Free Talk Live

A state bill aiming to give residents limited rights to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally was passed by the Indiana House of Representatives on Thursday with several amendments.
The bill is a direct response to the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. State of Indiana.
The state’s highest court ruled that a citizen never has the right to resist an officer in pursuit of an investigation. But state lawmakers disagree.

Indiana Attorney Genital Greg Zoeller on Friday joined the chorus of Hoosiers protesting a controversial Fourth Amendment ruling recently decided by the Indiana Supreme Court.

A state Supreme Court ruling last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” when a man was charged with assaulting an officer during a domestic-violence call. The NRA pushed for a new law that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property. Police lobbied against it. The measure requires those using force to “reasonably believe” a law-enforcement officer is acting illegally and that it’s needed to prevent “serious bodily injury.”

"more than half of the 62 (VOTER ID) bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)...Pennsylvania’s law, which is counted among that group, was sponsored by Republican State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, an ALEC member...“We knew the Indiana law was upheld by the Supreme Court,” he (METCALFE) said. “I’m not sure how much ALEC influenced Indiana law.” ALEC has nearly 2,000 state legislator members who pay $100 in dues every two years.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that police can obtain household power records and attach digital recording devices to suspected grow homes to track electricity usage patterns as part of pre-warrant investigations.

The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand a January ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that the cross display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion. It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion’s symbolism as its own, as universal.

The constitutional chamber of Honduras' Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that privately run cities in the Central American country would be unconstitutional, threatening a project to build "model cities" with their own police, laws, government and tax systems. The five-judge panel voted 4-to-1 in a ruling that goes against the Honduran government and the country's elite. Because the decision was not unanimous, the case now goes to the full 15-member Supreme Court, which is expected to take it up within 10 days.

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products. Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

"What Fourth Amendment?" In an 8-1 ruling today, the US Supreme Court upheld the legality of evidence obtained by police breaking down the door to an apartment--not because they saw suspect they were pursuing dash behind it, but because they smelled marijuana smoke and heard the sound of a flushing toilet. To add insult to injustice, their original suspect was in a different apartment.