IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

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.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone call to Newton County Indiana - Sheriff’s Department, May 16th, 2011

Full Story Here:
IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

I am VERY Pro Law Enforcement, everyone that knows me, everyone that reads my blog or belongs to  the United States Gun Owners Association or The Thin Blue Line KNOWS, I am a law abiding American gun owner and I support our Law Enforcement officers, that said, you come to MY house and demand that I allow you to enter MY house so that YOU can conduct a *RANDOM* search, and have NO warrant, you’d better have a SWAT Team backing you up.

I believe in firing a warning shot, shoot the 1st SOB through the door and let that be a warning to the rest of them that I AM intent on protecting MY domain from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

I hope this Indiana Sheriff is the 1st one to try it, him personally. Dumb bastard.

I don’t believe this would ever happen in Texas, but if it did, I *may NOT* have the legal right to resist, but I damned sure have the *moral obligation* to do so… Thank God for Hi-Cap mags, 230gr +P Bonded ammo and XD-45 Tacticals!

PhotobucketI can’t help but believe that rulings like this seen in Indiana are going to be a trend in some areas as the Obama regime, particularly Eric Holder, attempt to disarm and pacify the American people in their effort to turn the USA into some version of Socialist heaven.

I can’t speak for everyone, but as for me, OVER MY DEAD BODY!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

  1. minuteman26 says:

    I’m with you Fred. That sheriff has suicidal tendancies. Death by citizen. Wonder how many people would open the door without a warrant.

  2. JOtis says:


    Indiana is a pretty conservative state. If this kind of BS can happen there, it can happen in Texas, too. It is a good thing we elect our judges here.

  3. James Shott says:

    That’s my position, too, Fred. I may post signs in my years to the effect of:

    This property is protected and insured by Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Glock.
    Enter at your own risk.

    One of the worst symptoms of government grown out of control is the excessive use of police force. It’s more than a little disconcerting reading of the increasingly more common examples, like this one.

  4. The Flag Man says:

    This idiotic asshole is evidently missing some brain cells when he makes remarks like this.

    No. 1 His bulletproof vest is NOT going to protect his ass while he’s enjoying his time at home!!!

    No.2 All he’s doing is reinforcing the Sovereign movement to expand and THEY are doing just that.

    No.3 The first to enter had better be wearing something better than a vest to protect their asses and, there’s always tomorrow for paybacks. I can be a vindictive son of a bitch.

  5. Bull says:

    I truly like my local sheriff. He’s a dedicated peace officer who gets the job done, (FAR better than his useless City counterpart). That said, I’d feel the extreme need to use all force available to me to protect my Constitutional Rights.

    Wonder if this comment will be used against me when the Socialist come after me for being a gun owner…

  6. NativeSon says:

    All I can say is, “WOW!!!” Surely somebody with a little Constitutional sense will render a ruling on this and re-word its application! WOW!!!

  7. TexasFred says:

    NativeSon — I hope you’re right, this is, in my not so humble opinion, a ruling that is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, and if allowed to stand, will be the precursor to many more, even more unreasonable laws and violations…

    Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure 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.

    This Sheriff, and his idea of *need*, is going to get some over enthusiastic, gung-ho rookie killed graveyard dead…

  8. BobF says:

    The Sheriff made a stupid remark for sure and I hope he only got his mouth in gear before the brain was engaged. What really concerns me is that this random home entry without a warrant by law enforcement was a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court.

    In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

    “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said.

    That judge essentially said a cop can wonder into your house and there isn’t a thing you can do to prevent him.

  9. Bloviating Zeppelin says:

    Fred, I have to admit that I am entirely unfamiliar with the Barnes ruling, however I should care to point out that it is an INDIANA Supreme Court ruling and NOT a SCOTUS decision.

    That said, as far as I and the bulk of your readers and mine are concerned, the Fourth Amendment still holds. Absent a warrant issued from a lawful bench based upon probable cause — circumstances and elements that I WOULD have to meet in my warrant application as a peace officer — there is NO lawful reason for anyone to enter my home unless invited by acquiescence and my verbal and/or written affirmation.

    Entry, absent a warrant, forcibly or in a violent form, would be met in an unkind fashion by myself.

    This ruling clearly demands scrutiny. I would care to see an examination of the circumstances and issues behind the opinion.

    Let us not step off just yet. The Fourth Amendment is STILL the law of our land.

    And need I remind LE personnel of Oathkeepers?


  10. Bloviating Zeppelin says:

    Further, I can’t help but think that the lawyers lining up to appeal this state ruling is indeed staggering.


  11. TexasFred says:

    Oath Keepers is a grand and noble idea, one that could be very beneficial, as long as you don’t have some bunch of dickhead rookies that would walk into a firestorm simply because they were ordered to do so…

    Somehow, I can’t help but wonder if Oath Keepers only matters to the more senior officers and troops..

  12. TopGun says:

    What were you saying about the 4th Amendment protecting you?

    Supreme Court: Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

    8-1 DECISION.




  13. Bloviating Zeppelin says:

    TF: damn you.

    To those who know what you’re talking about, and experience what we experience WHEN we experience it — yes — you’re correct.

    But they, on the other hand, are the people who are about to be screwed the WORST.

    But I can’t do more than I can do. Which is why I am a member. And I WILL keep my oath, in whatever form that may take in the future.

    If I die in defense of a yellowed and ancient piece of paper, then — so be it.


  14. TexasFred says:

    Damn ME? What did I say? :?

  15. Rich Timm says:

    This is what I sent to our local paper here. Let’s see if it get’s included anywhere in print. I will be surprised if it is.

    Again the assault on the 4th Amendment continues. This time it comes from SCOTUS themselves ruling on a case from Kentucky. They have rule 8-1, that’s right 8-1!!!, that police do not need a warrant to break into your house IF they hear sounds of evidence being destroyed, smell illegal drugs, or in an emergency. Let’s look at these individually;

    The IF thing…IF I had a million dollars. IF she only said yes. IF I had gone to college. See, IF is a very big subjective word and leave a hole as big as Texas for interpretation.

    Smelled drugs….How many times have you THOUGHT you smelled something, but it was not there. There is no way to prove or disprove this when it goes to court. Yep. There’s that Texas size hole again.

    Emergency thing….Law enforcement can claim an emergency for anything. Even knocking on the door can be the “emergency”. Below is what was in the SCOTUS decision paper.

    “A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.”

    WOW!!!!!!! Sounds of people moving and PERHAPS the toilet flushing. Someone getting up to answer the door is “sounds of people moving”. #3 for the Texas size hole.

    Remember that 8-1 ruling. I was shocked to read who the dissenting judge was. It was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The uber liberal judge. She said “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment”

    As you read this, think about all the other civil liberties that have been taken, infringed on and just plain out abused. Remember, you can exercise the Liberties that God gave you and were reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights at any time.

  16. Rich Timm says:

    For some reason 2 parts didn’t cut & paste.

    After Smelled drugs line:

    The sounds of evidence being destroyed…Man I wish I was a superhero who had super hearing & could see through walls. Man this makes that 4th thing no problem to get around. Again the Texas size hole.

    And at the end:

    The Government cannot take away your rights. You must choose to give them away.

  17. WhoBeen says:

    See my comments/cross post here:

  18. TexasFred says:

    The sound of evidence being destroyed — Think about this…

    You’re on the pooper doing your business and you hear a knock on the door, you finish your business and flush but that FLUSH is considered to be *the sound of evidence being destroyed* by some overzealous mental midget that thinks he is Gods gift to Law Enforcement, one that made it through the academy by the skin of his teeth, and he breaks the door down and charges in like Gunga Din…

    It’s gonna be a shitty situation for someone… :P

    And as a side note, anyone that has ever worked in Law Enforcement, in ANY capacity, KNOWS someone that fits, 100% to a *T*, the above description…

  19. Patrick Sperry says:

    Long, long ago, in a forum far far away… I made a statement that our rights were being outright taken, or chipped away every day. Some took me to task for that.

    So be it, and thanks for supporting my theory one and all! :)

  20. Pingback: Voters Unhappy with Congress; and other things of note « Conservative Libertarian Outpost

Comments are closed.