Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

[Purveyor]

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.

MORE...

http://smargus.com/indiana-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will/

[sharp_stick]

1. He pretty much just destroyed his next court case

He can go in and say that he heard someone flushing drugs but this little piece should be enough to throw reasonable doubt back into play.


on edit:
Hang on, am I messing up my idiotic judgements here? Is this the cops can legally enter your home if they think you may be destroying evidence case or you can't bitch if the cops come into your home for any reason case? Or are they the same case? I clearly have some reading to do to keep up.

I really wonder what higher courts will think of the recent Indiana decisions if they can be moved to Federal court.

[truebrit71]

31. Different cases iirc....this one relates to an Indiana SCrOTUS ruling nullifying the 4th...

...you are thinking of the Alito/Scalia SCrOTUS ruling on the Kentucky case nullifying the 4th...

[Hubert Flottz]

48. The NAZIS have taken over America.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. Barnes doesn't allow illegal entries into homes

random or otherwise. It's a pretty outrageous opinion, but it isn't a Fourth Amendment case. If an illegal entry is made, any evidence seized as a result of the illegal entry is still subject to suppression under the Fourth Amendment. What Barnes says is that a person charged with resisting arrest and battery on a police officer who is trying to enter his home, isn't entitled to a jury instruction that he has a right to resist if the jury finds the entry to have been unlawful. Period.

[Dawson Leery]

5. Consider the Newton County Indian Sheriff's office on it's own.

From now on, no sympathy for them if anything goes wrong. They are overpaid too.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

6. He looks like the typical redneck sherriff

[Brigid]

13. Yep.

Looks like IN really does have its own version of AZ's crazy Sheriff Joe. Just wait till he gets sued for breaking down somebody's door for no reason.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Umm, this is a blog post...

offered without any corroboration at all.

The pervasive ready, fire, aim mode of many on DU is extremely troubling.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. Come on. It only ''troubles'' you when it ''fires'' in a direction you don't like.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Show me where the corroboration for the...

OP is.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Not my point.

But you know that already.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Maybe you could point to a...

concrete example of my selectivity.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. Absence.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Huh? n/t

[sabrina 1]

61. Lol!

:rofl:

[liberallunatic]

40. How is the "ready aim fire" thing any different than what

you are doing? You are offering no corroboration at all either. The blog directly attributes the statement to the sheriff. I saw nothing that would make me think they are lying. You apparently did. So what was it?

Do you know this sheriff? Why would I take your word over hers?


Not trying to be a jerk here just trying to find out why I shouldn't trust this source.

[SDuderstadt]

41. I am not the one making the claim, dude...

I don't have to prove it isn't true. The maker of the claim has to prove it IS true. Falling to do so, in Logic, is called "begging the question". Demanding that someone asking for evidence of the maker's claim, instead, needs to DISPROVE it is called "shifting the "burden of proof"

[liberallunatic]

54. I didn't ask you to disprove it

I was just wondering why a liberal on a liberal site would automatically disbelieve another liberal site.

And you did make a claim you claim it's a lie...

Either way it does not matter to me. You answered the question I had which was, why do you disbelieve it. I was just expecting more than "because it's a blog". Sorry, usually when someone makes a claim like that they have an actual reason for doing so.

Thanks for your time.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Dude...

Allison Bricker is a contributing editor for the Mike Church Sirius radio show, which he bills as "uncensored conservative talk". I have also pointed out repeatedly that she offers zero corroboration for claim that Hartman's said any such thing. Do you really believe any sheriff would say any such thing or claim that the Barnes decision would, in any way, permit random house-to-house searches for anything?

Duh.

[Bluebear]

64. "Dude, dude, dude"....good god.

[liberallunatic]

66. Again.. thanks for your time...

I fully understand your position. And after that reply I fully understand what kind of person you are. Duh.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Yeah...

I'm the kind of person that is distressed by unsubstantiated stuff from RW websites infiltrating DU and taking people in.

[liberallunatic]

81. Duh.

Babble babble babble....

Thanks for your time and good day sir.

[Pacifist Patriot]

88. I'm glad I'm not the only one holding back.

I was looking for the corroboration myself and I'm not finding it. Seems plausible enough under the current circumstances, but that doesn't make it true.

[SDuderstadt]

89. No decision of either...

the Indiana Supreme Court or the USSC would permit law enforcement to conduct random house to house searches and I have a hard time believing that any sheriff would say something that is so blatantly at odds with the Constitution.

This thing is all over the RW blogosphere and now there is a Facebook page demanding Hartman's removal, yet not one person has produced the slightest bit of corroboration that Hartman even talked to Bricker. If you read her blog post, it is written in a very clumsy way that almost doesn't even make sense, grammatically or otherwise. I suspect this might be more a RW lynching.

What really bothers me, however, is the tendency for some DU members to profess outrage without even bothering to do do much as confirm it even happened or demand corroboration from the OP or his/her "source". By the time anyone who responded had traced back to Bricker's RW blog (had they bothered to do so), there would have been sufficient time to step on the brakes rather than uncritically step on the gas.

It really makes me shake my head in bafflement.

[LanternWaste]

93. And this results in what concrete absolute?

"some DU members to profess outrage without even bothering..."

And visceral reactions on a discussion board results in precisely and relevantly what concrete absolute?

"I suspect this might be more a RW lynching..." That is irony.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Keyword:

suspect. That means pending more investigation. As opposed to DU members who outright condemned Hartman based on nothing more than what they were told he said.

Duh.

[Dappleganger]

9. And people think I'm strange for supporting 2A rights.

You put that kind of anti-constitutional law in the wrong hands, and we have a problem here, Sir.

[Fumesucker]

14. Cops have been kicking in people's doors for decades..

And quite often they get the wrong ones..

Shoot back and the odds of you surviving are pretty damn low.

http://gantdaily.com/2010/08/17/city-of-atlanta-agrees-to-pay-family-of-grandmother-shot-dead-by-police/

According to officials three officers entered her residence using a no-knock warrant. An informant told police that he purchased drugs from the home.

The grandmother apparently startled fired one shot over the door and over the officer’s heads. The officers fired back.
In total 39 shots were discharged with at least five or six bullets striking Johnson.

The officers then staged the scene and planted drugs in the house that had been recovered from a different raid.

[Brigid]

17. Are you saying you would pull a gun on a cop?

Not a good idea, if I am understanding you correctly.

[MadMaddie]

85. How would you know if it was an officer if he is kicking in your

door. That woman lived in a crime ridden neighborhood where people broke into the homes there.

The police did no real investigation to find out if the informant told the truth. If they would of that grandmother could possibly be alive today or died a natural death.

[ixion]

15. And someone was just trying to tell me the other day how this ruling was okay

I think the statement of this fascist sheriff makes it pretty clear that it wasn't okay at all, and is in fact, just another desecration of civil liberties and a big FU to the Rule of Law.

[SDuderstadt]

18. If the sheriff actually said that...

The OP cites a blog post which offers zero corroboration. No clip, no cite, nothing.

Of course, DU's "ready, fire, aim" brigade will run with it nonetheless.

[ixion]

19. It's called vigilance.

If he didn't say it, what harm has been done by a few posts on a board? If he did, he needs to be dressed down for saying it.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Wouldn't it make sense to find out if he actually...

said it before whipping people up into a frenzy?

[ixion]

23. Well, for my part, I have other obligations

that do not permit me the time to verify statements made on a blog.

If he didn't say it, it doesn't really change the fact that these 'wars' of abstraction are being used to erode civil liberties, and that there are numerous law enforcement officials who would have no problem conducting warrantless searches.

Perhaps if our elected officials would have the enlightened vision to end these marketing campaigns we wouldn't be so trigger happy. ;)

[SDuderstadt]

24. So, how is your position different than when...

Republicans claim Democrats said things they never did, then attack them for it??

Your double standard is appalling.

"Even if he didn't say it, it sounds like something he would say. So, even if my comments are wrong, it doesn't make difference if he didn't say it".

Oy.

[ixion]

25. heh... please don't put quotes around what you paraphrase

because that's not at all what I said.

Double standard? No, sir. Once again, the thing that troubles you is my consistency. I was posting on this board -- with the same set of beliefs -- during the Bush years, and rarely had to defend my position.

It's only been since Obama was elected that a few select DU'ers, such as yourself, like to make snide insinuations about me being a GOP fan of some sort.

This is an easily documentable falsehood, as I'm on the record calling out the GOP for their crap, just like I call out the Blue Dogs, etc.

My beliefs have been consistent, and this is verifiable, so you can save the innuendo.

And once again, here we are discussing you making personal attacks, rather than the topic at hand, which you dismiss out-of-hand.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Show me where I accused you of...

being a GOP fan.

Beyond that, you should educate yourself about the use of "irony quotes". I never said you said those things. I am spoofing your position, dude.

[ixion]

27. "Your double standard is appalling."

Implies that I have one standard for the GOP, and one for Dems, and this is simply not true.

[SDuderstadt]

28. No, dude...

the double standard is you doing it yourself, but it's not okay for the GOP.

[ixion]

29. Uh, I'm a relatively anonymous poster stating my opinion on a topic. This is far different

from an elected official, or someone in the political realm, to make a statement.

Nevertheless, my premise stands whether this particular sheriff said it or not. We have a distinct erosion of civil liberties going on that needs to stop. Or are you a support of these so-called 'wars'? That would explain your position.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Dude...

You're justifying accusing someone of something they didn't say?

And, you can knock off questioning my motivation.

[ixion]

46. Not at all. I'm saying it's a problem whether this particular person said something or not.

It has nothing to do -- in the grand scheme of things -- whether this sheriff said this or not. In the context of this blog it matters for being, you know, factual. But in the Big Picture, the Truth is that we have a serious civil rights problem. Yet what are you concerned about? The reactions of a bunch of anonymous posters. You belabor a point to which I took no opposition. Rather, you created opposition where there was none. So, yeah, I find that curious.

[LanternWaste]

94. ie., conjecture that it's a RW smear job?

"before whipping people up into a frenzy?"

ie., conjecture that it's a RW smear job? Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

But I do realize we often hold others to higher standards than we hold ourselves... I assume it's human nature.

[SDuderstadt]

98. Maybe you should look into it a bit more...

The blogger who made the accusation admits she cannot corroborate her own story. Why is that? If someone had actually made that statement, wouldn't prudence dictate finding a way to ensure it "is on the record"?

How much more caution do you think I need to exercise? Of course, I could just go the stock standard way of many at DU and demand that you disprove my suspicion or it must be true.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Interesting development...

I PMed the author of this OP to see what fact-checking was done prior to posting this. I was curtly given the contact information for the Newton County Sheriff's department and told that I should verify it with them, as the OP had neither the time nor the inclination to fact-check things before they are posted.

I call bullshit.

[truebrit71]

32. Hmm, methinks he's gonna be in for a big surprise when he doesn't get the welcome...

..he thinks he's going to get using Gestapo tactics like that...

Want to come in my house? Get a fucking warrant.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Dude...

Small problem. There is ZERO evidence he even said that and, furthermore, the OP refuses to defend his own OP.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

39. You might want to understand the meaning of OP...

That would be "Purveyor".

[HCE SuiGeneris]

90. Dude.

You're rather monosyllabic, and tiresome.

[Allison_Bricker]

35. Thank you For Linking to My Report

Thank you for linking to my report regarding Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr.

As it relates to my sources in drafting the report, I find the skepticism as to its validity quite healthy, as who in their right mind wants to believe such an awful reality. The facts are plain however, with Justice Davis going past the confines of the BARNES case in writing his opinion, he utterly eviscerated Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution as well as the 4th Amendment to the federal constitution.

He wrote that MODERN 4th Amendment Jurisprudence, which is legalese for "Post-PATRIOT-Act America" Hoosiers are removed of their Natural Right to resist an UNLAWFUL ENTRY.

As such the cornerstone question should then become; What is the legal definition of UNLAWFUL ENTRY?

Anyone with a telephone and some patience can then place a call to an attorney, a local police department, or both and ask exactly what qualifies as UNLAWFUL ENTRY.

The answer you will receive is that an UNLAWFUL ENTRY occurs anytime a law-enforcement officer conducts a search of any PRIVATE PROPERTY without having PROBABLE CAUSE or a WARRANT.

Therefore, if neither a WARRANT or PROBABLE CAUSE are required then there is nothing stopping law enforcement from conducting random house to house searches.

Perhaps they cite the need publicly that an inmate has escaped from the county jail and thus are on a manhunt. According to Sheriff Hartman, the people would then welcome random house to house searches.

Hence why I asked the question three times as it had always been my understanding that County Sheriff's are sworn by oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, not judicial decree sans-amendment-ratification whereby a Natural Right first publicly proclaimed in 1215 via the Magna Carta is squashed in a 3-2 decision.

Regarding my credentials as a new-media journalist, I have been writing, reporting, and publishing for three years. This is my third report in that time to gain wide attention, with the previous reports having appeared both in print and online, and with my services being ultimately retained as a Contributing Editor & Publisher for the Mike Church Show on Sirius/XM.

Should however this fail to satisfy your personal level of credible-media, please feel free to telephone the Newton County Sheriff at [phone] for substantiation as to the Sheriff's remarks.

All of us are reporters should we choose to confront that what we perceive as monstrous overreaches of government, hence the BEAUTY of the New-Media; no CORPORATIST crafted barriers to entry.

Fortunately, the state has not yet attempted to "License" journalism; let us hope it remains the case in perpetuity.

Peace, Love, or rEVOLution

[SDuderstadt]

38. So...

You are your own "source"? LOL! Do you have tape, audio file or a clip of Sheriff Herman saying this?

Are we also to believe that you just happened to monitor DU and showed up when challenged?

Why is it that nearly the only "sources" I can find (all of which just repeat the claim with ZERO corroboration) are gun groups?I call bullshit again.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

43. No dice, "Allison"...

You are essentially engaging in "begging the question". I am asking patiently for proof that Sheriff Hartman said any such thing, not your assurance that he did.

In the meantime, since you're "new" here, I will point out that it is a violation of DU rules to question a member's motivation, as you did when you accused me of "defending the state's violent tyranny". BTW, the word is "impugn", not "impune". A journalist would know that.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

49. No, I don't just have to "take your word for it"...

Do you have proof of your claim or not? Surely, as a journalist, you have some corroboration, right?

Similarly, you state you are a contributing editor to the Mike Church Show on Sirius radio. A quick check of his website reveals that he bills his show as "uncensored conservative talk". You realize that Democratic Underground is for Democrats and progressives, right?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

56. I don't have to "take your word"...

for anything.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that Hartman said any such thing and you didn't bother to document it in any way, even by having a witness on the phone?

[RainDog]

44. I read your piece via the MikeChurch site

Indiana Norml linked to it on fb.

The person to whom you are replying should, indeed, call the sheriff's dept.

The outcry over this remark was enough to elicit a reply from other law enforcement - it doesn't seem like they would bother to do so if this was a concocted story.

[SDuderstadt]

45. No, I shouldn't...

the maker of the claim bears the burden of proof. When I ask for the proof, I keep getting stonewalled.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

52. And, of course...

you provided corroboration of Sheriff Hartman's "comment" to the state senator, right?

[RainDog]

57. why should the dude believe what this person says?

that's why I said the dude should call and verify for himself.

has the sheriff denied he said it? or are you only denying it for him? I haven't seen any denials, just responses to the remark from other law enforcement.

[SDuderstadt]

58. "has the sheriff denied he said it"?

Dude...you've got this backwards. Bricker made the claim; Bricker bears the burden of proof, which she has already admitted she cannot meet. The sheriff does NOT have the burden of disproving an unsubstantiated claim.

I cannot believe I have to explain this to either you or Bricker.

[RainDog]

59. I'm not talking about burden of proof

and you're not explaining it to me - I'm talking about the situation as it now stands. one law enforcement person has responded to the claim of this statement.

you're asking for proof. I said seek it out for yourself. it's not about you asking for it. You can find out for yourself rather than posting here asking about it.

that's all I was saying.

do you really want to know? call and ask. simple.

[SDuderstadt]

62. I AM seeking it out!

I am seeking it from the maker of the claim.

As far as the one "law enforcement official" responding to the claim of the statement, that person, according to Bricker, is anonymous (and, for all we know, a sock puppet of her own creation). Even if that person exists, he/she is, at best, responding to Bricker's entirely self-referential claim, which is of zero dispositive value.

Yet, all manner of DU members jumped in and recced declaring their outrage without even knowing if the claim is remotely true.

[RainDog]

63. But you should seek it out from the SOURCE

d'uh.

If you care so much - CALL AND ASK.

It's that simple.

I'd imagine you have a cell phone with free long distance and the ability to find the phone number via the internet.

maybe it's not true. but to simply park here on this thread rather than seeking information FROM THE SOURCE you're simply blathering.

If you think it's a false statement - why should you believe this person? honestly.

you're wasting your time here.

[SDuderstadt]

65. BRICKER is the freaking source...

What is so hard to understand about that?

Try to follow. Purveyor constructs an OP, citing Bricker as the source. Bricker, in turn, claims that she interviewed Hartman and Hartman's made a truly stupid statement, yet Bricker has zero proof that she even talked to Hartman, let alone that he said what she claims. Her claim is ENTIRELY self-referential. Have you EVER heard of such incompetent journalism?

By the way, I just got off the phone with Sheriff Hartman and he not only denied having said that, but denied having spoken with Bricker at all. He also went on to say that Bricker is, in fact, not a woman, but a male pygmy masquerading as a woman with the help of stilts and a disguise. You believe me, don't you? You don't?? Well, you'll just have to take my word for it.

[RainDog]

68. The Sheriff is the source of the statement

Bricker reported the statement.

Bricker reported the statement on a radio program (that I don't listen to, btw.)

At this point, her version has more credibility to me than yours.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

69. You have got to be kidding!

I don't HAVE a story. Are you seriously saying you believe something because Bricker reported something with NO evidence whatsoever? Do you understand what it means to "go on the record"? Have you ever taken a critical thinking class?

If we should believe something simply because someone says it, do you believe Ann Coulter? In Logic, this is known as "false certainty".

[RainDog]

70. jesus, critical thinking? try common sense

the name of the officer is in the article you dispute.

you most certainly DO have a story because you are spending an inordinate amount of time insulting people for no cause here when it is suggested that you attempt to satisfy your curiosity for yourself.

instead, you distort the rationale of that suggestion with bullshit remarks.

my statement that I believed her more than you at this point stems from knowledge of recent rulings in Indiana against immigrants, the attempt to go after teacher's unions and public education in the state - the whole gamut of right wing reactionary teabaggery.

however, I do concede that the statement may be false - however, I have no more reason to believe it is false than I have to believe it is true. given my knowledge of recent trend in Indiana - I am inclined to believe the story.

no, I don't believe everything anyone says. I originally saw this post via another source that provides links to various sources. their sources in the past have not been suspect. this is another reason I am more inclined to believe than disbelieve the claim.

at the same time - I welcome your insistence on verifiable claims - since there was none forthcoming, I suggested you could seek out the source yourself.

that is no reason to attack me or assume I am unfamiliar with various issues here.

but that's how you roll, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

73. "I welcome your insistence on verifiable claims"

Then, WHY in the world don't you ask that of Bricker? Why can't she substantiate her claim?

I seriously give up trying to reason with you.

[RainDog]

76. you already did that

you have given up trying to reason b/c your entire purpose is to insult.

cause that's how you roll, dude.

you're the one who challenged her and I said - find out.

I explained the logical and rational reasons that I was inclined to believe her story rather than yours. This, of course, gets ignored because it doesn't fit your agenda to insult.

cause that's how you roll, dude.

when I first read the story, I didn't know she did not have a recording, etc. for the claim. you did a good thing to bring that up and, in order for people to believe a claim she makes, she needs to be more professional.

so, that's a good point in all this. I hope she learned something.

in any case, please do give up trying to reason with me. if you had spent your time dealing with your concern about the issue rather than insulting people online, that would have been a reasonable thing to do. - instead, you do this. how reasonable are you if that's the way you deal with such a question?

[SDuderstadt]

80. Nevermind n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

79. You assert, but refuse to prove.

You are a right-wing troll, nothing more.

[SDuderstadt]

99. I'm gonna take one more swing at this....

Did the OP cite Hartman directly? No, he cited Bricker, who SAYS she interviewed Hartman, but provides absolutely NO corroboration of anything. More importantly, she doesn't quote Hartman, she tells you what she claims he said. If, as she claims, she took notes, do you mean to tell me she can't rustle up a verbatim quote from Hartman? The OP's source is Bricker, not Hartman.

Doesn't that bother you?

[Taverner]

36. Just to bust people smoking pot??? I know a few DUers who would cheer this on

[Fumesucker]

60. The more things change, the more they stay the same..

This song was recorded in 1968 and is just as current today as it was then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg3uZRX2R_0

[JoeyT]

77. I don't know about pot.

There's certainly one here that would cheer it on if it were over coke or crack.
They'd cheer it on if the cops were willing to lie and say they smelled marijuana too.

[Enrique]

71. "the people would welcome random searches"

i.e., the white people would welcome random searches of black people's homes.

I don't know if there's a racial aspect here, I'm speculating. Anyone know?

[RainDog]

72. Indiana just passed an immigration bill similar to Arizona's

it's more like white people harassing Hispanic "looking" people.

the teabaggery smell is strong in the state of Indiana.

[JoeyT]

78. They might welcome random searches of minorities homes...

right up until a white middle aged guy was inconvenienced. Then it would be a national tragedy.

Just like the TSA, which got no real media attention until they started treating everyone the way minorities had been treated for a while.

[WinkyDink]

74. I've been WAITING for those RANDOM HOUSE guys! What?......Never mind.

Emily Latella, 2011.

[RainDog]

82. LOL n/t

[JoeyTrib]

83. K & R

.

[MadMaddie]

84. Translated

If you are a class of people that these police do not like, poor, gay, liberal, women or minorities he can kick your door in because you don't look right.

Welcome back to the 1950's...

[Kablooie]

86. Cool. That means that Griswold v. Connecticut may not hold water anymore.

Wasn't that based on the fact that authorities can not arrest someone for using illegal contraception because they are prevented by the Constitution from entering the domicile to observe the illegal action? Ergo an arrest can't be made, ergo you can't make it illegal.

If they can randomly bust in anywhere they want this foundation of privacy rights becomes null and void, ergo (again ... what's with all this ergo stuff?) the right to privacy, (which is not enumerated in the Constitution, btw) does not exist.

Our good friend Clarence Thomas will be gratified to find that he has been right all along.

There is no right to privacy.

[SDuderstadt]

87. I have two questions...

1. Why didn't you bother to fact-check this before posting it, especially with such an inflammatory subject line?

2. Why did you link to a RW blog?

[L0oniX]

91. Giving up liberty for security ... USA USA USA USA

[SDuderstadt]

92. Simple question...

How do you know the OP is even true?

Hint: you don't.

[Roland99]

95. "people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal." If that means neocons, sure!

[spin]

97. Sooner or later some criminals will dress up like cops ...

and enter a house to rape, pillage and rob.