Quote
Originally posted by: TsuDoNihmI didn't see This new US Supreme Court Ruling mentioned here yet:
Quote
Cops suspecting illegal drug use in private residences got a boost on Monday from the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices said that police have the right to break into a home if there is reasonable suspicion that those inside are trying to destroy evidence. The vote was eight-to-one.
I think it is a fair assumption that virtually every time something similar happens they will have a suspicion that evidence, (and while this ruling is is in a drug case there isn't anything preventing it to be used in other cases), is being destroyed and use that as the basis for entry without a warrant.
DonDiego offers a mild dissent to TsuDoNihm's conclusion. (Oh, . . . by the way, very cool name Tsu !)
The US Supreme Court decision which he cites is not precedent setting. Historically a legal police entry into a home has required a warrant or consent of the resident or "exigent circumstances". Otherwise the police agency and the police officers individually would be subject to legal penalties and judgements.
In the Kentucky case the US Supreme Court essentially upheld the precedent permitting police entry under exigent circumstances, i.e. sounds suggesting those inside are trying to destroy evidence. One may agree or disagree with this conclusion, but it is hardly a ground-breaking decision. And the 8-to-1 vote suggests it won't be particularly controversial.
The Indiana Justices could have ruled against the defendant similarly to the US Supreme Court in the Kentucky case, . . . essentially citing exigent circumstances, i.e. suspicion that (1) the defendant may have been less than trustworthy in stating a police presence was not necessary and (2) the female present in the house may have been endangered. After all it was a domestic dispute call.
But the Indiana Supreme Court went much farther.
The report cited earlier by DonDiego regarding the Indiana case states that the court has gone well beyond historical precedent:
quote - - - - - - - - - -
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the [Indiana] court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"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."
endquote - - - - - - -
{boldface added - DD}
DonDiego suspects the Indiana Court decision will not stand if/when it arrives at the US Supreme Court.
