4th ammendment apparently gone in Indiana

[Awtoman]

This is from the Chicago Tribune
It seems like they're trying to keep this low, I had to look to find it on their website, to confirm this wasn't a hoax. Unfortunately it is apparently true.
I don't know what else to say....



Tom


INDIANAPOLIS— People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

"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."

Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said.

Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner told The Times that the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Thursday's decision was the court's second ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

[Brisk44]

In rebuttal one could also say it's the homeowners right to blow said officer away and the police can then take him to court and let the law decide if he was wrong to blow said officer away.

[hogger129]

If they illegally enter your home, you've got a right to resist them. When they trample your rights, you're supposed to do something about it instead of sitting there and taking it. Not only is it your right to resist them, it is your duty to.

[armedandsafe]

"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.

"Constitution? It says and means what we want it to say and mean at any particular moment."

I won't say what I think of these people, as I'd then have to ban myself from this forum.

Pops

[hunter29180]

Originally Posted by Awtoman

Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.

The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

"(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

in ANY state officers responding to a domestic disturbance, may if in their opinion it is nessary to assern the facts, enter the residence if one of the 2 partys (or someone who was or is inside the premises) made the call for help, if the call was from someone not inside the residence (a neighbor ect) then they usually require a warrent. the thought is if a person in the residence called then they have given permission for police to enter the premises just by calling for help.

[lawdawg]

One problem that I have encountered MANY times in my career is people who think they know the law and what the police are or are not allowed to do under law. More often than not they are totally wrong. If all these people were allowed to resist without consequence, then chaos would rule. From a police perspective, it is always the best policy to get a search warrant before entering someone's home, but there are, of course, exceptions. If police respond to a domestic dispute, as in this case, and have reason to believe that someone may be in danger inside the home, then exigent circumstance exist to allow them to enter without a warrant. Taking the time to type up a warrant, find a judge or magistrate to sign it, and serving it would put that person in further danger; therefore the police can (and should) enter the home to prevent further injury. But try explaining that to a drunk enraged husband who has just beat the hell out of his wife and knows he is about to go to jail, and thinks he knows the law! There is so much case law surrounding search & seizure that most police (or lawyers for that matter) do not know them, much less civillians. Granted, a few probably know more. But I agree that the proper place to argue points of law is in a courtroom, not on the street or the front porch of someone's home with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about to begin with.

[nstoolman1]

Resisting is a fine idea if we are talking about people throwing rocks and sticks at each other But we are talking about guns and bullets. I personally have not seen the effects of such items close up and I don't want to. If you live by yourself and wish to push the idea that your home is your castle be my guest. If you have a family then I think the best defense against this would be to fight it out in court. Your being dead is only going to make matters worse for your family's case against the officers. Their defense is going to be "Oh sorry we had the wrong address. He had a gun." In the case of (drunk enraged husband who has just beat the hell out of his wife and knows he is about to go to jail) let him resist and may the chips fall where they may.

[Inthewind1976]

Lawdawg, I know the kinds of dangerous situations you encounter and while I hate to disagree with you, I feel I have to. If you dont have a warrant, and you arent invited into the home by the homeowner, you are trespassing, and that badge doesnt give you the right to do so. IMHO, its the responsibility of all authorities at every level to insure that they are 110% correct that they are at the right address. Its not the homeowners responsibility to permit you to enter the "wrong address" without a warrant. I think the Indiana decision is completely wrongheaded and I would hope that the US Supremes agree to hear the case and reverse it. The innocent homeowner should not HAVE to use the legal system to establish or regain their rights under the 4th Amendment. The right exists and its the responsibility of the authorities to be sure all the I's and T's are taken care of before they approach the door. And as far as the authorization for a "no knock" WITHOUT it being specified in the warrant by the issuing judge; I think this is ALSO inappropriate "power" to be vested on adrenalized LEO's "on the scene. Just my opinion, but I think there are already too many abuses of individual rights in the nation, in the name of "security" or "NATIONAL security" or "public safety." Thats not a jab at local LEO's its an observation of how our liberties have in the past and continue in the present and future to be eroded by those that are supposed to be UPHOLDING them. The NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68 are PRIME EXAMPLES of the original context and purpose of the Bill of Rights being usurped by government rather than government protecting and upholding them.

[carver]

For those of you that may defend this law, read this again!

"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."

If it's unlawful, then it's UNLAWFUL! It doesn't matter what spin you put on it! Please, it does not say LAWFUL! If I, or someone in my home, calls 911 to my home, as far as I'm concerned the LEO's now have just cause to enter my home. This rulling is for UNLAWFUL entry!

[lawdawg]

Originally Posted by carver

For those of you that may defend this law, read this again!

"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."

If it's unlawful, then it's UNLAWFUL! It doesn't matter what spin you put on it! Please, it does not say LAWFUL! If I, or someone in my home, calls 911 to my home, as far as I'm concerned the LEO's now have just cause to enter my home. This rulling is for UNLAWFUL entry!

You are absolutely correct, however the point I was trying to make is what some people think is unlawful, is not necessarily unlawful. So when the police show up at Bubba's house and try to make a lawful entry, Bubba will resist because he perceives the entry as being unlawful, whether it is or not.

Police officers are human and, of course, sometimes make mistakes in spite of careful planning and making sure all their ducks are in a row. There's no excuse for it, but it happens. (Kinda like delivering the mail to the wrong address, I guess). But I don't think they should be shot because they mistakenly went to apartment 12 instead of apartment 12A.

While I can say that I've never (to my knowledge) participated in a bad search (yet), I can tell you that of the scores of searches I have been involved with, either as the lead investigator or as an assisting officer; most of the residents thought we were there illegally even when they were shown a search warrant. If all those people actively resisted with violence, there would have been a lot of dead or injured homeowners and police officers needlessly.

Now I'm not saying that there should not be consequences for bad searches by the police, even when it was an honest mistake. Of course there should be. The police have a duty to make sure that everything is legitimate, the address is correct ( which is harder than you may imagine sometimes, particularly in some neighborhoods where the houses are jumbled up and there may be several living structures on one property), and that there is probable cause to search the property. The exclusionary rule is in place to supress any evidence seized in an unlawful search, but there should be civil liability as well, and in certain cases, even criminal liability. The police are required to KNOW what constitutes a lawful vs. unlawful search (or act in good faith). The citizen is not.

[rentalguy1]

Enter my house without a warrant, you don't go home that day. Period.

[carver]

Originally Posted by lawdawg

You are absolutely correct, however the point I was trying to make is what some people think is unlawful, is not necessarily unlawful. So when the police show up at Bubba's house and try to make a lawful entry, Bubba will resist because he perceives the entry as being unlawful, whether it is or not.

Police officers are human and, of course, sometimes make mistakes in spite of careful planning and making sure all their ducks are in a row. There's no excuse for it, but it happens. (Kinda like delivering the mail to the wrong address, I guess). But I don't think they should be shot because they mistakenly went to apartment 12 instead of apartment 12A.

While I can say that I've never (to my knowledge) participated in a bad search (yet), I can tell you that of the scores of searches I have been involved with, either as the lead investigator or as an assisting officer; most of the residents thought we were there illegally even when they were shown a search warrant. If all those people actively resisted with violence, there would have been a lot of dead or injured homeowners and police officers needlessly.

Now I'm not saying that there should not be consequences for bad searches by the police, even when it was an honest mistake. Of course there should be. The police have a duty to make sure that everything is legitimate, the address is correct ( which is harder than you may imagine sometimes, particularly in some neighborhoods where the houses are jumbled up and there may be several living structures on one property), and that there is probable cause to search the property. The exclusionary rule is in place to supress any evidence seized in an unlawful search, but there should be civil liability as well, and in certain cases, even criminal liability. The police are required to KNOW what constitutes a lawful vs. unlawful search (or act in good faith). The citizen is not.

I understand where you are comming from, and I understand what you are saying. Still, the law in question from the great state of Indiana protects LEO's from making UNLAWFUL entries! If it's an UNLAWFUL entry, then it's UNLAWFUL! It does not matter if it's the Police, or some crack head! I'm sitting in my living room, in the dark, watching TV, and the door bust in! First person thru the gets shot! Peroid! That is an UNLAWFUL entry! I don't care if it's an LEO or not! Knock at my door, and anounce yourself as an LEO, commanding me to open up, and I will, warent, or no warent, because I am a law abiding citizen. When you find you are at the wrong address, all is well! But to pass a law violating the 4th Ammendment, is itself UNLAWFUL, and it's only reason is to give Government the ability to enter any man's home, at any time, for any reason, and make it legal! Kinda like living under a King who claims by force of law that everthing on his land belongs to him, including me, and my family!

I know that what you say about those that think they know the law, but don't, can make your job just that much harder. I know that sometimes LEO's make mistakes. I also know that some of those "mistakes" are deliberate. You have a job that once was looked up to, but not so much any more. I still respect the law, to a point, only because it has become so intrusive. I am not an LEO, and would never become one because I have known too many in my life. Most of them really good men, and women, some not so good, trying to do a job that is many times thankless, and frowned upon by those that would like nothing more than a free hand to do as they would, rob, and steel. Still two wrongs don't make a right, and that's what this law is!

[lawdawg]

Originally Posted by Inthewind1976

Lawdawg, I know the kinds of dangerous situations you encounter and while I hate to disagree with you, I feel I have to. If you dont have a warrant, and you arent invited into the home by the homeowner, you are trespassing, and that badge doesnt give you the right to do so. IMHO, its the responsibility of all authorities at every level to insure that they are 110% correct that they are at the right address. Its not the homeowners responsibility to permit you to enter the "wrong address" without a warrant. I think the Indiana decision is completely wrongheaded and I would hope that the US Supremes agree to hear the case and reverse it. The innocent homeowner should not HAVE to use the legal system to establish or regain their rights under the 4th Amendment. The right exists and its the responsibility of the authorities to be sure all the I's and T's are taken care of before they approach the door. And as far as the authorization for a "no knock" WITHOUT it being specified in the warrant by the issuing judge; I think this is ALSO inappropriate "power" to be vested on adrenalized LEO's "on the scene. Just my opinion, but I think there are already too many abuses of individual rights in the nation, in the name of "security" or "NATIONAL security" or "public safety." Thats not a jab at local LEO's its an observation of how our liberties have in the past and continue in the present and future to be eroded by those that are supposed to be UPHOLDING them. The NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68 are PRIME EXAMPLES of the original context and purpose of the Bill of Rights being usurped by government rather than government protecting and upholding them.

I agree with you on almost every point.

"If you dont have a warrant, and you arent invited into the home by the homeowner, you are trespassing, and that badge doesnt give you the right to do so" -- You are absolutely correct. However there are exigent circumstances where the police may legally enter a home without a warrant or consent. If probable cause exists that someone's life or safety is in jeopardy inside the home (regardless of where the call came from) is one. Someone mentioned that the police can legally enter only if the call came from inside the home. Such is a perfect example of a homeowner's misunderstanding of the law and what is a lawful entry.

"IMHO, its the responsibility of all authorities at every level to insure that they are 110% correct that they are at the right address. Its not the homeowners responsibility to permit you to enter the "wrong address" without a warrant" -- You are right, the police have the responsibility of ensure that they are 110% correct in evetry aspect. So when they show up at a residence, they know in their minds they have the right to enter this home. If the homeowner disagrees and resists, nobody wins. Rest assured that if the police are wrong, they will pay dearly for their mistake (at least in my neck of the woods). IMO if the homeowner is smart, he will let the search go on uncontested. If it is an illegal search, nothing the police find can be used against him anyway, but he can (and should) now sue the police department, the city (county or state), and the individual police officer(s).

"And as far as the authorization for a "no knock" WITHOUT it being specified in the warrant by the issuing judge; I think this is ALSO inappropriate "power" to be vested on adrenalized LEO's "on the scene." -- It is. We have to specifically ask for a "no-knock" warrant. They are only issued if we can articulate probable cause for why a "knock-and-announce" warrant would be an officer safety issue.

Keep in mind that while I make my living as a law enforcement officer, I am also an American citizen who enjoys my individual rights just like everyone else. Any watering down of any constitutional right affects me personally just as it does you. I do not want the po-po searching my house any more than you do, especially unlawfully. But as a police officer (and one who routinely serves search warrants), I also understand the need for officer and homeowner safety. I have on occassion entered homes under the exigent circumstance rule, and probably will again. The homeowner, more times than not, will erroneously accuse me of conducting an unlawful search.

One such example happened a few years ago when I was a patrol officer. A man called saying that he was at his ex-wife's house to pick up his kids and his ex-wife had barricaded herself inside. When we got there, we were informed that the ex-wife suffered from mental problems, was off her medication, and he felt his kids could be in danger. When we knocked on the door the woman yelled at us to go away. We announced ourselves as police officers, but again were ordered away. While my supervisor and I were discussing our options (there was no laws broken that we knew of, and we had no specific evidence that the children were in danger), the kids inside suddenly started screaming. Right or wrong, I didn't care at that point and kicked in the front door to the home. The mother was in the process of trying to set the house on fire when we entered, which is why the kids were screaming. I had no warrant, no consent, and no knowledge that any law had been broken, but I did have probable cause to believe that there were lives in jeopardy. So, according to: "If you dont have a warrant, and you arent invited into the home by the homeowner, you are trespassing, and that badge doesnt give you the right to do so." I was violating the woman's rights and was trespassing. So be it! I would do exactly the same thing again. We saved those kid's lives that night.

There are only three ways that I will ever enter anyone's home: With a valid warrant, with consent, or under exigent circumstances. It that last one that's confusing for everyone IMO. What constitutes "exigent circumstances"? From my understanding, that only applies in emergency situations where the life or safety of someone inside the home may be in jeopardy. It is the stretching of that rule that gets LEOs and homeowners in trouble. Lazy police officers who do not want to take the time to do things right make us all look bad.

[Rocketman1]

Lets see, . . . its the middle of the night, I'm fast asleep, and all of a sudden people are invading my home. I'm only half awake, so I reach for my pistol on the night stand, and blast them away. How am I to know if they were law inforcement? And even if they looked like law inforcement, it could be someone pretending to be law inforcement.

Yea, this one more stupid law, taking away our rights to deffend our selfs and family.

[hunter29180]

Originally Posted by Awtoman

The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

Originally Posted by hunter29180

in ANY state officers responding to a domestic disturbance, may if in their opinion it is nessary to assern the facts, enter the residence if one of the 2 partys (or someone who was or is inside the premises) made the call for help, if the call was from someone not inside the residence (a neighbor ect) then they usually require a warrent. the thought is if a person in the residence called then they have given permission for police to enter the premises just by calling for help.

Originally Posted by lawdawg

I agree with you on almost every point.

"If you dont have a warrant, and you arent invited into the home by the homeowner, you are trespassing, and that badge doesnt give you the right to do so" -- You are absolutely correct. However there are exigent circumstances where the police may legally enter a home without a warrant or consent. If probable cause exists that someone's life or safety is in jeopardy inside the home (regardless of where the call came from) is one. Someone mentioned that the police can legally enter only if the call came from inside the home. Such is a perfect example of a homeowner's misunderstanding of the law and what is a lawful entry.

in this case we are presented with incomplete facts, we are led to believe that this is a domestic disturbance call. we have no idea who made that call or if anyone is in jepordy. we dont know what conservations happened BEFORE the officers determined they needed to enter the home. WE are NOT talking about "BUSTING" a door down unannounced..even i would likly shoot first and ask questions later.

the questions are these and several others..did the officers in fact speak to all the partys involved with this disturbanc? if no.. then there are very few officers who would not have tried to enter the home. did the officers encounter something that made them feel like there was a threat to whomever was still inside? we can only 2nd guess at this point. at this stage i would rather support the officers than not. of all the LEO's i have had the pleasure to know and sometimes disagree with. none would have attempted to enter without something setting off alarms that couldnt wait for a judge to issue a ruling. after all they were speaking to the man. so if you feel i have a inproper understanding of the law..maybe i do..but i know how thousands of LEO's would respond..as Lawdawg pointed out..he also reacted is much the same fashion once upon a time..we just cant judge a case without all the facts..and newspapers usually leave out anything that dont support their position. and even if they could they could not have room to give both sides of a story.

insofar as the ruling the court handed down? i dont agree with the wording or the implied meaning..

[Inthewind1976]

And I want to make myself clear; I was speaking to the relatively narrow explanation of the Indiana Court's decision, and to parrot Hunter's last line - I dont agree with the wording or the implied meaning. I have many friends who are LEO's or are retired from such. I have worked with LEO's for many many years. I have a great respect for many of them, and I will admit, complete contempt for a few of em as well. If I was sure that it would be "the first group" that were making the decision to enter, I would be far less apprehensive and/or against this legislation. I appreciate, Lawdawg, the way you further explained your personal take on the thing. And having been a government administrator for many years, I also completely understand the issues related to the precision (or lack thereof) associated with "street addresses" too. Honest mistakes can happen, even when everyone involved takes the utmost precautions. I also understand that there are circumstances that LEO's will encounter, like the situation Lawdawg notes with the wack job ex wife and her decision to hold the "other kind" of family BBQ where the the situation IS significantly different. Its not a clear cut issue by any stretch of the imagination. But as I read the intent of this piece of legislation, as it was presented in opening here, I personally believe that this piece of legislation will only serve to exacerbate the WRONGFUL entry problem and that it is clearly an attempt to weaken the 4th Amd rights of Indiana citizenry.

[Inthewind1976]

.............and although not DIRECTLY on point, I also believe that there should be at least a handful of Federal LEOs serving LIFE SENTENCES for RUBY RIDGE. But I personally believe that situations such as that one highlight the need for the "strings that are attached" to the actions of SOME LEO's in SOME SITUATIONS to BE attached and remain attached.

[lawdawg]

Originally Posted by Rocketman1

Lets see, . . . its the middle of the night, I'm fast asleep, and all of a sudden people are invading my home. I'm only half awake, so I reach for my pistol on the night stand, and blast them away. How am I to know if they were law inforcement? And even if they looked like law inforcement, it could be someone pretending to be law inforcement.

Yea, this one more stupid law, taking away our rights to deffend our selfs and family.

"No-knock" search warrants are extremely rare. Very special circumstances must exist and be well articulated to the judge or magistrate by the police officer before they will sign off on one. Even very high risk warrants require a "knock-and-announce", which is the police banging loudly on the door, shouting something like: "Police! Search warrant!", before making entry and once entry is made continue shouting "Police! Search warrant!" (or similar). In most states, only narcotic related search warrants are allowed by law to be served at night. All others are to be served during daylight hours.

Now, each case presents it's own set of circumstances, and considerations have to be made for the preservation of evidence, the safety of officers and all occupants of the residence, and of course, their rights. Typically non-drug related search warrants that I've done is me and several other officers arriving at the house, knocking on the door, waiting for the door to be answered by the homeowner, explaining who we are and that we have a search warrant for this house for (stolen property, contraband, etc). I have met very little resistance in such cases. On the other hand, sometimes there is a known risk of the destruction of evidence. Child pornographers are usually computer savvy and are well known to place "booby-traps" on their computers that will wipe the hard drive in an instant with the push of a button, for example; and too many times have I had to break open and search a sewage pipe when a drug dealer would flush his stash when the police showed up. This is why we try to use the element of surprise to our advantage in such cases. Not to mention that a lot of drug dealers would rather shoot the police serving a search warrant than a burglar. Most of us here I think would agree that if the police has a valid search warrant for our house, and knocks on our door and explains that to us, we would allow that without resistance. Generally drug dealers don't share that feeling. We are dealing with a whole different type person than anyone on this forum, I assure you, and they live in a whole other world than most people know exist.

[lawdawg]

Originally Posted by Inthewind1976

I have a great respect for many of them, and I will admit, complete contempt for a few of em as well.

LOL! Yeah, me too! I've seen some police officers who should not be in my opinion. But that's a whole other can-o-worms.

[denny 714]

"Land of the Free", I don't agree with this decision....Period!!!!

Denny G.

[al45lc]

The fourth was INTENDED to be a deterrent, not a post event point of contention. The Castle Doctrine is and should be for ALL, and this finding by the Indiana Supreme Court places the Police above the Fourth amendment, and therefore above the law.
In fact, this finding has a greater potential to get Police killed, as some may think this is an open invitation to barge in and worry about it later.
Without having a heavy fine or possible jail time in place for violation, why wouldn't a cop go ahead and enter if he or she thinks they will just recieve a slap on the wrist?
Power is a funny thing, it does lead some to reckless thought and actions, and this is a very empowering ruling by that Court.

[Bobitis]

We went down the rabbit hole when we started the TSA.

Now what?

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by al45lc

Without having a heavy fine or possible jail time in place for violation, why wouldn't a cop go ahead and enter if he or she thinks they will just recieve a slap on the wrist?

Being a Hoosier, this ruling directly affects me far more than most members here.

Anybody want to guess how local law enforcement departments are responding to this ruling? Check out this load of BS: "If we need to conduct random house to house searches, we will."

[CampingJosh]

Oh, and since it's now legal for the police to kick down your door and enter your home, some criminals have take up yelling "Police!" when invading homes.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news...,2665087.story

[al45lc]

The spokesperson for the Indiana A.G. can take all the umbrage they want, history, even in America, is rife with power grabbers usurping the will and the documents of the people. Our own Govt, has on many occasions done just that and killed people in the process, even beyond Ruby Ridge and Waco.
When the people lose faith in the honor of our LEO's, even the good LEO's will pay for it, and be endangered by it.
And past evidence of the Courts showing favortism to Law Enforcement in blatant cases simply adds fuel to the fire.
This finding is a foolish path for the Indiana Supremes to take, and frankly, I hope it bites 'em where it counts, so long as no good people or LEO's get hurt.