I think we need to all be on the same page as to what Common Law actually is. While you can find many different definitions and explanations, one of the best is
this one:
Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S.. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier case law) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time.
The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana, which is based on Napoleonic code, the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, or varied by statute. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states. Broad areas of the law, such as property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. Because these areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states, state courts are the main source of common law. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.
There is one other Item I would point out, as it is relevant to this discussion. The fourth amendment says:
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.
I've highlighted a different section than the area that Aguila Blanca highlighted. We all seem to forget that such searches and seizures must be unreasonable in their nature.
This is where Common Law comes into play. Over the years the Courts, both State and Federal, have opined on what is reasonable, not actually what is unreasonable. For good or bad, this is what case law has determined.
In the instant case, the officers were answering a domestic disturbance call. At the time the husband sent(?) his wife inside, the police had authority to determine if the wife was really OK. This is called an exigent circumstance and Courts all over have ruled the police need no warrant to enter the premises in these situations. This is an act of Common Law, if it is not already statutorily defined.
The Indiana Supreme Court, in this case, did not rule in any sort of narrow manner, that one would expect. Instead, with a broad brush, they painted out the protections of incorporated 4th Amendment jurisprudence (I haven't looked to see if the Indiana Constitution has a 4A analog).
Reasonableness and warrants no longer matter when the State of Indiana seeks to enter your home. This is entirely an action of Common Law and is at extreme odds with federal statutory construction, supremacy and federal common law itself.
What this Court has said is no different than telling a woman in the process of being raped, to simply lay there and enjoy it. Any recourse comes later. But only if we find that the perpetrator actually raped you. Then and only then can you go to court to seek recompense.
