Indiana rules that police can enter your home without reason and you CANNOT RESIST

[protege]

I remember an officer where I lived before who would always claim to smell pot if he encountered anyone who appeared young. I was the subject of one of his pot searches (I had nothing illegal) after a traffic stop. He decided that we must be criminals anyway and "banned" me from the neighbourhood (that I lived in).

Police can do the same with home searches. The ruling is not broad enough to allow the house to house searches but this sheriff is the reason that this type of ruling is dangerous. He is assuming that not being allowed to resist = unlimited access.

I know a guy who was subjected to one of those searches...by the Brentwood cops, no less. He, and some other friends were headed downtown for a concert when they were pulled over. Apparently, to the Brentwood police department, 3 kids in a Jaguar XJ6 = drug dealers, as nobody that age would have asked to borrow the family car Anyway, they were pulled over, hauled *out* of the car, forced to lie on the ground at gunpoint while the cops searched the car. They took everything out of the vehicle, screamed at the guys for an hour...before decided that they "weren't the people they were looking for."

Cops like that, as the asshole sheriff mentioned earlier, are *exactly* why the 4th Amendment was passed in the first place! I have a feeling that not only are searches without a warrant going to stir up *more* hatred for the police, but also increase the courts' backlog. What are we trying to accomplish by this, again?

[MadMike]

Cops may be requires to see/hear/smell something in order to search without a warrant but it is going to be the cops word against the residents if the cop claims to have witnessed something.

Exactly. How are we going to prove that the cops didn't actually smell anything?

[Greenday]

Exactly. How are we going to prove that the cops didn't actually smell anything?

How is he going to prove he did?

[Andara Bledin]

How is he going to prove he did?

Cop doesn't have to. When it comes down to he said/she said, nearly everybody is going to side with the cop over the druggie.

^-.-^

[MadMike]

Cop doesn't have to. When it comes down to he said/she said, nearly everybody is going to side with the cop over the druggie.

Thank you! I'm glad someone was able to see the point I was trying to make.

[Greenday]

Cop doesn't have to. When it comes down to he said/she said, nearly everybody is going to side with the cop over the druggie.

^-.-^

If the cop actually finds weed, it'll be tough to prove. But if he "smells weed" then finds coke, he'll have a hell of a time proving it. Problem is stupid juries.

[DrFaroohk]

the problem is that frequently just the act of having to answer questions from police and maybe even a lawyer and go to court is a punishment in itself. ya can't just put the rabbit back in the hat.

[insertNameHere]

That is why I love how most of the cop cars around here have cameras and the tapes are always rolling, so sure they can claim to smell weed. But they can't say you said something you didn't and if you make damn sure you don't consent to the search, you have a lot more ground. The problem is we are told to co-operate with the police. I believe I have posted this link before about never talk to the police,but check it out if you havn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
This also applies to carrying a gun in a holster at a store least in OH and MI, is not considered reasonable suspicion to stop someone..... doesn't mean cops don't try and it lands people in hot water for saying the wrong thing and giving actual grounds to get arrested for something.

[FArchivist]

Don't know if that would apply to cops though. Probably not.

Castle Doctrine in general exempts all law enforcement and government personnel.

How is he going to prove he did?

In a testimonial battle of "Yes, he did." "No, he didn't.", it is customary for evidential weight to be given to law enforcement over the regular citizenry. So if the cop says he smelled pot and the defendant says there was no smell, the cop is going to get the benefit of the doubt. No proof is necessary; his testimony (as written on the police report he creates) is proof itself.

[Shangri-laschild]

At the same time though, this basically gives them permission to enter anyone's home that they want to and no one can stop them. So yes, any evidence they find won't apply in court, but at the same time, some intruder is entering your home and you aren't allowed to do squat about it.

I think it's more geared at protecting the people from further damage. I'm not saying it's not a screwed up way of doing it. It seems like the idea is, if a cop illegally enters your house then provoking him further with force is going to get you physically hurt and your house illegally searched. But the laws shouldn't be covering that kind of thing. It would be like if they said if a thug in an alley attacked you with a gun and you were unarmed, it's illegal to fight back. While it wouldn't usually be the smartest reaction, they law shouldn't be covering that kind of thing. People getting hurt from resisting illegal police entry is definitely a problem. But they should be making harsher penalties for illegal entry they are focusing on the wrong side of the problem.

Oh, you can tell them that, but they don't have to listen.

^-.-^

This doesn't change the situation that would have been there before this law. If a cop decides to unlawfully search, he wasn't going to listen to you in the first place anyway.

It's funny how the police and the powers that be complain that people don't respect the law anymore. Maybe it's because the law has no respect for the people lately.

Keep in mind that the police themselves are not the ones making the laws. That doesn't mean that some of them don't abuse the bad laws. But they aren't the ones making them and the good officers hate them just as much as we do.

What I'd like to know is, why are people so reluctant to deal with these assholes? In the second case, the DOJ didn't even bother going after the officers and departments involved. Again, what the fuck?

This is crap. I hate that officers who screw up like this or are bad cops aren't held accountable as often as they should be. I have so much respect for the officers who actually do their job and aren't power hungry assholes and I hate how the bad cops effect the good cops ability to interact with the public and do their jobs.

You mean the same courts that said it was OK for the cops to just barge right in? I don't have much faith in the courts anymore. Not after this.

They didn't say it was ok and while I understand the issue with the "I smelled pot so I have the right to enter" thing, that is a current law that is already in place. It doesn't have a whole lot of effect with this new law. I say that because if the new law wasn't there and you were still able to resist, if the cop decided he had right to enter, he'd still find a way to enter, using the excuse of the smell where as if he just randomly busts in, he would not have that law (the old one) on his side. I'm not saying the cop would be in the right at all, I'm just saying that I don't see the two weighting on each other like that.