Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will


Recommended Posts

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

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.

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations Sheriff Hartman! You just openly indicated that you intend to violate the 4th amendment and have now satisfied one of the criteria stated by the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King.

---------- Post added May-17th-2011 at 10:08 AM ----------


I'm not so sure about that Monday ruling. I think that when that Kentucky case goes back to the trial court Alito may find that his facts were wrong. I don't believe the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not that search was legal... I think they said the Kentucky court assumed that it was an unreasonable search and they set down for what would make it reasonable search. In my mind if the police stated they demanded entry or demanded the suspect open the door; they may have violated the 4th amendment still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm, the USSC ruled on it, and in an 8-1 decision.

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house."

One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.

It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an Indiana court has allowed this it will be overturned at the Federal level as states cannot create law that is in opposition to Federal law as Federal law is the supreme law of the land! Take that all ya'll "leave it up to the states" folks!

too late, and the SC upheld it already. I puke in my mouth some when I say this, but the correct one this time was Ginsberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...