No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Your Home?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

.............You're me (without the pleasant disposition and pre second husband). You are a mom, trying to raise two kids under the age of 10, and you constantly smell pot smoke (strongly) coming from the apartment below you. .............

I would call the police. And then if I was you - MOVE.

Now we get into the probable cause side. I would hope the police start some type of surveillance operation, gather intell and then raid the joint. I would hope they did everything by the book and the perps didn't get out on bail. If they do get out things might get right interesting for you.

And how would you know it's pot smoke? At least I got to sniff it while on duty. Yes folks I did inhale.

See, I still believe in the police - it's just that many of them are making it harder and harder to believe.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

But I don't like door-kicking either. ah, well. As Richard says "And so it goes..."

You'll probably like it less when they mistakenly kick in your place - go all halligan on the joint - I recall some conversation about hog-tied or something...traumatized kids - no ventilation just to keep things nice...the authorities say, sorry...reasonable mistake.

After this hypothetical event - how many of your law school classmates are calling you and how soon after a conversation with them do you believe the actions as described may not be so reasonable? You gave them the correct address - three times ! Your attorney suggests that millions may be at stake...at least hundreds of thousands...no restitution was ever made and the family pet was shot and killed...in front of everyone...

That's a rhetorical question - I recall something about student loans and rent in another comment. The defense attorney - for the civil claim that either you or your classmate eventually files because the numbers are just too damn large to ignore - produces your comments on this thread...when you have no dog in the hunt - you consider this smashing of your home and your life - mere collateral damage...
...

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Tony, I'm sort of lost in your comments. You seem to be doing a stream-of-consciousness thing and I'm not following.

Same here. I'm not sure I get your point.

[tonyz]

You have to read all of 550's comments on this and some other threads - never mind - it is not important.

I think that 550 got the gist of things.

I'm sometimes cursed with a memory and internet speak sometimes does not do conversations justice.

Having been in the arena of legal conflict I can sometimes play out an entire scenario - before I finish my first cold one Thank goodness I didn't start discussing discovery.

Carry on.

No offense meant, sorry.
I'm new and I haven't tracked all of your posts.
R/Sierra Lima

[tonyz]

No offense taken - please accept my apologies for the confusion - I do try to be direct but occasionally succumb to diarrhea of the keyboard - as we all do at one time or another.

Bottom line - many thought provoking observations and comments make this an excellent board to peruse for different perspectives on interesting and topical issues.

Cheers.

[wandering_idiot]

other types of warrants are also on the rise.

http://www.koat.com/r/27922147/detai...#ixzz1MdoLic15

Originally Posted by tonyz

No offense taken - please accept my apologies for the confusion - I do try to be direct but occasionally succumb to diarrhea of the keyboard - as we all do at one time or another.

Bottom line - many thought provoking observations and comments make this an excellent board to peruse for different perspectives on interesting and topical issues.

Cheers.

Clarification much appreciated.
I concur with the above statement. Have a good one!

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I'm stealing that!!



I've noticed that myself lately. One ruling such as the one that started this thread is one thing, IMO --several rulings of the same nature are disturbing.

Indeed, they're confusing. For both LEOs and citizens. Makes your job a lot harder and you find yourself second guessing every decision you make. Looks like it's getting closer and closer to self-micromanaging.
I do not envy those who will have to deal with it. In the military branch at least things are still a little simpler.

[Paslode]

I couldn't find any links to verify that this Sheriff made this statement, but it sure has people stirred up.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will
By: Allison Bricker
Contributing Editor



CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, 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.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone interview for comment with Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., May 16th, 2011

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Le...s-we-will.html

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

What an incredible asshat.

Public Servants like Sheriff Newton verify the fears of those that worry about the Police State.

[Badger52]

Anyone who may think they will comply & later rely on the court system for recompense should remember that a court system yielded the decision under discussion; go forth, big boy rules apply. Personally, it was said for me on page 1....

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

"Knock and live"

or

"Make Peace with your Maker Before You Bust Down My Door."

[Paslode]

This topic reminded me of this topic from a year ago.

http://ingunowners.com/forums/the_2n...oman_dead.html


That happened right down the road just as they discussed. I was working just East of there when it happened. A fireman friend works just around the corner and all he would say was 'she supposedly had a knife'.

The story was that the PV CERT Team took out a nutty middle aged woman with a knife, after she refused to answer the door......but the story just kind of disappeared from the local news and no one knows what actually happened.

[akv]

This is an ongoing investigation with facts still to come, however if it turns out this young man was clean, this is a recent example of the nightmare scenario mentioned in this thread.

[May 11, 2011]
SWAT team fired 71 shots in raid

May 11, 2011 (The Arizona Daily Star - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The Pima County Regional SWAT team fired 71 shots in seven seconds at a Tucson man they say pointed a gun at officers serving a search warrant at his home.

Jose Guerena, 26, a former Marine who served in Iraq twice, was holding an AR-15 rifle when he was killed, but he never fired a shot, the Sheriff's Department said Monday after initially saying he had fired on officers during last week's raid.

Six days after Guerena was shot, few details about the investigation that brought the SWAT team to the southwest-side home Guerena shared with his wife and their two young sons are known. Guerena's role in the narcotics investigation is unclear and deputies would not comment on what was seized from his home.

Three other homes within a quarter of a mile from Guerena's house, were served search warrants related to the investigation that morning. The addresses and the names of people who live in the other homes have not been made public.

Vanessa Guerena says she heard noise outside their home about 9 a.m. Thursday and woke her husband who had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at the Asarco Mine, she said. There were no sirens or shouts of "police," she said.

Guerena told his wife and son to hide inside a closet and he grabbed the AR-15 rifle, his wife said.

The department says SWAT members were clear when identifying themselves while entering the home.

"Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them, said O'Connor.

"The suspect said, 'I've got something for you,' when he saw them," O'Connor said. Guerena's wife denied he said that.

Deputies began shooting.

A deputy's bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield. That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot, O'Connor said.

The Sheriff's Department put in a call to Drexel Heights fire at 9:43 a.m. requesting assistance with a shooting. But crews were told to hold off.

Guerena was dead by the time they were allowed in the house, fire officials said.

Vanessa Guerena vividly remembers seeing her wounded husband.

"When I came out the officers dragged me through the kitchen and took me outside, and that's when I saw him laying there gasping for air," Vanessa Guerena said. "I kept begging the officers to call an ambulance that maybe he could make it and that my baby was still inside."The little boy soon after walked out of the closet on his own. SWAT members took him outside to be with his mother.

"I never imagined I would lose him like that, he was badly injured but I never thought he could be killed by police after he served his country," Vanessa Guerena said.

The family's 5-year-old son was at school that morning and deputies say they thought Guerena's wife and his other child would also be gone when they entered the home.

Guerena says there were no drugs in their house.

Deputies said they seized a "large sum of money from another house" that morning. But they refused to say from which of the homes searched that morning they found narcotics, drug ledgers or drug paraphernalia. Court documents showing what was being sought and was found have not been made public. A computer check on Guerena revealed a couple of traffic tickets and no criminal history.

Guerena was a Tucson native and Flowing Wells High School graduate. He joined the U.S. Marines in 2002. He served two tours in Iraq in 2003 and 2005 as part of the Yuma-based MWSS-173 under direct supervision of Master Sgt. Leo Verdugo.

Verdugo was with Guerena's family Tuesday afternoon. He gave them a Marine Corps jacket and gloves to use at Guerena's burial.

"He was an excellent Marine, with a bright future ahead of him," Verdugo said.

"We had just bought a home and he was working graveyard shifts and overtime just to help pay the bills, we were just starting to make this house our home," Vanessa Guerena said.

"I know I can't have him back but I want justice. I want explanations for what happened," she said.

Contact reporter Fernanda Echavarri at fechavarri@azstarnet.com or 573-4224.

unified-communications.tmcnet.com/news/2011/05/11/5504726.htm

[Pete]

Lawmakers Want Court To Rethink Illegal Home Entries

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28003219/detail.html

"..........The Republicans said the court's 3-2 ruling this month may have unintentionally erased hundreds of years of precedent allowing reasonable resistance. They suggested a narrower ruling addressing circumstances such as domestic disturbances................."