"INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.[emphasis added]
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
'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,' David said. '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.'
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system"
Let me see, now ... according to this Indiana Supreme Court ruling, the Fourth Amendment protections which we have enjoyed for over 2o0 years ... no longer applies.
You are NOT protected from "illegal search and seizure" .. instead, you are allowed to protest against illegal search and seizure.
That's hardly the same thing.
In Indiana today, instead of arguing that an unwarranted Search and Seizure is "unconstitutional", you can only protest by bringing suit against the LEO agency. The disposition of your case, then, is not to be decided upon Constitutional issues, but upon your (or your lawyer's) ability to make a case protecting you on 'other than Constitutional issues'.
This is CLEARLY not the same thing. The burden of proof is now your responsibility ... essentially, in Indiana you need to prove your innocence.
That's hard to do. Often, it's impossible. It is contrary to the concept that a citizen is "innocent until proven guilty", too.
That means, any LEO can enter your home and perform .... whatever actions he considers reasonable. You must hire a lawyer (at your own expense?) and defend yourself against the CHARGES brought against you, even though the entry was not effected in response to the presence of any evidence which might have been supported by a legal search warrant.
For example, they can (and probably will) seize any firearms and 'drugs' (including legally acquired prescription drugs). They may remove your children from the home. They can shoot your dog, they can point a gun at your wife or your children ... anything that they would earlier have been permitted to do under the auspices of a search warrant which specifically included searches for objects, they can now do and can now expect that the 'evidence' would be acceptable in a court of law in Indiana.
(Most such actions, performed during "legal raids" by LEOs who were operating under the auspices of a search warrant, have before been penalized by judges and courts when the search warrant did not specifically permit the LEO's to address these specific situations .)
When the U.S. Constitution can arbitrarily be undermined by "local" or State judicial authorities, then the rights of "The People", as acknowledged by The Constitution, has been violated.
The rights of the Federal Government are narrowly described in the Constitution; all state and local authorities are required to recognize these narrow descriptions, because the Constitution is essentially intended to define the rights of "The People".
"The People"... includes individual citizens of the United States, and the Constitution was specifically framed to protect their rights. It also restricts powers of the Federal government. Not entirely incidentally, it also restricts the authority of any 'lower power" to infringe upon the rights of "The People".
The Constitution allows local, state and Federal authorities to operate within the restrictions there-in defined. These rights of "The People" can NOT be abridged by any authority at any level.
No State Court can independently determine that these protections of "The People" may be abridged at a State Level.
It ain't right.
UPDATE: May 18, 2011
It's no longer a matter of states permitting violations of the 4th Amendment. Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority provides a link to the PDF of "Kentucky vs King" where in SCOTUS agreed , on May 16, 2011, to the violation of your constitutional rights in "The War On (some) Drugs".
No, it's no longer a matter of States Rights; it's a matter of Individual rights.