PDA

View Full Version : Indiana sheriff: "New ruling allows us to conduct random, warrantless searches".




Anti Federalist
05-18-2011, 08:10 PM
Quoted on the Mike Church show.

Sadly, the sheriff is probably right.

Most people will welcome a random search of their home from the police, keeping them safe and all.


IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone interview for comment with Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., May 16th, 2011

dbill27
05-18-2011, 08:12 PM
This guys taken a lot of heat for saying that.

Napoleon's Shadow
05-18-2011, 08:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnam3SR_POQ

Bern
05-18-2011, 08:38 PM
We're Indiana lawmen
We're Indiana lawmen
We're comin' to your house
We'll search it inside and out
We're Indiana lawmen

/Grand Funk Railroad

aGameOfThrones
05-18-2011, 08:44 PM
Scenario:

Knock knock...

Citizen(mundane): who is it?

Cop: it's you friendly neighborhood cop.

Citizen: what do you want?

Cop: hey, do you mind opening the door? I just want to check if you're ok.

Citizen(mundane): I'm ok, why do you ask?

Cop: 'cause I'm your friendly neighborhood cop, I want to make sure you're ok.

Citizen: well, like I said - I'm ok.

Cop: why won't you open the door to someone who wants to make sure you're ok?

Citizen: 'cause I have a Right to privacy and I already told you I'm ok.

Cop: but I just want to make sure.

Citizen: no you may not enter.

Cop: well, guess what?

Citizen: what?

Cop: you live in Indiana, so I'll huff and I'll puff and blow your motherfucking door down, mundane, and you take it! You take it good!

nobody's_hero
05-18-2011, 09:06 PM
I'm a bit surprised that a police chief (assumed appointed position?) took the stance FOR rights to privacy while an elected sheriff did not. Statistically, it's usually the other way around.

Good on that anonymous police chief. I just wonder why he chose to remain anonymous.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-18-2011, 09:48 PM
So let me get this straight. The government just ruled in favor of itself and giving itself more power. Great. I wish I could decide what my own salary was.

heavenlyboy34
05-18-2011, 09:55 PM
Quoted on the Mike Church show.

Sadly, the sheriff is probably right.

Most people will welcome a random search of their home from the police, keeping them safe and all.


IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone interview for comment with Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., May 16th, 2011
Rights? Mundanes HAVE no rights! ;) :mad:

Pericles
05-18-2011, 10:00 PM
There would be exactly one attempt to do that in my neighborhood.

Philhelm
05-18-2011, 10:11 PM
There would be exactly one attempt to do that in my neighborhood.

((1776 X 1776) - (1984))^1776

This is fucking obscene!

Anti Federalist
05-18-2011, 10:16 PM
Rights? Mundanes HAVE no rights! ;) :mad:

No, it's becoming very clear that is the case, and not just hyperbole or rhetoric.

demolama
05-18-2011, 10:18 PM
writ of assistance for the 21st century

JoelYrick
05-18-2011, 11:18 PM
I really hope Dr. Paul has a comment on this situation soon. I'd love to be able to hand out flyers quoting his thoughts at the Statehouse protest. This issue is really resonating with people here. Hopefully more people than ever will wake up.

I've seen that Mitch Daniels isn't going to comment on the ruling because of the separation of powers... what a surprise.

S.Shorland
05-19-2011, 01:32 AM
This AND the wikileaks NAU proof together will prove to Chris Wallace and South Carolinians why social conservatives must vote for Paul to protect their freedoms.The NAU is treasonous to your country and if Paul can't use those two together to wake people up,he needs to sack his advisors and get professional replacements.

fisharmor
05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
This AND the wikileaks NAU proof together will prove to Chris Wallace and South Carolinians why social conservatives must vote for Paul to protect their freedoms.The NAU is treasonous to your country and if Paul can't use those two together to wake people up,he needs to sack his advisors and get professional replacements.

Oh, no, no... social conservatives are going to vote for the guy who promises to enact a federal ban on abortion.
(And also anything to make Muslims' lives miserable, too)

It really doesn't matter to them that their freedoms are in the toilet, because someday, some lip-servicing politician is going to make the world safe for after-church picnics. They'll conveniently ignore the fact that it's all been said and promised and never done.

It's not about freedom for them, it's about values. They're totally oblivious to the idea that with freedom they are free to have the values they deem correct, and they're totally oblivious to the fact that without freedom their values are dictated to them.

moostraks
05-19-2011, 07:02 AM
Oh, no, no... social conservatives are going to vote for the guy who promises to enact a federal ban on abortion.
(And also anything to make Muslims' lives miserable, too)

It really doesn't matter to them that their freedoms are in the toilet, because someday, some lip-servicing politician is going to make the world safe for after-church picnics. They'll conveniently ignore the fact that it's all been said and promised and never done.

It's not about freedom for them, it's about values. They're totally oblivious to the idea that with freedom they are free to have the values they deem correct, and they're totally oblivious to the fact that without freedom their values are dictated to them.


Absolutely right on this. There are some people who post here that cannot even grasp this concept and claim to support Dr.Paul. So pp needs to realize that it isn't going to be the fault of anyone but the individuals who cling to their vision as the nation's vision. NAU proof will be blown off as conspiracy tripe, and they will claim this issue is being blown out of proportion by fear mongerers and they will more than likely support whomever the news agencies put forth as front runner.:(

ItsTime
05-19-2011, 07:35 AM
How are these people not in the streets protesting? They will protest a few minor cuts in salary but wont take to the streets for something like this? It makes me sick!

EndDaFed
05-19-2011, 07:55 AM
No, it's becoming very clear that is the case, and not just hyperbole or rhetoric.

It won't take long for the random house searches to make sure you're not using incandescent light bulbs becomes mainstream. :D

swiftfoxmark2
05-19-2011, 07:57 AM
So let me get this straight. The government just ruled in favor of itself and giving itself more power. Great. I wish I could decide what my own salary was.

Don't be silly, only government unions can do that.

qh4dotcom
05-19-2011, 08:08 AM
How are these people not in the streets protesting? They will protest a few minor cuts in salary but wont take to the streets for something like this? It makes me sick!

Many of them are Obama supporters...who cares if they get searched.

Elwar
05-19-2011, 08:56 AM
Somewhere out there right now there is someone who's in favor of this saying:

"Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to hide!"

Mani
05-19-2011, 09:27 AM
Somewhere out there right now there is someone who's in favor of this saying:

"Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to hide!"


Followed behind...If it keeps us safe then it's worth it.

JoelYrick
05-19-2011, 10:16 AM
A thousand people have already said that they are attending the protest rally at the statehouse. It's a start. If this ruling isn't somehow overturned, you'd have to be nuts to want to stay in Indiana.

Pericles
05-19-2011, 10:24 AM
Oh, no, no... social conservatives are going to vote for the guy who promises to enact a federal ban on abortion.
(And also anything to make Muslims' lives miserable, too)

It really doesn't matter to them that their freedoms are in the toilet, because someday, some lip-servicing politician is going to make the world safe for after-church picnics. They'll conveniently ignore the fact that it's all been said and promised and never done.

It's not about freedom for them, it's about values. They're totally oblivious to the idea that with freedom they are free to have the values they deem correct, and they're totally oblivious to the fact that without freedom their values are dictated to them.


That ^

AFPVet
05-19-2011, 10:37 AM
A thousand people have already said that they are attending the protest rally at the statehouse. It's a start. If this ruling isn't somehow overturned, you'd have to be nuts to want to stay in Indiana.

I fear that Indiana is only a test... this is going everywhere.


I *am* William Wallace! And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men... and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?
Veteran: Fight? Against that? No! We will run. And we will live.
William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! — William Wallace (Braveheart)

So... do you run away, or stand up for what you believe in? I am a veteran... I ain't going anywhere.

tpreitzel
05-19-2011, 01:21 PM
This ruling needs to be overturned before a civil war erupts with dead sheriffs, cops, and citizens littering the Indiana landscape.

Gaddafi Duck
05-19-2011, 01:27 PM
This sheriff can go fuck himself.

All the more reason to run for sheriff, get elected, and then warrantlessly search this d-bag's house on a frequent basis.

heavenlyboy34
05-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Somewhere out there right now there is someone who's in favor of this saying:

"Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to hide!"

Yep. I've met such people. Pretty bizarre. :eek:

ThePiousPriest
05-19-2011, 02:29 PM
Oh, no, no... social conservatives are going to vote for the guy who promises to enact a federal ban on abortion.
(And also anything to make Muslims' lives miserable, too)

It really doesn't matter to them that their freedoms are in the toilet, because someday, some lip-servicing politician is going to make the world safe for after-church picnics. They'll conveniently ignore the fact that it's all been said and promised and never done.

It's not about freedom for them, it's about values. They're totally oblivious to the idea that with freedom they are free to have the values they deem correct, and they're totally oblivious to the fact that without freedom their values are dictated to them.


Remember, South Carolina had the guts to tell the feds to stick it where the sun doesn't shine a few centuries back. South Carolinians don't like being told what to do by folks in the federal government (as is the case with me as well). People forget Sanford tried to stop the Obama Stimulus money from coming to SC. People will catch on around here if you are to tell them Ron Paul is going to reign in the same monster that forced them to take the stimulus money. His pro life credentials need to be played up, but people will catch on and see through the BS.

Standing Like A Rock
05-19-2011, 03:46 PM
SCOTUS should deem this unconstitutional.

iGGz
05-19-2011, 07:49 PM
Wooooow

Dr.3D
05-19-2011, 09:52 PM
So let me get this straight. The government just ruled in favor of itself and giving itself more power. Great. I wish I could decide what my own salary was.

They do that too.

Carehn
05-19-2011, 10:21 PM
This sheriff can go fuck himself.

All the more reason to run for sheriff, get elected, and then warrantlessly search this d-bag's house on a frequent basis.

That would be sexy as hell. Just reading your post gave me visions of muddy boots bashing down his door once a day to see how he is doing.

Bern
05-20-2011, 05:35 AM
SCOTUS should deem this unconstitutional.

Don't hold your breath on that. Following this Indiania case, the SCOTUS announced a similarly disgusting verdict on another case.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?293590-SCOTUS-officially-kills-the-4th-Amendment-today.

iGGz
05-20-2011, 12:37 PM
Indiana people should attend this:

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=190100751036509