Skip to content

Your Rights Are Unlawful

May 14, 2011

Amendment 4 – United States Constitution

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.

The 4th Amendment clearly sets forth and restricts government actions against people, in essence acting as a barrier to unlawful activity by government agents.  A key component of the wording of the amendment is the term “unreasonable.”  Common sense would tell us that unreasonable, in a legal context, could easily be understood to encompass unlawful behavior within the boundaries of unreasonable behavior.

So, in continuing our common sense approach, unlawful behavior is unreasonable and one has the right to resist such unlawful behavior, even when that unlawful behavior is being propagated by a law enforcement agent of a government entity.  That is, except in the State of Indiana.  A recent 3-2 ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court has overturned legal principle that extends back to the English Magna Carta of 1215.

The case before the court was an appeal of a conviction on several charges of an individual who physically resisted the attempt by police officers to enter his residence (that the entry was unlawful was not contested by the State).  The officers were responding to a 911 call of a domestic disturbance and when the individual denied the officers entry after following his wife back inside their residence, physically barring the entry way and telling the officers that they may not enter.  The officers forced their way inside and when the individual attempted to physically stop the officers he was arrested and taken into custody.

The Court ruled that the laws no longer supported resistance by individuals against unlawful entry by government agents (police officers in this case) into their residences.  The Court went so far as to state that “…a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence…”  The Court majority contends that there is ample remedy and recourse to the unlawful actions of police officers and that resistance does no more than increase any violence without preventing an arrest.  The unlawful actions of the officer could well be dealt with, so states the Court, by established legal procedures, to include administrative and court remedies.  The ruling, regardless of the turns of legal logic used to reach the final conclusion, has granted authority to a government entity and its agents to act unlawfully towards any person – however temporary – whenever the government and their agents decide such acts are beneficial to its goals.

Note how the Court stated, clearly, that resistance was “against public policy.”  Policy has now trumped law in Indiana, not only the 4th Amendment but also Section 11 of Article 1 (Search and Seizure) of the Indiana Constitution (which mirrors the 4th Amendment almost word for word).  This idea is counter to the principles of the rule of laws.  When a political entity of some level can determine that public policy invalidates, or overrides, legal concepts then freedom and rights go up in a puff of smoke.

It is easy to see, should one look realistically at the situation, that this decision process removes any rights or legal protections for one to prevent a violation of government against their person.  Governments, through skewed court rulings, then dismantle individual rights one by one through the guise of public policy.  In Indiana this seems to negate the will of the legislature and the people of the state.  How easily this could be applied by the United States Government and its court system against all people across the nation.  In a nation already treading on the edges of establishing a comprehensive police state through laws in the vein of the Patriot Act, it would take little more than rulings by a court that certain inalienable rights were against public policy.  How easy it would be to void centuries of common law and over two hundred years of the US Constitution.  Such an action by the Indiana Supreme Court must not be allowed to stand unchallenged by the people of the state, nor for that matter by the people in any state of the Republic.

You may not be convinced that the Court’s ruling is detrimental to the rights of the people, but then you fail to consider what happens when the government agents are forcing entry into your home to enforce its edicts upon your and your family.  How will you resist when to do so is unlawful?  When the government takes the vestige upon itself that it is above the law then tyranny has been given free rein over the daily existence of the people being governed.

Source materials:

NW Times newspaper report (Muncie, IN)

Indiana Supreme Court ruling (pdf)

Indiana Constitution (Art 1, sec 11)

US Constitution (4th Amendment)

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. May 14, 2011 7:44 pm

    This is a sticky situation overall. Public Policy may be weighted evenly with ample Administrative and or Court procedures, a seemingly balance of personal rights and police rights to enforcement governed by community standards.
    Here in the ATL I’ve seen the up most disregards for A and C procedures which lead to a 90 year old woman being executed by undercover officers. In this case the snitch was put into place after the officers lied to obtain the search warrant and were fired upon by the little old grandmother, when they in-turn executed with a ungodly hail of bullets.
    Rogues and Criminals exist on both side of the Bench and on the streets. Check and balances are not always equal.
    Thank you for the thought provoking post and a forum to exam within.

    • May 14, 2011 7:51 pm

      I remember reading about that incident. That lady was executed really, there’s just no other way to say it.

      In addition to the ruling in the case I wrote about, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled recently that police may decided – based upon the circumstances at the moment – to execute a warrant as a “no knock” warrant without notifying the court. Previously the police had to have the “no knock” provision approved by the court when they obtained the warrant initially.

      The more leeway the government and their agent gets, the less we shall see government abide by any law.

      PS – thanks for stopping by and commenting. Hope to see you around again.

  2. Greg Fessler permalink
    May 15, 2011 3:15 pm

    and the hits just keep on comin, dont know what else to say on this subject cuz its all too common anymore, we all know what needs done, guess we’re gonna have to knock em down

  3. Cyndi P permalink
    May 15, 2011 4:12 pm

    Is this the “Change” that The One promised us? Must be. Still waiting for “Hope”…..

    :o(

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: