The Indiana case is even worse than California's. Look at this:
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
Z: At least in California it seems that they can "only" enter your home if you're suspected of having driven under the influence, which is still horrible, of course (the DUI and the entrance):
(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.
Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.
In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."
Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.
Z: I want to thank Carol at HER BLOG for bringing these things to my attention... Is anybody who lives in Indiana hearing about your situation, which seems EONS worse that in California? By the way, in California, I can go along with the situation described above because if someone runs from their car into their house while drunk and then a warrant must be served, the breath test will be invalid after some time; the alcohol dissipates with time....so is this as bad as it sounds? As bad as Indiana's laws?
Since Carol had already blogged it at her excellent blog, I'd have hesitated to post this at all (though I think it needs even more exposure) but I post it so I can tell this funny and very true story:
Most of you know I had the amazing experience of living in Paris for four years. At one social event, there was a policewoman there who told me something I wanted to share with you. In France, search and seizure is a daily thing; they see something they feel is endangering or bothersome to people and the cops take care of it, whether it's into one's home or one's car. It's been done there forever and they don't look at it as unusual...EXCEPT, the policewoman told me the French love American "crimmies", or TV CRIME STORIES, and I laughed my head off when she told me "Now, we say we are coming in and the people inside say 'Do you have a warrant?' We have to tell them 'we are in FRANCE, not America, we do not need a warrant, let us IN!" She had to laugh, too! I thought that was hilarious........and it seemed fitting for the situations above. (I must admit she didn't laugh quite as hard as I did).