If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Indiana was admitted to the Union as the 19th state on December 11, 1816

(May 26, 2011) —The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on May 12 that residents of that state may not deny entry into their homes by a police officer, even if he or she does not possess a search warrant.  Justice Steven David stated in his opinion that the ruling was in accordance with “modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence” and appears to presume that an arrest would be a necessary outcome of such entry on the part of law enforcement.

The court’s decision was 3-2, with the two dissenters each referring to police entry without a warrant as “unlawful” and “illegally,” respectively.  Other writers have also referred to police entry without a warrant as “unlawful” or “illegal.”

The specific case which brought the recent decision involved a domestic dispute between a husband and wife where the wife had called for help from law enforcement after her husband began throwing objects inside their dwelling following an argument.

The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791, reads:

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.

Of the decision, The Daily KOS stated, “I personally find it fascinating that Indiana State Supreme Court Justices now believe it is within their scope to override the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The two dissenting Justices, Justice Dickson and Justice Rucker, were similarly appalled.”

In 2007, Richard Barnes and his wife Mary had been arguing outside of their home, and Mrs. Barnes reportedly called 911 after going inside.  Her husband had taken her phone and thrown it inside the apartment after she had attempted to contact her sister.  When police arrived, Barnes reportedly told them that he intended to leave the premises, but when police officers attempted to enter, Barnes pushed blocked the doorway and ended up pushing one of the officers who continued to gain entry against a wall. The officers tasered Barnes, who had to be hospitalized as a result.

The officer used a stun gun on Barnes, who was later convicted of several misdemeanor charges but claimed after his trial that the officers’ entry into his home resulted in “reversible error.”

A Nebraska-based newspaper editorial stated, “It is noteworthy to again mention that this decision affects Indiana alone, however it has opened the door of opportunity for other states to follow suit. Let us hope that Nebraska will not be one of them.”

The Sovereign Man blog stated that the decison “effectively rejected” both the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution.

It has been reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has also issued a decision which violates the Fourth Amendment, contending that police may enter a home “in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.”

The case of Marbury v. Madison determined that the U.S. Supreme Court can exercise “judicial review” of acts passed by Congress but not with the purpose to “serve partisan political agendas.”

Indiana citizens held a protest of the ruling at the State House on May 25, 2011 “to take the temperature of freedom in Indiana.”  One attendee stated that he is organizing a political action committee to recall Justice David and described the ruling as “an outrage.”  David has been identified by some protesters as an “enemy of the Constitution.”

Another protester said, “A person acting unlawful, whether they be a government agent or not, is not anything but a criminal.”

The Associated Press reported that the recent Indiana ruling “brought Indiana law in line with most other states” but offered no evidence to support the claim, also omitting any reference to “exigent circumstances” which might require police to enter a home without a warrant in an emergency situation.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who appointed Justice David, was reportedly “puzzled” at the court’s decision, and Daniels’s general counsel was quoted as having said, “the court should reconsider the case” because of a contradictory law signed by Daniels in 2006.

Is the Indiana court’s ruling constitutional?  Will it stand?








Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. It is against the vows that the white man has broke so many times before . when they ran from england to escape the terinies of there king they brought there oppersons with them and made a free unbroke tribe into the slave driven socity we are today the goverment had checks and ballance to make sure they were not more powerfull than the people but they r tring to breack us to there will and im not sure AMERICA is a communist contry r we what is the land of the free

  2. This is the piece on the (T)SA VIPR operation in Savanna, GA.
    The operation is yet another General Government blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment.
    What vague authority did (T)SA use to conduct this sweep?
    What if the local Sheriff were called and asked to charge the (T)SA agents with racketeering?
    Why did no one refuse to be searched on constitutional grounds?
    Grouping citizens is not one of the enumerated enforcement powers delegated to the General Government.

  3. This is the time for SCOTUS to be heard, or, alternatively, the time to leave Indiana for more lawful states.

  4. Corruption runs downhill, the state courts are emboldened and supported by the totally corrupt DOJ, SCOTUS, and POTUS…they don’t really understand what they are messing with here…they are fools, cowards and traitors who think they can just continue to run over We the People…it will reach a critical mass and then they will wish they hadn’t done it!

    Semper Fi

  5. The SCOTUS ruling of “exigent circumstances” in 1984 is apparently the genesis of the current state level rulings and bizarre LEO actions.
    Exigent circumstance is one of the very best examples of legislation from the bench, as the SCOTUS ruling is actually an amendment to the Constitution (Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment). The results of this ruling are also a good example of bad precedent piling on bad precedent with an end result of such things as the Tucson shooting by SWAT.
    Note that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; SCOTUS rulings do not trump the law. We need to reacquaint our elected representatives with this now arcane concept.

    1. “We need to reacquaint our elected representatives with this now arcane concept.”

      With a rope

      The question is. When was the last time the American, We the People decided they had had enough of the criminal behavior of the Judiiary or Legislature and strung a couple up?