Newton County Sheriff proposes RANDOM HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SEARCHES

[indykid]

OK FOLKS, I think we have to seriously look at this.

The "Barnes" case did NOT say it was legal for LEOs to conduct random home searches. It said that citizens don't have a right to resist. There is a huge difference. So if this sheriff were to conduct a series of illegal searches he would likely be sued (which the Barnes case ruling indicated would be appropriate). It is also very likely he'd lose in court and get his butt in a ringer.

Let us not confuse what the sheriff says is legal, with what the court says is legal. The court NEVER said an illegal random search was legal. They did say you can't resist but that does not make the search legal.

So let us say that the sheriff and his posse roll up to your house, and tell you that you have been selected to have your house searched. Based on this ruling you have no recourse but to let them in. Now let us suppose that said group of uniformed civilians decide they don't like the number of firearms you own, or the amount of ammo, or find a violation of one of those millions of laws that are still on the books but need to be removed.

So they then arrest you, for what ever reason they want, because you were nice enough to believe that they have a right to enter your home, no, you were told by the judge that they have a right to enter your home. And now you are hauled off, and if it is on the right night, you might have the privilege as an honest citizen to spend a couple of days with Bubba until you can post bail.

Doesn't matter that you will sue the heck out of the sheriff for improper search and seizure, you still have to endure what our constitution says you have a right not to endure.

There is so much wrong in this it almost makes me sorry that I brought children into this world, into a country that my father shed blood to protect during WWII, only to see our freedoms that so many brave soldiers fought and gave their all to protect. Almost...

 

[Love the 1911]

What in the hell just happened? Random house-to-house searches? I would hate working for someone who didn't bother to read the decision before commenting to the press about it. I can't imagine having to tell my top boss that I would not follow his unlawful order but that's exactly what I would do. Probably would end up having a short stint working at the jail and then find myself searching for a new job.


The ruling is a poor one. However, I can see where the justices were coming from that made the ruling. If a coworker of mine tries to illegally enter a home and is attacked, I respond to an officer in need of assistance call. I don't respond to a dead burglar call (even though that is the essence of what an illegal residential entry by LE is). When I show up, I am ready to do whatever is necessary to make sure my coworkers and myself get home that night. What are the chances for the citizen in this scenario? We bring 20 road officers to the scene as we summon an Emergency Response Team. If the homeowner surrenders before being killed, what are the chances in court of not being sentenced for murdering a LEO? Again, not saying it was the correct decision (because it wasn't), but I can see their side of it.

 

[88GT]

No offense was intended. It was intended more as an encouragement, to budge those who might not make a habit of doing so while they're still hot and fuming over this issue . Goodness knows I'm far too lazy in these matters myself.

Fair enough! That suggestion just so often comes with holier-than-thou condescension around here that I just see it for that automatically.

So let us say that the sheriff and his posse roll up to your house, and tell you that you have been selected to have your house searched. Based on this ruling you have no recourse but to let them in. Now let us suppose that said group of uniformed civilians decide they don't like the number of firearms you own, or the amount of ammo, or find a violation of one of those millions of laws that are still on the books but need to be removed.

So they then arrest you, for what ever reason they want, because you were nice enough to believe that they have a right to enter your home, no, you were told by the judge that they have a right to enter your home. And now you are hauled off, and if it is on the right night, you might have the privilege as an honest citizen to spend a couple of days with Bubba until you can post bail.

Doesn't matter that you will sue the heck out of the sheriff for improper search and seizure, you still have to endure what our constitution says you have a right not to endure.

There is so much wrong in this it almost makes me sorry that I brought children into this world, into a country that my father shed blood to protect during WWII, only to see our freedoms that so many brave soldiers fought and gave their all to protect. Almost...

The bolded part is where the rubber meets the road in regards to this ruling and the practical application. And you're absolutely right: the citizenry got farked big time with this ruling.

But I still think that it assumes that the previous assumption that we did have a legal right to defend against unlawful entry was the ONLY factor keeping us safe from JBTs. While there's no love lost for the collective entity of LE in my heart, I still believe that individually, most are good people with no motive of malice to violate the people's rights. I don't think this ruling is going to change that. I certainly don't think we're going to see an increase in illegal entries just because of this ruling. Bad cops will always be bad cops, regardless of the prohibitions on unlawful behavior. Good cops will always be good cops and don't need a law to tell them how to behave morally and legally.

 

[kickbacked]

I wrote an email to mitch daniels yesterday and still am waiting a reply that probably wont come. What are we going to do about this? i vote we create a new site akgo, and all move to Alaska, they pay you to live there too !

 

[rambone]

What in the hell just happened? Random house-to-house searches? I would hate working for someone who didn't bother to read the decision before commenting to the press about it. I can't imagine having to tell my top boss that I would not follow his unlawful order but that's exactly what I would do. Probably would end up having a short stint working at the jail and then find myself searching for a new job.

I think we will live to see the day when many officers must make the choice between following orders or saying no to their boss. The laws are getting that out of hand.

for having the guts to say no.

 

[rambone]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ3j7s84znw[/ame]

 

[Leadeye]

An absolute feast for law firms, all financed by tax money. A big win for your obtuse, unaccountable leadership and the people they really represent.

 

[IndySSD]

Funny, I found this within like 2 seconds but I was suprised to see it only had 9 likes.


Remove Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr. - Wall | Facebook

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

" 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 ".

Assuming the quote is accurate , doesn't his statement seem a bit British ?

 

[dom1104]

God Bless America.

 

[E5RANGER375]

He is a traitor!

+1. I hope that I live to see the rebirth of this nation and a return to the Constitution.

I have already emailed my state senator, now it is time to load more mags.

yep, yep, yep!

he is a traitor. a false patriot. a domestic threat. I hope people wise up and vote him out! if he implements his plan I hope every one of his deputies refuse the unlawful order. but I have my doubts they will all refuse.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Open up your door, it's the police!!

No!

We're coming in, lay down your arms!

MOLON LABE!

 

[E5RANGER375]

Open up your door, it's the police!!

No!

We're coming in, lay down your arms!

MOLON LABE!

from my cold dead hands

 

[melensdad]

So let us say that the sheriff and his posse roll up to your house, and tell you that you have been selected to have your house searched. Based on this ruling you have no recourse but to let them in. Now let us suppose that said group of uniformed civilians decide they don't like the number of firearms you own, or the amount of ammo, or find a violation of one of those millions of laws that are still on the books but need to be removed.

So they then arrest you, for what ever reason they want, because you were nice enough to believe that they have a right to enter your home, no, you were told by the judge that they have a right to enter your home. And now you are hauled off, and if it is on the right night, you might have the privilege as an honest citizen to spend a couple of days with Bubba until you can post bail.

Doesn't matter that you will sue the heck out of the sheriff for improper search and seizure, you still have to endure what our constitution says you have a right not to endure.

There is so much wrong in this it almost makes me sorry that I brought children into this world, into a country that my father shed blood to protect during WWII, only to see our freedoms that so many brave soldiers fought and gave their all to protect. Almost...

Boy you really went out for a long reach on this one. I never said I thought they had the right to enter a home, I said the sheriff confused the court ruling and claimed a right that he does not possess.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, they can't legally enter a home and arrest you. Big deal.

My recourse is to sue my neighbor for compensation? How is that right? My neighbor isn't the one who forcibly restrained me and voilated my privacy.

Police are already above the law concerning civil litigation, and even in the circumstances when they're NOT, they get a free vigorous defense.

I have to pay to bring suit against them. And, once again, if I do win, the rest of the tax payers lose.

This whole thing is just infuriating.

Police are here to investigate crime, not pre-empt it. I don't know when we got so off track, but it has lead us here, and frankly, I can't see any of this ending well.

 

[PatriotPride]

Funny, I found this within like 2 seconds but I was suprised to see it only had 9 likes.


Remove Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr. - Wall | Facebook

I won't like it. Most of the posts seem to tread the line of advocating violence very closely.

 

[serpicostraight]

I won't like it. Most of the posts seem to tread the line of advocating violence very closely.

i liked it but i didnt see the posts of violence. i thought it was about voting him out. i better go back and reread.

 

[PatriotPride]

Open up your door, it's the police!!

No!

We're coming in, lay down your arms!

MOLON LABE!

Sounds about right.

 

[E5RANGER375]

obviously these tards arent scared of being voted out of office.

 

[WETSU]

Here. I found a more recent picture of the sheriff in his new uniform: