damage to his property. It turns out the got a tip but got the address wrong. Meanwhile the hand cuffed him, stood over his wife and kids taking the house apart. Oh and no warrant needed due to a presidential order. He couldn't even get an apology never mind reinstatement for the damages done to his home. There where a number of cases like this at that time.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
I read that a few days ago. I'll just say that if someone comes crashing through my windows or doors at 2am, I'll take my chances and defend my family. There may be no Dargo left to talk to, but I'll do everything I can to protect my family. Possessions and property can be replaced. My family cannot.
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
As I understand, the Barnes case didn't say warrantless home entries by LEO's are legal, it just said there's no right to self defense and you can take it up via civil action later.

That's a far cry from okaying random house to house searches.

I absolutely agree. This sheriff needs to take some lessons in remedial English if he truly believes the BS that he is spouting.

I read that a few days ago. I'll just say that if someone comes crashing through my windows or doors at 2am, I'll take my chances and defend my family. There may be no Dargo left to talk to, but I'll do everything I can to protect my family. Possessions and property can be replaced. My family cannot.

Once again, total concurrence. I'd hate to kill a LEO, but if one came bursting through the door without properly identifying him/herself before taking that action, my first response would likely be a lethal one. Protection of the family is Priority #1!!

 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
Well I pulled up the actual ruling and read it. There is a lot of hype out there about what it actually says. However it appears to stand in direct conflict with Indiana’s Castle Doctrine as defined by the Indiana Legal Code.

I can’t understand what in the world this judge was thinking.

JPR……any light you can shed on this for the ignorant among us?


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
 

SShepherd

New member
Well I pulled up the actual ruling and read it. There is a lot of hype out there about what it actually says. However it appears to stand in direct conflict with Indiana’s Castle Doctrine as defined by the Indiana Legal Code.

I can’t understand what in the world this judge was thinking.

JPR……any light you can shed on this for the ignorant among us?


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.


and that was exactly my point by bringing up the castle doctrine. if and when this starts happening, are police really going to announce themselves now that they have a "ruling" that allows them to enter without a warrant? They can use the excuse that they feard evidence would be lost.
So in that light, a home invader now has the jump on a homeowner- who has to wonder if it's the police invading his home.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
So in that light, a home invader now has the jump on a homeowner- who has to wonder if it's the police invading his home.

Not at my house. If you attempt to invade, the first thing I had better see is a badge. The second is a warrant.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
and that was exactly my point by bringing up the castle doctrine. if and when this starts happening, are police really going to announce themselves now that they have a "ruling" that allows them to enter without a warrant? They can use the excuse that they feard evidence would be lost.
So in that light, a home invader now has the jump on a homeowner- who has to wonder if it's the police invading his home.

That's nothing new. See: exigent circumstance.

As for there being a ruling "that allows [LEO's] to enter without a warrant," that's not what the Barnes decision said. Barnes only said there's no right to defend your castle from an unlawful police entry. And according to that decision, it's the law in many other states too.
 

SShepherd

New member
That's nothing new. See: exigent circumstance.

As for there being a ruling "that allows [LEO's] to enter without a warrant," that's not what the Barnes decision said. Barnes only said there's no right to defend your castle from an unlawful police entry. And according to that decision, it's the law in many other states too.

i thought the excuse of lost evidence was the justification for "no knock" warrant searches.
 

mak2

Active member
So what the law is really saying is I cant kill an LEO entering my home if I know he is a LEO. I still have the right to protect my house if I dont know he is an LEO and have self defense too? I would also have legal recourse in courts later. I have to think this one over. Many years ago a teacher here in Indy shot a police officer, it sounds like similar circumstances, it seems his name was Sanders it was probably in the 70's.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
i thought the excuse of lost evidence was the justification for "no knock" warrant searches.

The risk of losing evidence (ie, the perps destroy it wihle LEO's await a warrant) is one exigent circumstance.
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
After reading the ruling and thinking this through a bit, I am not sure Hoosiers have lost anything here. You never had the right to interfere with a cop performing his duties to start with. And contrary to the opinions flying around, even from some dumbass sheriff who should know better, a cop still needs a warrant to enter your home and arrest you or seize evidence in all but a few special circumstances.

The ruling was stated very poorly. The danger here is the spreading opinion that cops don't need warrants to enter your home. Bad folks may seize on this and realize that by acting like cops they may be able to gain entry to folks’ homes for their own nefarious reasons. This would provoke further significant dangerous potential by quickly making homeowners afraid of the police, and may cause them to execute their Castle doctrine rights against legitimate police officers. This would for sure lead to the deaths of both good cops and good homeowners.

In my unlearned opinion somebody, probably the Governor, needs to step up quickly and explain what this ruling actually means.

In the meantime I think one should remember that refusal is not resisting. Don’t open the door to the police if they have no warrant and you don’t wish them to come in. Tell them clearly that you are not allowing entry but that you will not resist. If they can come in they will; take it up with the judge later. If they are just on a fishing expedition and can’t come in, they probably won’t.

The cops are not the bad guys; but this judge is most likely an idiot.

Again just my opinion; that and 100 dollars will get you enough gas to mow your yard.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
After reading the ruling and thinking this through a bit, I am not sure Hoosiers have lost anything here. You never had the right to interfere with a cop performing his duties to start with. And contrary to the opinions flying around, even from some dumbass sheriff who should know better, a cop still needs a warrant to enter your home and arrest you or seize evidence in all but a few special circumstances.

The ruling was stated very poorly. The danger here is the spreading opinion that cops don't need warrants to enter your home. Bad folks may seize on this and realize that by acting like cops they may be able to gain entry to folks’ homes for their own nefarious reasons. This would provoke further significant dangerous potential by quickly making homeowners afraid of the police, and may cause them to execute their Castle doctrine rights against legitimate police officers. This would for sure lead to the deaths of both good cops and good homeowners.

In my unlearned opinion somebody, probably the Governor, needs to step up quickly and explain what this ruling actually means.

In the meantime I think one should remember that refusal is not resisting. Don’t open the door to the police if they have no warrant and you don’t wish them to come in. Tell them clearly that you are not allowing entry but that you will not resist. If they can come in they will; take it up with the judge later. If they are just on a fishing expedition and can’t come in, they probably won’t.

The cops are not the bad guys; but this judge is most likely an idiot.

Again just my opinion; that and 100 dollars will get you enough gas to mow your yard.

Good observations, Glink.:clap:

I posted in another thread that the facts in the Barnes case were bad ones to base this ruling on -- the LEO's arguably already had a right to warrantless entry under exigent circumstances: wife calls 911 and LEO's are dispatched under the auspices of domestic violence. Husband tries to keep LEO's from entering apartment with wife inside.
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
So what the law is really saying is I cant kill an LEO entering my home if I know he is a LEO.

Well no, judges don't make laws and they cannot repeal them.
IC 35-41-3-2 is still in effect and in reading the text I can't see an (unless it is a cop) distinction. In fact a cop who illegally forces their way into your home is technically a burglar. And said code is pretty clear on your options in that case.

Let me be clear (do i sound like BO) I fully support the police; but this is about the dumbest frigging thing I have seen penned by someone who has reached this level in the judiciary. This needs set straight quickly or innocent people may very likely die due to it.
 

SShepherd

New member
honestly, the whole thing reaks of knee-jerk/feel good asshattery.:hammer:

why is indiana/Il. so bent on controversy lately?
 

AAUTOFAB1

Bronze Member
SUPER Site Supporter
honestly, the whole thing reaks of knee-jerk/feel good asshattery.:hammer:

why is indiana/Il. so bent on controversy lately?


progressivism,make a bunch of backward ass laws to see if any stick,if any do they slowly progress their agenda,they know this works:hammer:
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
Well, if you read much about the background of this new "law", or whatever it is, it stems from an incident in my own county. :ermm: That really makes me feel good; freaking meth-heads are everywhere around here now. I've had 2 calls about meth making materials being found on my larger tract of property (in a different county though). Apparently the state police spotted a shit load of coffee filters in an opening of a densly wooded area and landed on my property to check it out. I'm clearly not a suspect, but I will be armed with my trusty .50 magnum sidearm with my Glock 29 (10mm) for a backup when I go running around there.

Anyway, I just got back from lunch with a high school classmate who is now retired Special Forces, Marines and is now on the Sherriff's department. He said he'd rather take his chances in Iraq or Afghanistan than break into someone's home at 2am without any warrant and it quite possibly be an innocent civilian. For example; since they found meth making products on remote property I own, he said they could be ordered to raid my home at 3am. He, in complete honesty, said he would resign before violating what he feels is a federally protected right.

He laughed and said that he knows I'd probably have him on heat/motion triggered cameras and be loaded for bear by the time they reach my door. Not too far from what could happen. :whistling: However, the Sherriff's department uses me as an example when training new recruits when it comes to teaching them that civilians ARE allowed to own fully automatic firearms and, when meeting proper criteria, may fire said weapons. He assured me that my home would not be invaded in the middle of the night by our local police departments. :biggrin:
 
Top