In other
words, the Fourth Amendment is dead, at least for the time being, in Indiana -- and at least
one "law officer" is ready to start searching houses at random. All he needs
now is an excuse.
At the
original trial, Barnes wanted the jury to be apprised of the Fourth Amendment's
limitations on police conduct regarding unlawful entry into his home. His
tender instructions to the jury: "When an arrest is attempted by means of a
forceful and unlawful entry into a citizen"s home, such entry represents the
use of excessive force, and the arrest cannot be considered peaceable.
Therefore, a citizen has the right to reasonably resist the unlawful entry."
The court refused to allow the reading, and Barnes was convicted of battery on
a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct.
Justice
Robert Rucker and Justice Brent Dickson, dissented from the ruling, saying the
court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially
telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes
illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent
circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Conclusion: Defending Our
Civil Liberties
Rights can
never be taken for granted, Prof. Gary Orfield [8]
argues by adding: In a nation that rightly proclaims its commitment to freedom
across the world, our freedoms at home are our most precious asset and any
threat to them undermines our credibility everywhere in an age of instant
global communication. Prof. Orfield reminds us that the history of the United States
is that rights are not given, they are won and they must always be defended.
The core
challenge during the Obama era to civil liberties is to rollback the repressive
policies of the Bush regime, while fighting any further erosion of
constitutional rights. Many Americans resisted the attacks on civil liberties
during the Bush administration. Over 400 local governments and several states
passed resolutions supporting the Bill of Rights and objecting to parts of the
Patriot Act and other post-9/11 laws, executive orders, and policy changes.
Some cities passed ordinances directing police to facilitate, not impede,
peaceful demonstrations.
Attacks on civil liberties are not minor infringements on the rights of a few extremists. Today they affect a vast cross-section of Americans. It will not be too much to say that the chilling effect of denials of our democratic freedoms curtails political debate within the U.S.
To borrow Paul Craig Roberts, an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, [9] today Americans are unsafe, not because of terrorists and domestic extremists, but because they have lost their civil liberties and have no protection from unaccountable government power. One would think that how this came about would be worthy of public debate and congressional hearings.
References
[1]
Washington
Post - July 19, 2010
[2] The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act 2007 by Abdus Sattar Ghazali OpEd Nov 26, 2007
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Is America Already
a Police State? by Nathan Coe - March 20, 2009
[6] With CIA help, NYPD built secret effort to monitor mosques,
daily life of Muslim neighborhoods by Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman - Washington Post -- August 24, 2011
[7] The
Informants by Trevor Aaronson -- Mother Jones - September/October 2011 Issue
[8] One
Nation Indivisible, under God, with Liberty
and Justice for All: Civil Rights for Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians by Prof.
Gary Orfield - May 2003
[9] 9/11
After A Decade: Have We Learned Anything? By Global Research -- August 24, 2011
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
