Very disturbing news from the courts I am surprised it has not garnered more interest I read about it the other day but it was not out in front like you would think it should be.
First from the US Supreme Court a ruling that if the police announce themselves and you don't answer they come in anyway if they believe they have a reasonable suspicion your are doing something wrong and you are destroying evidence even without a warrant
It was implied that if you answer the door and deny their entry they can't come in. I can see it now... knock knock police then ten seconds later, if that, they kick in the door. Anybody who thinks this will not be abused is out of their minds
On May 16, the United States Supreme Court reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court decision that found evidence obtained without a search warrant to be inadmissible in court. Good job, Kentucky!
In this particular case, officers were in pursuit of a drug suspect who sold cocaine to an informant. They followed the suspect to an apartment building, and down a hallway that led to two closed doors, each with the potential to lead officers to the suspect. And, just like many of the contestants on "Let's Make a Deal," the officers chose the wrong door.
The suspect, of course, was behind Door Number Two. But, unlike the game show contestants, the officers had probable cause to suspect they chose the correct door; they could smell marijuana, and they were looking for a drug dealer. After banging on the door, the officers heard what they thought to be the destruction of evidence and kind of panicked. They followed the knock-and-announce rule, but they forgot one key requirement before breaking down the door and entering -- a search warrant.
Apparently, though, they didn't need one. The Supreme Court ruled that the officers had reasonable cause to enter without a warrant, and therefore the evidence was admissible. You can read better details here. Basically, Justice Sam Alito, who issued the Court's opinion, said it was up to the occupant behind Door Number One to answer the door and reject the officer's request for entry. Of course, had an officer seen any drugs or paraphernalia when the door was opened, he could have entered anyway.
linkSecond from Indiana Supreme Court residents can not keep police from entering their homes even if it is an unlawful entry.
link Basically the police can go into any home when ever they want without a warrant and your only recourse is to sue them later. Sheriff Hartman of Newton County even says he'd use random house checks and thought no one would mind if it meant catching criminals
link Indianapolis—
Debate rages over a landmark ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that some say violates your right to privacy.
The ruling essentially says you can't fight back when a police officer comes into your home illegally.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana residents cannot keep police from entering their homes even if the entry is unlawful. In a 3-2 decision, the justices ruled that valid reasons would allow officers to come in without a warrant and that it's against the law for homeowners to resist.
"That has never been the law in the state. Our courts have always held that if police are trying to enter your home illegally, you can resist that entry," attorney Jack Crawford said.
