We are.  At least for now.

Such egregious attacks on the constitution by such smug protectors of intrusive and abusive government need to be called out for what they are.

Illegal, Immoral, and UNFORGIVABLE.

What message does this send to the jackbooted thugs drooling for the opportunity to just kick in the doors at a whim?  Why on earth would any cop ever bother to ask for a search warrant as long as they think they can draw out a violent reaction to their unlawful searches.  A simple claim of assault on the officer is enough to override the potential "legal" fallout of the illegal entries.  Not so sure that is germane?

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

But by golly the US Supremes will have their heads!!  

Right?

The SCOTUS will probably not hear this case.  They recently voted 8-1 upholding the ability for police to kick in the doors if it is feared evidence is being destroyed.  

The Kentucky case resulting in the ruling involved the police smelling marijuana in the hallway of an apartment building while chasing a suspect ... the police knocked on the door of the apartment (which was not the apartment of the initial suspect the police were pursuing) and announced themselves, they heard `noises' ... they broke down the door and entered the apartment.

In writing the majority decision, Justice Samuel Alito said that residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in.

The only one making any sense is? [drum roll insert here] Ruth Ginsburg.

  The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.

    How `secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ...forcibly enter?"

Which does not bode well for the Indiana plaintiffs.

Or anyone who believes in the constitution.

Where does that leave us?

Given the US Supreme court decision (which admittedly may have different circumstance) I wonder what might be on the minds of those in law enforcement who have an inclination to push the boundaries already.  What message does it send to the keepers of the peace who already abuse such cracks in the law to use claims of alleged seat belt violations or cracked tail lights to profile or selectively enforce?  Even the good cops who in a pinch for time, might cheat "Just a little" because now its likely they will get away with it.

The slippery slope is fully greased.

Yes.  I am glad I am in Michigan.  Things could have been worse in the last election.

I wonder how those in Indiana can even possibly feel safe knowing that anyone in a uniform can now bust in their door, ransack, and they have to watch it happen.  

And I did say anyone.

The unintended consequence of "public policy" allowing such illegal entry, sets up the populace for more victimization. A security guard outfit and a badge, and you have a home invasion kit. Instead of stopping the bad guys at the door, a flashed badge means come on in, tie me up, take my stuff, and shoot my dog.