Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Things could have been worse

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Tue May 17, 2011 at 11:38:27 PM EST
    Tags: Indiana, Unitended consequence, Supreme court, Illegal search, 4th amendment, WRONG, constitution, SCOTUS, Lucky Us, Michigan (all tags)

    in our last election.

    The Michigan Supreme Court COULD have gone to the lefties.  It COULD have gone to those who think the constitution is a "living, breathing, document." It could have even lost some of its federalist nature AFTER the election when Maura Corrigan took on a new career as the head of DHS.  Certainly we were lucky that the election turned out as it did, and that even the replacement of Corrigan was a constitutionalist.

    Because at any given point in the last year we could have found ourselves with a laughing stock and dangerous ally of the enemies of liberty.  

    It could have become populated by those too much like the Indiana Supreme court.  Particularly when they spout such nonsense as:

    "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action."

    In its Barnes v. State of Indiana decision.

    Against public policy?


    Did I mention we are lucky that in Michigan we don't have such incompetence on our courts?

    We are.  At least for now.

    Such egregious attacks on the constitution by such smug protectors of intrusive and abusive government need to be called out for what they are.

    Illegal, Immoral, and UNFORGIVABLE.

    What message does this send to the jackbooted thugs drooling for the opportunity to just kick in the doors at a whim?  Why on earth would any cop ever bother to ask for a search warrant as long as they think they can draw out a violent reaction to their unlawful searches.  A simple claim of assault on the officer is enough to override the potential "legal" fallout of the illegal entries.  Not so sure that is germane?

    In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

    Your rights my rights ..wtf.

    But by golly the US Supremes will have their heads!!  


    The SCOTUS will probably not hear this case.  They recently voted 8-1 upholding the ability for police to kick in the doors if it is feared evidence is being destroyed.  

    The Kentucky case resulting in the ruling involved the police smelling marijuana in the hallway of an apartment building while chasing a suspect ... the police knocked on the door of the apartment (which was not the apartment of the initial suspect the police were pursuing) and announced themselves, they heard `noises' ... they broke down the door and entered the apartment.

    In writing the majority decision, Justice Samuel Alito said that residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in.

    The only one making any sense is? [drum roll insert here] Ruth Ginsburg.

      The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.

        How `secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ...forcibly enter?"

    Which does not bode well for the Indiana plaintiffs.

    Or anyone who believes in the constitution.

    Where does that leave us?

    Given the US Supreme court decision (which admittedly may have different circumstance) I wonder what might be on the minds of those in law enforcement who have an inclination to push the boundaries already.  What message does it send to the keepers of the peace who already abuse such cracks in the law to use claims of alleged seat belt violations or cracked tail lights to profile or selectively enforce?  Even the good cops who in a pinch for time, might cheat "Just a little" because now its likely they will get away with it.

    The slippery slope is fully greased.

    Yes.  I am glad I am in Michigan.  Things could have been worse in the last election.

    I wonder how those in Indiana can even possibly feel safe knowing that anyone in a uniform can now bust in their door, ransack, and they have to watch it happen.  

    And I did say anyone.

    The unintended consequence of "public policy" allowing such illegal entry, sets up the populace for more victimization. A security guard outfit and a badge, and you have a home invasion kit. Instead of stopping the bad guys at the door, a flashed badge means come on in, tie me up, take my stuff, and shoot my dog.

    How could anything go wrong?

    < The Gift That Keeps Giving to the MDP | Here I Am, Rock You Like A Herman Cain >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    We have other priorities in Michigan (none / 0) (#1)
    by RushLake on Wed May 18, 2011 at 05:43:43 AM EST
    right now. Kissing public sector union butt, taking strings attached federal dollars, and getting even with those damned pensioners. Gotta have our priorities.

    I didn't complain until they came for me.

    And speaking (none / 0) (#2)
    by grannynanny on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:49:40 AM EST
    of Corrigan - did you see the news article about the guy in Bay City who won a $2 mil Michigan lottery is still swiping his Bridge card because..... DHS said he could!!!!

    Barf, gag, barf, gag, barf, gag!!!!

    • Yeah.. by JGillman, 05/18/2011 10:08:13 AM EST (none / 0)
    Don't worry... (none / 0) (#3)
    by jgillmanjr on Wed May 18, 2011 at 09:50:44 AM EST
    If the SCOTUS hears this, it's gonna go to shitter, real quick.

    Don't believe me? Damn good piece of evidence is Hudson v. Michigan.

    Court of Appeals
    overturned the trial court decision to suppress, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied cert.

    Cliffs Notes on Hudson v. Michigan: Supreme Court ruled that even though the knock and announce requirement was violated (as per Wilson v. Arkansas), this is not sufficient to suppress the gathered evidence. It essentially said "Fck you, 4th!".

    If the Supreme Court does hear this, and agrees with Indiana's decision, the phrase "Live Free or Die" will become a bit more literal. That I can guarantee.

    Lucky in Michigan? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Corinthian Scales on Wed May 18, 2011 at 09:58:32 AM EST
    That remains to be seen.

    Come on Jason, It's all just words (none / 0) (#7)
    by Rougman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

    SCOMI incapable of the incompetence? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Corinthian Scales on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    Mmmmmm, that remains to be seen too.  There's not one sitting Justice on our Supreme Court that I'm willing to fawn over.  Especially when SCOMI cries poor while shamelessly using tax dollars on tour for self-fulfilling prophecy in recruitment for Bar Associations.

    Before the hearing began, Chief Justice Robert Young said he hoped the hearings might encourage some students in attendance to become lawyers.

    That smacks of incompetent use of my tax dollars on so many culpable levels with their sideshow visit in the kangaroo 19th District.

    To push further the capabilities and competence of SCOMI's decided use of tax dollars, was it their intention in recruiting up and coming jihadi with law degrees to further abrogate our Constitution Law already relegated to zones that are more in favor of sharia?  That is the colonizing pool of muhammadans our SCOMI chose to squander our tax dollars in their quest to recruit.

    South side of Michigan Avenue

    North side of Michigan Avenue

    That is about all I can stomach in one sitting of non-English using islamic militants.  But, didja catch that last bit?  Even to their bitter end you hear, "We'll f#@% you until you're dead", screamed by muhammadan youth squarely in the face of Dearborn Police.  They do nothing.  Their kangaroo court will do nothing.  That there more than exemplifies the core reason I moved out of a sharia enabling City of Dearborn.

    As far as I'm concerned, the choice that SCOMI made on tour in Dearborn is complicit.

    Why, no...that...can't...happen...here. (none / 0) (#10)
    by KG One on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    GOP establishment wing problem (none / 0) (#11)
    by Corinthian Scales on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    One thing that I noticed in looking a wee bit further at the Indiana ruling is the writing Justice.  The 'ol boy wing of the GOP elite that now appears to be pushing a 2012 fiscal hawk Mitch Daniels is responsible for appointing (his first and only) Justice Steven David who wrote this crap...

    We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

    ...in playing gamesmanship in terms of "Modern Jurisprudence"

    Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law--indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture--as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835-36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

    Translation:  The Government that you pay possesses flagrant hold harmless in whatever it chooses to do, and you have the Right, at your additional expense and/or retained representation, with necessitating reclaim of your property and Liberty at a later time from said illegally garnered evidence.

    Sorry dudes and dudettes, but the 'ol boy wing GOP Mitch Daniels can park his ass along the sidelines next to Newt Gingrich as far as I'm concerned.

    George W's appointed Justice Alito within dealing in his "presumed guilt" statement is for me as alarming as Mitch Daniels appointed Justice Davids' no "Property Rights" statement with his Barnes v. State of Indiana ruling.

    On another level, Justice Davids' ruling also further entrenches the job security angle for mouthpieces as like with the taxpayer funded "Justices on Tour" scheme witnessed in Dearborn above.

    Ah, Indiana. (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Wizard of Laws on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    I won't comment on the case itself because I haven't read it, but I will share a story about the Hoosier State.

    A friend of mine was arguing in an Indiana state court one day, and he quoted two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that were controlling authority on the issue in his case.

    The judge stopped him and said, "Well, that may be the law in Washington, D.C., but this is Indiana!"

    'nuff said.

    Quartering of "troops" next? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Hershblogger on Sat May 21, 2011 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    Next they'll be quartering the ACORN 'Civilian Organizer Corps' in your home until you sue to stop it.

    They won't hear your case for 2 years.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search