FOP Letter and mine to Mitch concerning SB1

[FFM173]

Have a look a the letter that was sent to Mitch concerning SB1. I think the LEO are concerned with losing some power more than anything.

http://www.instatefop.org/images/File/governordanielsltrsb1.pdf

Here is my response to Mitch and I cc'd it to Mr. Downs (FOP President) also:

March 19, 2012

Governor Daniels,

I had the pleasure of meeting you a few years ago, and have been a supporter of yours since your first election as Governor. I have never been let down and supported any decisions you have made concerning our State. I am writing you today to in reference to IN Senate Bill 0001. I ask that you please support this Bill, and to sign it in to Law. I am aware of the letter that was sent to you by the President of the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, Mr. Tim Downs, stating that he is representing over 14,000 Law Enforcement Officers that are against the Bill. I am writing you to represent over 6 million Hoosiers that had their rights stripped in the Barnes vs. State of Indiana by the Indiana Supreme Court in May 2011. Mr. Downs and his 14,000+ colleagues will have no worries or concerns just as they did before the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in May 2011. I am sure that passing this Bill in to Law that not one Law Enforcement Officer will be harmed, if they abide by the Laws that they are chosen to uphold. I once again urge you to sign this bill that had overwhelming support by both the Indiana House of Representatives and the Indiana Senate and once again give us Hoosiers our rights back.

Thank you for your time, and just as Mr. Downs stated, I am also available at any time to meet with you to discuss any concerns you may have with this request to pass IN Senate Bill 0001.

Respectfully,

 

[Kutnupe14]

Have a look a the letter that was sent to Mitch concerning SB1. I think the LEO are concerned with losing some power more than anything.

http://www.instatefop.org/images/File/governordanielsltrsb1.pdf

I did not get that from reading the FOP President's letter.


Oh, and though I disagree with your stance, I respect the fact that you are actively attempting to forward your belief.

 

[NavyVet]

My concern is the concept that an officer has the right to enter my home (without a warrant) to protect the innocent. There are a lot of assumptions that get made under those circumtances that are not always correct.

The act of getting a warrant allows a level of proving just cause, getting a judge to agree with you, and executing the order. There are some checks and balances built into the system to keep our constitutional rights to privacy protected.

I fully respect the police officers and the job they have to do. But I do not, nor am I constitutionally bound to, give them free run to enter my home and/or privacy simply because they don't have the time to get a warrant. "Duty bound" or not, unlawful entry is by it's very name illegal. Why would we have a law that makes it legal to do something that is by its very name illegal?

 

[Kutnupe14]

My concern is the concept that an officer has the right to enter my home (without a warrant) to protect the innocent. There are a lot of assumptions that get made under those circumtances that are not always correct.

The act of getting a warrant allows a level of proving just cause, getting a judge to agree with you, and executing the order. There are some checks and balances built into the system to keep our constitutional rights to privacy protected.

I fully respect the police officers and the job they have to do. But I do not, nor am I constitutionally bound to, give them free run to enter my home and/or privacy simply because they don't have the time to get a warrant. "Duty bound" or not, unlawful entry is by it's very name illegal. Why would we have a law that makes it legal to do something that is by its very name illegal?

I think you probably need to read over your post and make some statements for clarification. "Cause right now, you are "exhibit A" as to why LE believes SB1 is a bad idea.

 

[Loco179]

You know citizens feel like their rights are being taken away at every turn. It is a shame that the law enforcement officers feel they are above civil rights.

I think if a officer violates civil rights, he should be punished severely. The problem is the citizen ( the ones that pay the bills ) see them getting away with so much. There are very good officers out there. I know a lot of them. The sad part is that even one bad apple ruins everything.

 

[rw496]

I can see how this might lead to needless confrontations. The average citizen doesn't really know the law, add alcohol and it could get ugly.

My concern is the concept that an officer has the right to enter my home
(without a warrant) to protect the innocent.

That is a strange statement.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can see how this might lead to needless confrontations. The average citizen doesn't really know the law, add alcohol and it could get ugly.

That is a strange statement.

Very

 

[Loco179]

Often emotions are highly charged and drugs and or alcohol are often involved.

Is he talking about the police?

 

[drillsgt]

I can see how this might lead to needless confrontations. The average citizen doesn't really know the law, add alcohol and it could get ugly.

That is a strange statement.

It could be a strange statement if that was the only thing he wrote. But like the media you and Kutnupe want to point at one thing out of context. His following statement is explanatory. He could have worded it better I agree but I understand what he is saying. With a warrant there is a certain amount of thirdy party judicial review, without than it is just the officers interpretation of what he thinks might be happening. It's not a concrete infallible argument but I can see where he is going with it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Kutnupe -

I have great respect for you and other LEO's here that explain things from the LEO point of view. This all seems to boil down to a couple of types of cases....

Most everyone here has ZERO problem with a LEO that obtained a warrant knocking and entering. What seems to be the concern are cases where either a) no warrant was obtained or b) cases where the "no-knock" approach is used. These seem to be the major areas of concern. Surely you can see Joe Citizen's concern with these types of entries, especially when errors happen. And they do happen.

Maybe you can help me out here: How often are no-knocks done? Do you have any stats? Ditto for the no-warrant situations...?

I would rather lose a few drug cases, honestly, that put officers' lives in danger by executing these kinds of entries. Is this not kind of like the high-speed chase thing? Just call for help and don't bother chasing through the town like a bat out of hell... Let them try to outrun Motorola... Perhaps we should turn down the adrenaline factor in the law enforcement profession by a notch or two and it would be safer (and more constitutional) for all concerned. Again, this is nothing against the guys like you who put their lives on the line. What I am asking for is a little more rational thought re: the Operating Procedures that you guys are given. If every once in a while a druggie got away with it, I can live with that. On the other hand if by taming down the SOP's a bit, an officer or an innocent citizen's live was saved, doesn't that seem like a fair trade?

 

[drillsgt]

I did not get that from reading the FOP President's letter. QUOTE]

I didn't really get the elitist thing either although I don't doubt it. What I got was much worse in that apparantly he thinks the citizen of Indiana are idiots, we don't know the law, we drink and use drugs, and are going to use this as an excuse to be confrontational etc etc. Is this what the rest of the 14,000 officers he represents feel too? I just don't want to be held accountable if there was supposed to be a warrant served on the house next door, they enter mine and all heck breaks loose. Just make sure you're yelling real loud at 3am in the morning and i'll play nice and have my door fixed by the time I have to leave for work. Oh and don't shoot my dogs they're little, they just sound vicious.

 

[M1 carbine dad]

Often emotions are highly charged and drugs and or alcohol are often involved.

Is he talking about the police?

I got that from the sentence as well!

Here's what I want to know:
* # of officers shot / killed before the Barnes ruling.

The FOP is calling SB001 "open season on cops". Well, HELLO!!! That was the same state of affairs we had before the Barnes ruling.

Plus, all the people on these posts who say "I'll shoot any cop that comes through my door....blah blah blah" is, in my opinion, just blowing smoke.

I agree with NavyVet's statement: " Why would we have a law that makes it legal to do something that is by its very name illegal?"

I have the utmost respect for officers and the dangerous job they do, but I don't think the FOP or some LEO's care very much for people who stand up for their personal rights. But that's just me.

<< Donning the Nomex flame suit now >>

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe -

I have great respect for you and other LEO's here that explain things from the LEO point of view. This all seems to boil down to a couple of types of cases....

Most everyone here has ZERO problem with a LEO that obtained a warrant knocking and entering. What seems to be the concern are cases where either a) no warrant was obtained or b) cases where the "no-knock" approach is used. These seem to be the major areas of concern. Surely you can see Joe Citizen's concern with these types of entries, especially when errors happen. And they do happen.

Maybe you can help me out here: How often are no-knocks done? Do you have any stats? Ditto for the no-warrant situations...?

I would rather lose a few drug cases, honestly, that put officers' lives in danger by executing these kinds of entries. Is this not kind of like the high-speed chase thing? Just call for help and don't bother chasing through the town like a bat out of hell... Let them try to outrun Motorola... Perhaps we should turn down the adrenaline factor in the law enforcement profession by a notch or two and it would be safer (and more constitutional) for all concerned. Again, this is nothing against the guys like you who put their lives on the line. What I am asking for is a little more rational thought re: the Operating Procedures that you guys are given. If every once in a while a druggie got away with it, I can live with that. On the other hand if by taming down the SOP's a bit, an officer or an innocent citizen's live was saved, doesn't that seem like a fair trade?

In 10+ years, I have never participated in a no-knock warrant.
The Indiana legal system is fairly competent in such things. The only times those types of warrants (or not using one at all) are typically issued, are in instances where notification would allow someone to escape, destruction of evidence, or that someone's life maybe in danger.
Does anyone have any particular Indiana-specific cases involving such abuses by law enforcement? I'm sure there are some, but not nearly on the scale that some are making it out to be.
The problem is that sensational cases from other states have bled over to Indiana. In effect, the actions of other people/officers in other jurisdictions, are dictating policy in Indiana. That's a dangerous precedent, as it can work equally the opposite way.
A court gave an opinion, they did not dictate law. A court that will at some point be replaced with people of differing opinions.
And yet the backlash against that court, during an instance that honestly doesn't even accurately apply, that gave way to a law being drawn up, that is completely ambiguous depending on what side of the door you fall on.
Members here, who I think are well more knowledgeable that the average Hoosier, with regards to their rights seem confused to what exactly SB1 means.
What is "reasonable" force for an armed person attempting to "illegally" enter your home? All police are armed, so why mince words? The bill should have explicitly stated that deadly force is justified against police, if you have a reasonable belief that they are illegally entering your home.
Reasonable is pretty ambiguous as, I know a bunch of people (some I even call friend) that their reasonableness is suspect.

Now if you are speaking in relation to Barnes, I have done exactly what those officers did numerous times. Barnes clearly reasonably believed that the officer's entering his home was illegal. So, it begs the question, if he had been armed would that instance have turned out differently?
Convince me that an armed Barnes, upset at his wife, emotions running high, willing to fight police, and believing that his actions were justified, wouldn't point to SB1 as his defense after killing two IMPD officers. Convince me that, that due to the court failing to address the legality of the entry of officers during that case, that there are those who, when put in a similar situation, arent going to point towards SB1 after going a few rounds with officers.

Hopefully, it will never play out that way, but only time will tell.

 

[Tim Enyeart]

I am a law enforcement officer and I support the legislation and I hope the Governor signs it. Breaking a door down to gain entry has always been dangerous for law enforcement. The new law basically restores what the Supreme Court took away in the Barnes decision and adds a portion requiring the homeowner to be reasonable. The only problem for law enforcement is the attention this is receiving and the many misinterpretations of the application. The Barnes decision was about domestic violence and the officers are required to ensure the safety of the parties involved. I would have done the same thing the Evansville officers did. It's a shame all this was necessary because of a bad court ruling.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I didn't really get the elitist thing either although I don't doubt it. What I got was much worse in that apparantly he thinks the citizen of Indiana are idiots, we don't know the law, we drink and use drugs, and are going to use this as an excuse to be confrontational etc etc. Is this what the rest of the 14,000 officers he represents feel too? I just don't want to be held accountable if there was supposed to be a warrant served on the house next door, they enter mine and all heck breaks loose. Just make sure you're yelling real loud at 3am in the morning and i'll play nice and have my door fixed by the time I have to leave for work. Oh and don't shoot my dogs they're little, they just sound vicious.

You don't honestly think that. Why do I say this? Because it is quite clear that the FOP president isn't talking about the average Hoosier walking down the road. I think it's blatantly obvious that he is speaking in terms of officers responding to domestic runs, in which overwhelmingly, the participants are high or drunk, and already in some sort of confrontation.

As for the people of Indiana not knowing the law, generally, that is correct.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am a law enforcement officer and I support the legislation and I hope the Governor signs it. Breaking a door down to gain entry has always been dangerous for law enforcement. The new law basically restores what the Supreme Court took away in the Barnes decision and adds a portion requiring the homeowner to be reasonable. The only problem for law enforcement is the attention this is receiving and the many misinterpretations of the application. The Barnes decision was about domestic violence and the officers are required to ensure the safety of the parties involved. I would have done the same thing the Evansville officers did. It's a shame all this was necessary because of a bad court ruling.

There wasn't a ruling, it was the opinion.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I have always disagreed with using the police as "relationship counselors."

 

[FFM173]

Boy am I sorry for posting this. I obviously have brought out a few of the 14,000 the FOP President is representing.

Actually, I appreciate the non-LEO's that see things the same as I do. And as someone stated about before Barnes, I would like to know how the LEO's did their job, esp. since there is such an uproar to veto SB1. I would assume you would have to go back to the way you did it before May 2011. It seemed to work for you then, why wouldnt it work now? That is my point that they were given some extended power and do not want to give it back now.

 

[Tactical Flannel]

Boy am I sorry for posting this. I obviously have brought out a few of the 14,000 the FOP President is representing.

Actually, I appreciate the non-LEO's that see things the same as I do. And as someone stated about before Barnes, I would like to know how the LEO's did their job, esp. since there is such an uproar to veto SB1. I would assume you would have to go back to the way you did it before May 2011. It seemed to work for you then, why wouldnt it work now? That is my point that they were given some extended power and do not want to give it back now.

Agreed. If only we could go back and never let the djinni out of the bottle or open Pandora's box would be nice....

The problem now is that as Kutnupe14 stated in the last part of post #13, the less educated or to be more correctly worded, more ignorant of the law and its application, will use this mess of laws as a defense in the most ridiculous of situations.

Just as law enforcement officers respond to domestic violence calls every single day, there is not time to go through the warrant process in order to preserve a victims safety.

I agree that the law passed last year should not have been enacted as it truly wasn't needed. LEOs had other tools at their disposal, but now that it has it can't easily be undone. And passing a new law is only going to complicate the issue and add to the potential tragedy.

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on and what scenario you throw out to prove your point, this mess has increased the opportunity for injury from both sides of the argument. Believe it or not, there were several laws already on the books that protected both LEOs and citizens and provided the needed recourse for both without the escalation that has now come.

This entire situation, both the law enacted last year and the one being discussed now, is one of the best examples of,".... if it ain't broke. Don't fix it."

The internet is the internet.....
But in the real world hopefully calmer heads will be involved in the situations that will come from this....

Stay safe

(before someone jumps all over it, ignorance as I define it is someone who doesn't know but can learn... or more specifically knows just enough to get him or herself in trouble. Stupid you just can't fix.)

 

[KLB]

Now if you are speaking in relation to Barnes, I have done exactly what those officers did numerous times. Barnes clearly reasonably believed that the officer's entering his home was illegal. So, it begs the question, if he had been armed would that instance have turned out differently?
Convince me that an armed Barnes, upset at his wife, emotions running high, willing to fight police, and believing that his actions were justified, wouldn't point to SB1 as his defense after killing two IMPD officers. Convince me that, that due to the court failing to address the legality of the entry of officers during that case, that there are those who, when put in a similar situation, arent going to point towards SB1 after going a few rounds with officers.

Hopefully, it will never play out that way, but only time will tell.

Nothing would have been different. If he is going to escalate to violence in that situation he is not going to be thinking about whether there is a law that makes it legal to do so. The vast majority of people will not even know this law exists.

This law will have no affect on the actions of people, only on consequences after.