(Untitled)

[gunslnger]

To partially answer the question of why some people want smaller government, here are two examples.

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with

Comments

[existentme]

As Spooner warned, and as the Indiana decision illustrated, the judiciary exists to enforce "public policy," and its dedication to this function is only going to increase. It's as natural as any science is for power to accrue more power to itself. I expect no contraction of this tendency without outside interference. 8 to 1, oh Ginsberg, you old-fashioned fuddy duddy, you. Soonly enough I expect you'll be on your way and the CiC can get a real justice all up in there.

Here's a good one from the SC decision:"Justice Samuel Alito noted that when occupants respond to a police knock on the door, they are not required to grant police permission to enter their homes. But, he said, if there is no response, and police hear movement inside that suggests destruction of evidence, they are justified in breaking in."(Emphasis added)
So, I guess what Sam is saying (fine, an extrapolation, w/e), there, is that while you don't have to grant them permission to enter your home, you definitely must answer your door when they knock. Because lets's face

[a_new_machine]

Qualified immunity would easily be defeated in the type of circumstance you're describing with any reasonable jury and a half-decent attorney. Most of it wouldn't even have a qualified immunity problem because it'd be an exercise of the exclusionary rule, and QI only applies to damages against state officers.

[existentme]

I'm not sure what sort of scenario you imagine for the easy disqualification of immunity. I'm sure I'm the one further in the dark here than you - thing was, I was not talking about any evidence they gather - I don't care about that: I want to be left alone unless they have a warrant.

So what I am describing is the state deciding it wants to come into my house without a warrant when I don't want them to come into my house without a warrant. I don't care that anything they find once they come in may or may not ever be used against me - that's entirely beside the point, my point, anyway.

So what I was saying is, if the state officers decide they want to come in, and there are only state officers to be witness to the "strange flushing sound," e.g., there isn't anything I can have to say about such a thing, right?

"We thought so, any reasonable person would think so, we acted in good faith...nice crib, dude. Cya."

[a_new_machine]

Qualified immunity exists only where you're trying to sue them for damages. So, in that case, you're actually personally punishing them for entering your home. Generally it's applicable under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983, where you sue them for violating a civil right - so what they do with the evidence gathered isn't implicated here. The exclusionary rule applies to what they can do with that evidence, and in that realm, qualified immunity doesn't matter. It only applies when suing a state officer for damages alleged during the course of their duty as a state officer

[existentme]

These points are well taken, yes, okay.

And yes, I was talking about punishing them for coming into my home when I did not want them to come into my home. Doesn't the QI get a bit fuzzy, though, when there are other actors, say the DA, involved in the thing?

That's beside the point, anyway, considering your final paragraph, which is a situation LE already enjoys.

[a_new_machine]

QI is equally applicable against DAs as it is against cops, and can be defeated the same way. There is absolute immunity, but it only applies in non-discretionary actions. Pretty much everything from the first warrant to the last appeal in a criminal case is discretionary, so there's no issue there.

[a_new_machine]

Also, the bit about granting permission is important - the mere arrival of the police doesn't mean you must consent. That's key because consent renders a search reasonable - it's reasonable for an officer to search where they've been invited by the person they will be searching. What he's saying is that the police here had an independent justification (fearing destruction of evidence). Obviously *any* movement is not evidence of destruction of evidence. If they have no other legal reason to enter your home, then you're not compelled to give it just because they knocked on the door. That statement has far-reaching legal consequences.