Mitch is hesitating on SB-1....

[Kutnupe14]

True but the argument is that people's "misunderstanding" of the law is going to cause all these deaths of leos and citizens.

Based on all the statements of the Indiana FOP as well as discussions of those against the bill people should be dying as we speak. I mean, if they are "dumb" enough to think the bill says they can shoot police just because they feel like it, you would think they would be "dumb" enough not to know it's not in effect yet right?

By that logic, they would have never been aware of the law in the first place; making it a moot point.

 

[thebishopp]

By that logic, they would have never been aware of the law in the first place; making it a moot point.

I think they are blaming the media on that one... I mean even stupid people have tv's.

 

[Dashman010]

I am arguing that things like "good faith" and "reasonable SUSPICION" due to their rather "shifting sand" vagueness are NOT "REASONABLE" to conduct a search and seizure. It's like those old "writs of assistance" where the government officials could just have a "suspicion" that you may have something illegal and in they go.

Let's look at your examples to see if they are "reasonable" warrant less entries:

1. House on fire - kids inside. - The House is clearly on fire. They hear kids screaming or decide to go in to check to see if anyone is inside. That would seem to be to be "reasonable" as the House is clearly on fire. They don't just "suspect" it's on fire.

Unreasonable example: Cop wants in. Says, I smell smoke so now I have a "good faith" or "reasonable suspicion" the house is on fire (where there is smoke there is fire right?) so in I go.

2. Abusive boyfriend and it is clear his girlfriend is injured by him. You do not specify why it is so clear that he is the one beating her so I am going to assume that either she is screaming that he is beating her or they are watching it. In that situation it looks reasonable. It's happening right in front of them. Unreasonable example: If it is just the neighbor saying something then yes get a warrant or Officer says "I think I hear someone in trouble" in I go, doesn't really hear anyone mind you but he is "suspicious".

3. You say a kid is "clearly" the subject of child abuse. Again you do not specify what this "clearly" is. There have been numerous cases of "clear" child abuse where they were removed from their homes and parents put under investigation or even charged only to discover nothing was going on except the overactive imagination of the school counselor/teacher. BUT for sake of argument let's say "clearly" in this case is the kid getting beat in front of the police. Well that's not "suspicion" is it? It is happening in their view and they can take action.

As far as it taking "3 hours" to get a warrant. That is a failing of the system. Corrections need to be made so it does not take that long. Why should the citizens suffer because the government doesn't want to fix that problem? Is it because the Judge doesn't want to get up, well get his ass out of bed. That's his job and he gets paid for it. Don't want to be woken up at 3am then put in place a rotation or shift system so a judge is always on duty. Again not the citizens problem. I hope you understand that the burden is supposed to be on the government and not the citizen.

As far as reading the Constitution literally... that's funny. Same argument is made whenever they attack the 2nd Amendment. - note that the "literal" reading was brought up when Fargo (and correctly I might add) brought it up when pointing out that the 4th Amendment says "nothing about being free from all searches not supported by probable cause. Rather it says free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and then sets PC as the standard for a warrant and adds a specificity requirement."

I have selectively quoted your text so that I can respond where pertinent. Let me just say this so cover 90% of your argument:

You seem to think that "reasonable suspicion" isn't reasonable. That's not possible. It either is reasonable, or it isn't. And a judge determines that, in cases where there is a warrantless entry, after the fact. But the point is it still has to be REASONABLE. In other words, the average person in the officer's position really would have thought someone was in danger, domestic violence is going on, etc. THis idea that reasonable suspicion is just an officer's hunch that he can fabricate all the time completely ignores the fact that his suspicion has to be REASONABLE, which presumes an objective inquiry.

As far as your "system" breaking down, you have to deal with realities. If police waited in all of these situations where there isn't clear, irrefutable evidence that a crime was being committed (or some other such thing), people would scream bloody murder that "the police didn't help us." So again, if you don't like the current 4th Amendment, petition your legislators to amend it to read that officers must have a higher standard before making a warrantless entry.

As to your argument about reading the Constitution literally, and how arguments were made the same way against the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should take some advice from the Justice who is probably the most ardent protector of the 2nd Amendment and the Justice who wrote Heller:

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be--though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation 23 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).

 

[caverjamie]

I wish I could come up with a solution. The burden will (and should) always rest with the state to ensure that their actions are lawful. My opinion is that we elect and pay those who are supposed to be educated and informed to create legislation which protects the citizens and allows for the prosecution of criminals. This whole situation, for me, seems to have a feeling of "let what happens happen and we'll worry about it after the smoke clears". There is little vindication for the dead.

If the solution needs to be phone ahead warrant services then so be it. Understand that warrants will become a complete and total waste of time and be prepared for criminals to easily avoid prosecution and continue their careers. As long as that is what the people want then I'm fine with it. I don't particularly enjoy serving warrants anyway.

Why can't the solution just be to stop using no knock warrants? I mean, worse case if someone has a violent history, can't you just surround a residence quietly, then turn on all your lights, get the megaphone out, shoot tear gas through the windows, etc, etc. Seems like you could wait them out? He can't just sit there in his house forever. If he tries to shoot at anyone from the house it seems like he'd be picked off pretty quick. I really don't know I'm just making guesses here, I'm no expert just throwing out some thoughts.

 

[Dashman010]

Why can't the solution just be to stop using no knock warrants? I mean, worse case if someone has a violent history, can't you just surround a residence quietly, then turn on all your lights, get the megaphone out, shoot tear gas through the windows, etc, etc. Seems like you could wait them out? He can't just sit there in his house forever. If he tries to shoot at anyone from the house it seems like he'd be picked off pretty quick. I really don't know I'm just making guesses here, I'm no expert just throwing out some thoughts.

Caverjamie,

I think you would be quite pleasantly surprised at how little no-knock warrants are used. It is probably less than 1% of the time. And the situation you laid out is used by LEOs all the time, often in place of a no-knock. No-knocks, at least as I've known them executed, are done in the rare situations where the police expect a firefight and absolutely need the element of surprise.

 

[thebishopp]

You seem to think that "reasonable suspicion" isn't reasonable. That's not possible. It either is reasonable, or it isn't. And a judge determines that, in cases where there is a warrantless entry, after the fact. But the point is it still has to be REASONABLE. In other words, the average person in the officer's position really would have thought someone was in danger, domestic violence is going on, etc. THis idea that reasonable suspicion is just an officer's hunch that he can fabricate all the time completely ignores the fact that his suspicion has to be REASONABLE, which presumes an objective inquiry.

You have got to be kidding. Your whole argument here is that "reasonable suspicion" is ALWAYS "reasonable" because it isn't possible for it to be "unreasonable". That even if the impossible were to occur that it is the "judge" who decides if it was or was not reasonable.

I can call anything "reasonable". In fact I may be so inclined to say that it is "reasonable" to allow government agents complete and unfettered access to your person, places, or things, "just because" you might be a criminal. Note that these were called "writs of assistance" back in the "olden days". Something our forefathers were adamantly against.

Perhaps you are not aware but "reasonable" suspicion can be fabricated quite easily. Just because you call something "reasonable" doesn't mean it is.

As far as your "system" breaking down, you have to deal with realities. If police waited in all of these situations where there isn't clear, irrefutable evidence that a crime was being committed (or some other such thing), people would scream bloody murder that "the police didn't help us." So again, if you don't like the current 4th Amendment, petition your legislators to amend it to read that officers must have a higher standard before making a warrantless entry.

Again you are arguing that the burden should be placed on the people and not the government. That is not the principles behind our original system of government. Just because you want to change it to that doesn't make it so.

The courts have already ruled that Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect us. In fact they have ruled this several times, most recently was the SCOTUS ruling in 2005.

I like the current 4th Amendment just fine. It does have a high standard for making entries. You need to look at what are forefathers felt were "unreasonable" entries.

That is the reality. Though if things keep going the way they are going you may get your desire.

As to your argument about reading the Constitution literally, and how arguments were made the same way against the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should take some advice from the Justice who is probably the most ardent protector of the 2nd Amendment and the Justice who wrote Heller:

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be--though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation 23 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).

I'm glad Mr. Scalia has admitted that he is not a strict "constitutionalist"

Ironic since SCOTUS appointed itself the final say on if a law was or was not "constitutional".

So how does that work? The "final say" on if a law is constitutional or not is in the hands of people who don't believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution.

I believe our forefathers warned us of this as well. Imagine that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not saying that's going to happen, but just for the record, it hasn't gone into effect...

Actually, yes, it has, the moment Mitch got done signing it.

"Section 2: An emergency is declared for this act."

That's Legislator-speak for, "We can't wait for July 1 on this one."

(or, "Light speed is too slow! Go to........... LUDICROUS SPEED! <<GASP!!>>")

Blessings,
Bill