Heartbeat of Tyranny - Indiana's Supreme Court Kills 4th Amendment

Court: No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Home

Bill of Rights:  Fourth Amendment  OBEY!

Today, it appears the Indiana Supreme Court decided that the militarized police force is no longer bound by the fourth amendment to the Constitution, which states that:

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.

There are no 'ifs, ands, or buts.' The Police and or witnesses are required to testify to a judge and bare witness, under oath under penalty of purgery, of criminal activity in order to for a warrant to be issued. 

Meaning, evidence has to be presented before a court to convince a judge that there is probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.  And, if the officer and/or witness lies, (bared false witness), they would be arrested and put in jail pending trial.
It was a BIG DEAL to issue a warrant back in the day.  The amendment was designed to avert corruption and tyranny of public servants and prevent the ability of a citizen to simply point a finger and send the cops after anybody, for any reason, and have them arrested.

The apparent despotic criminals running the Indiana supreme court appear to disagree with those legal restraints to their police force.  Apparently, protection from government corruption and tyranny and abuses of power against its citizens is no longer necessary.  Under this ruling, the police can now simply enter anyone's home, at any time, without a a warrant or justification.  They can simply just show up, force their way in, and do whatever they want, and the resident is bound by law to submit like a little lap dog.  After all, it's what every despotic, totalitarian society has done since the dawn of civilization.  Why should we be any different?

People!  This is the very heartbeat of tyranny!  If a cop knocks on your door, waking you up in the middle of the night, and they want to search your premise, they MUST either have a warrant or obtain your permission.  If you refuse and they enter anyway, they become armed trespassers and you immediately have the RIGHT and the duty as a sovereign person, to physically protect your person, property, papers and effects, even if that requires the use lethal force.  Note, that a trespasser does not need to be armed for a person to practice that right -- that duty.  The fact that cops are armed with lethal weapons, and by standard issue also carry restraints, batons, tasers, and pepper-spray, makes them walking lethal weapons of the state.

If a complete stranger, not donning a uniform or badge, arrived at your house decked out with guns, a baton, a taser, pepper spray, and physical restraints and demanded entry to your home, what would you do?  Well, guess what!  Cops are citizens, nothing more.  A police officer has NO ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY than you or I.
I know they often refer to YOU as "citizen," and even "civilian," which psychologically puts them in a position of authority, but in absolute fact, they are citizens, just like me who are delegated by you and me, to solve crimes.  Nothing else.  They aren't hired to seek out and prevent crimes.  They are hired and delegated to investigate a crime, identify the perpetrator, obtain a warrant, and arrest their suspect(s) who will be later tried in a court of law.  That's it.  They do not have one iota of authority that you and I don't have.

I guarantee you that if I lived in Indiana and the cops forced their way in to my residence without a warrant or my permission, they would find themselves in a fight for their very lives.  If I survived, I would take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and I would win.  Then, if not simultaneously, I would  pursue those officers, the Sheriff's office, the city, and the state, in both civil and criminal court.

Many of you are probably thinking, 'wow.  you'd risk death to prevent them from entering?  What are you hiding?'  I'm not hiding anything.  I'm a law abiding (well, I adhere to the rational and reasonable laws, at least) citizen and, no, I would not risk death to keep them from finding something illegal.  I would risk death to stand up for my rights -- to stand up for America -- to assert my authority as a sovereign person, and to stand up against tyranny.  And, anyone who would do less for their rights deserves this kind of police-state tyranny!

It doesn't matter that police corruption is rampant in every city and state in America, and examples of police brutality hit the papers every day all over the country.  Every cop in America could be the sweet, trustworthy, good-hearted Barny Fife and under the Constitution, they'd still need a warrant to enter your house without your permission.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David, stated,

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.  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.

Even in the Justice's statement he refers to the entry into a home by an officer without warrant as, "unlawful police entry."  However, he should have more accurately referred to it as, 'unconstitutional police entry,' because that's exactly what it is.

The state's Supreme Court did have dissenting voices, however. Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, rightfully stated that the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

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.

Again, if we scroll back up and read the fourth amendment, there are NO EXCEPTIONS!  Of course, if an officer witnesses a crime and in the act of pursuing an arrest has to enter a private residence, then no warrant is needed.  Witnessing an actual crime in progress constitutes 'baring witness,' and the police, as well as you or I, have every right to pursue the perpetrator anywhere that person may lead them.  In that case, hell...