THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY.
BEFORE YOU ARE THE TASK OF DECIDING WHETHER THE RECENT RULING BY THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT IS SOUND OR WHETHER THE INDIANA ELECTED BODY SHOULD TAKE A STAND THROUGH LEGISLATION IN REGARDS TO THE RULING BY SAID COURT IN BARNES VS STATE AS IT APPLIES TO THE PEOPLE.
I WOULD BEGIN BY STATING THAT THE FOUNDATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT WAS IN THE SEPARATION OF THE 3 POWERS; EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIARY. EACH HAS ITS OWN RESPONSIBILITY. THE LEGISLATURE IS TO PASS LAW AND THE JUDICIARY IS TO INTERPET THE LAW AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
IT IS WRITTEN IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS #48
IT IS AGREED ON ALL SIDES, THAT THE POWERS PROPERLY BELONGING TO ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OUGHT NOT TO BE DIRECTLY AND COMPLETELY ADMINISTERED BY EITHER OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS. IT IS EQUALLY EVIDENT, THAT NONE OF THEM OUGHT TO POSSESS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AN OVERRULING INFLUENCE OVER THE OTHERS, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS. IT WILL NOT BE DENIED, THAT POWER IS OF AN ENCROACHING NATURE, AND THAT IT OUGHT TO BE EFFECTUALLY RESTRAINED FROM PASSING THE LIMITS ASSIGNED TO IT. – JAMES MADISON
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS THE PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH GUARDS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, ALONG WITH REQUIRING ANY WARRANT TO BE JUDICIALLY SANCTIONED AND SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE. IT WAS ADOPTED AS A RESPONSE TO THE ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF ASISTANCE, WHICH IS A TYPE OF GENERAL SEARCH WARRANT IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SUCURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO MEAN THAT A WARRANT MUST BE JUDICIALLY SANCTIONED FOR A SEARCH OR AN ARREST. IN ORDER FOR SUCH A WARRANT TO BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE, IT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE AND BE LIMITED IN SCOPE ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY A PERSON (USUALLY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER) WHO HAS SWORN BY IT AND IS THEREFORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE ISSUING COURT.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO GOVERMENTAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, BUT NOT THOSE DONE BY PRIVATE CITIZENS OR ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF A GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, IN WOLF VS COLORADO, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE TO STATE GOVERNMENTS BY WAY OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. MOREOVER, ALL STATE CONSTITUTIONS CONTAIN AN ANALOGOUS PROVISION.
THE RULING IN QUESTION IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE. CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FEEL SECURE IN THEIR CASTLE FROM UNWANTED INTRUSION. THE CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. THE CITIZEN SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM THE NEED TO ADDRESS AN UNWARRANTED INTRUSION INTO THEIR PROPERTY AFTER THE FACT.
NO OTHER RIGHTS ARE SAFE WHERE PROPERTY IS NOT SAFE. – DANIEL WEBSTER
THE TRUE FOUNDATION OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT IS THE EQUAL RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN IN HIS PERSON AND PROPERTY AND IN THEIR MANAGEMENT. – THOMAS JEFFERSON TO SAMUEL KERCHEVAL, 1816
IN MAPP VS OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO THE STATES BY WAY OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
I AM AWARE THAT THOSE THAT VOTED FOR THIS IN OUR COURTS DID SO WITH THE INTENTION OF PROTECTING WHEN THERE WAS NO TIME IN WHICH TO OBTAIN SAID WARRANT HOWEVER EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE OBTAINED DURING SAID SEARCH WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIABLE IN MANY PROCEEDINGS. IF THE INTENT IS TO PROTECT THAN THE PEACE OFFICER WOULD NEED TO USE THEIR BEST JUDGEMENT ON WHETHER ACTION IS WARRENTED AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY AFTER THE FACT. THE PERCENTAGE OF TIMES THAT THIS CALL WOULD NEED TO BE MADE IS RARE AND THEREFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA HAS DETERMINED THAT THE NEED OF THE ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAW AND THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY AND DUE PROCESS TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
ONE WAY COURTS ENFORCE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS WITH THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THE RULE PROVIDES THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH A VIOLATION FO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS GENERALLY NOT ADMISSIBLE BY THE PROSECUTION DURING THE DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL TRIAL.
THE COURT ADOPTED THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN WEEKS VS UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), PRIOR TO WHICH ALL EVIDENCE, NO MATTER HOW SEIZED, COULD BE ADMITTED IN COURT. ADDITIONALLY, IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. VS UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) AND NARDONE VS UNITED STATES 308 U.S. 338 (1939), THE COURT RULED THAT TIPS RESULTING FROM ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE ARE ALSO INADMISSIBLE IN TRIALS AS FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE. THE RULE SERVES PRIMARILY TO DETER POLICE OFFICERS FROM WILLFULLY VIOLATING A SUSPECT'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
I ASK THIS COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COURTS IN OUR GREAT STATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE AWAY THE CITIZENS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND TO FEEL SECURE IN THEIR HOME.
I CLOSE WITH THE FOLLOWING QUOTE BY JOHN ADAMS:
THE MOMENT THE IDEA IS ADMITTED INTO SOCIETY THAT PROPERTY IS NOT AS SACRED AS THE LAW OF GOD, AND THAT THERE IS NOT A FORCE OF LAW AND PUBLIC JUSTICE TO PROTECT IT, ANARCHY AND TYRANNY COMMENCE AND THAT PROPERTY IS SURELY A RIGHT OF MANKIND AS REAL AS LIBERTY.
--
Testimony of Lisa Deaton at the Indiana State House on Tuessday, August 23, 2011
View past editions of Our Voice here.
Have an opinion you'd like to express? Have an editorial comment you'd like to share with others? We'd enjoy hearing from you. Please submit your comments and editorials here.
