That recent IN Supreme Court ruling: It may not be as sinister as it sounds.

[Brigid]

Here's an article from today's paper about the ruling on resisting police entry into your home:

http://tribstar.com/local/x1376631923/Tea-partiers-plan-to-fight-ruling-on-cop-access

I'm still wary, but this may not be as bad as it seems. Your right to seek legal remedies later if the police are acting improperly is still intact, and it it sounds like you can still challenge, on Fourth Amendment grounds, evidence gathered in such a search. It sound the real purpose is to keep heated situations from escalating.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Try telling that to...

DU's "ready, fire, aim" brigade.

[dionysus]

8. why SDuderstadt, where you goin with that court brief?

[SDuderstadt]

9. dionysus?

I didn't know you was back in town!

[Bubba Kush]

12. Hey SDuderstadt

That is not really a nice way to describe DU's fanatics, honestly.

Here, I have a really good Alaskan Thunder Fuck for you to smoke. It'll help you relax, man....

[SDuderstadt]

13. If anyone needs to "relax"...

it would be DU's "ready, fire, aim" brigade.

[Lars39]

2. It's still "unlawful" entry,

If it was a burglar breaking in, are we supposed to just let him and then settle in the courts later with him? See how ridiculous that sounds? Police should not have this kind of power. Not as long as there are crooked cops and judges.

[SDuderstadt]

3. I just love...

apples and oranges comparisons.

[Lars39]

4. Doesn't matter who comes thru that door without a warrant or exigent circumstances,

it's still unlawful entry.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Why don't you call the...

USSC?

I'm sure they're waiting for your call, dude.

[jberryhill]

6. And you sue them for trespassing

A LOT of things are unlawful. That doesn't mean you can shoot at people doing it.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Jeez, JB...

there you go trying to reason with people again.

[hootinholler]

10. Like comparing the USSC to the IN SC?

:rofl:

-Hoot

[SDuderstadt]

11. The USSC would be where one goes...

for relief from the Indiana SC.

Duh. Maybe you should think before you post.

[hootinholler]

14. Only if there was a US constitutional issue with the case

And oh, wait, that case would have to be brought to the Federal Circuit to begin with.

:rofl:

-Hoot

[SDuderstadt]

15. Claiming it violates the...

the 4th amendment IS a federal issue. Duh.

Are you honestly claiming decisions of state supreme courts cannot be directly appealed to the USSC?

[hootinholler]

16. Well making a claim does not make it so.

The case wasn't about the 4th amendment per se, but about common law. While they court did cite the current interpretation of the 4th, the question was about the common law right to resist an unlawful search, not about admissibility of evidence garnered with an unlawful search or other remedies for unlawful searches, or even if there was an unlawful entry. Given how far the court stretched to take on Citizens United, I suppose it could hear the case, but really I don't think it would with an eye to reinforce the 4th, eh?

Oh, I was claiming that there was no direct appeal from the state supremes to the US supremes. I stand corrected, they do have a shortcut.

FWIW, you might consider toning down the condescension just a little.

-Hoot

[SDuderstadt]

17. I love it when posters aim a...

"gotcha" post, only to have it backfire, then accuse their opponent of "condescension" . Plan "b": you could try getting your facts straight.

Too funny.

[jberryhill]

19. That's funny

Since your erroneous proposition that cases are not appealed from state supreme courts to the US Supreme Court was accompanied by the condescending ROFL icon.

[jberryhill]

18. Uh, no

A lot of federal constitutional appeals are taken from state courts.

I always find it fascinating when an ignorant proposition is put forth with laughter like that.

Consider the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio. It is a foundational case in Fourth Amendment law.

Now, let's see if you can follow the bouncing ball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. No fugitive or any evidence of one was ever found at the house.<2> At her trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Mapp was convicted based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the warrant but they could not show one.

On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. Mapp appealed further to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. The Court stated that the materials were admissible evidence and explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully taken from an inanimate object (the trunk) and forcibly taken from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction upheld. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.


You don't seem to understand how a case gets to the US Supreme Court.

IF you have a case that belongs in the federal system in the first place, then you go from the federal district court, to the relevant circuit court by right, and then to the Supreme Court at their discretion.

But if you are dealing with a state criminal prosecution in the first place, you CANNOT get into federal court until you have exhausted the state court system. That's why Mapp had to go from trial, to appeal, to the state supreme court, and THEN to the US Supreme Court.

Perhaps this chart will help you:



But it is really odd to be that wrong, and think others are laugh-worthy for not agreeing with your own error. That is a peculiar sort of arrogant ignorance.