Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Charbonneau Vows to Uphold 4th Amendment Rights and Help Reverse Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, Clarify Indiana Law

May 19, 2011
By

05/20/11 State Senator Ed Charbonneau (R-Valparaiso) announced Wednesday he will work to uphold constitutional rights provided by the 4th Amendment and help reverse the recent high court ruling on police entry by clarifying state self-defense laws in the 2012 legislative session.  

“This ruling is troubling, because it signals that police have the right to enter homes for any reason or no reason at all,” Charbonneau said. “Indiana’s self-defense laws will be revisited when legislators reconvene in January, so that Hoosiers’ legal rights to question police officers’ unlawful entry into one’s home are restored.”  

Indiana’s Supreme Court recently made a ruling contending that “allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.” 

Three Indiana Supreme Court judges who supported the decision said residents could use the court system if they felt a search was unjust. Two members – Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson – strongly disagreed with the ruling, saying it was “unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.” 

Charbonneau said the decision overturned a basic common law that dates back to the English Magna Carta nearly 800 years ago. He said the ruling contradicts the 4th Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution, protecting Americans against unreasonable search and seizure.

“While times change, our rights protected in the constitution do not,” Charbonneau said. “Americans must live freely without fear of unwarranted intrusion by an oppressive government.”

WordPress Plugin Share Bookmark Email

Tags:

3 Responses to “ Charbonneau Vows to Uphold 4th Amendment Rights and Help Reverse Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, Clarify Indiana Law ”

  1. Andrew on May 20, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    I have to agree here. The resister probably did and I also agree that these should remain isolated cases rather than the norm.

    I am really not old enough to be one of those “you young whippersnapper” types, but I do feel it from time to time with respect to the way things have become recently. The lack of respect for law and order is appalling. That also goes for respecting each other and their property as well.

    Our people protecting us in law enforcement deserve support from the community. The point that was made in the other article about the mindset of Meth people is case in point. It hadn’t really sunken into my head that such a level had been reached. Now it has.

    I think the only real solution to this is not by legislating and regulating things to death, but to instill the proper values in people and society.

  2. Thor on May 20, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Well said sir. A much needed clarification.

    While this case is troubling, and the resistor probably desered what he got, this ruling demonstrates why we do not need judges legislating from the bench. The ruling on this one case now affects all of us.

  3. Andrew on May 19, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    I have been following this for about a week now, first having seen a post by a sheriff in Crown Point. I have to agree with the Senator in his decision to seek an overturning of this. The rule of law has to prevail and there are existing mechanisms to assure that justice is served. It is true that crime is on the rise and lack of respect for law and order is as well, but we would be lowering our standards to violate these rights.

    I have been living abroad now for a little over ten years in of all places Germany. It has had its bitter experience with people loosing their rights to a fair process and since 1949 has a constitution not unlike our own.

    We are far from being in those dark days that were experienced here, but we must remain on guard that systematic dismantling of constitutional protections doesn’t bring us there either. When the law presumes guilt instead of innocence its the first step of many down to this level. We are a nation adhering to the rule of law. It isn’t in our best interest as an example to other nations to short circuit this process. The effects of this would be serious.