Court Opinion

ID: 9745422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:55:51.343571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:00.545538
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Gilkison, J.
I am in dissent with the majority opinion. Many of my reasons for this dissent are found in my dissenting opinion in the case of Witte v. Dowd, Warden (1951), 230 Ind. 485, 498, 102 N. E. 2d 630, 636, and therefore I make the dissenting opinion in the Witte case a part of my dissenting opinion in this case without restating it in full.
In addition to the" reasons given in that dissent I call attention to the fact that Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Indiana provides as follows:
/ “§1, Natural Rights, — WE DECLARE, That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain uhalienable rights; *81that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . .”
This section of our constitution is almost a paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence. To me it means that every person has the right of liberty coming to him directly from the Creator and this right, no government, no individual, no corporation, or other organization of mankind may take away from him, “otherwise than as for the punishment of crimes . . . Art. 1, §37, Ind. Constitution, Thirteenth Amendment, U. S. Constitution. It means also that no person can sell, barter, give away, or otherwise lose his right to liberty. Both of these propositions must be true if the right to liberty is an unalienable right. The majority opinion admits that the majority rule among the courts of our states and nation supports my position. It admits that in Indiana we are following the minority rule. It labors violently to show that there is some reason for the minority rule, notwithstanding the constitutional provisions noted. If the majority opinion is right, then there is a way in which an individual may alienate his unalienable Creator given right to liberty and that apparently is by waiver or non-user of the right. The right to individual liberty is a right in which the state and nation as well as the individual has an unalienable interest. This right cannot be lost by waiver or nonuser. Either the state, nation or individual may assert this right whenever either may desire. No statute of limitations, waiver or latches can ever interpose to prevent the assertion of this right. The right to liberty cannot be waived. The action of habeas corpus has long been known as the “Writ of Liberty.” It was the proper proceeding in this case. If the majority opinion is right, then the right to liberty is not only not unalienable but it may readily be lost by a failure to assert it when *82challenged. In other words, the legal effect of the majority opinion is, that notwithstanding the state constitution and the United States Constitution to the contrary, in Indiana, liberty is not an unalienable right. It is alienable by waiver, or non-user.
I am wholly unable to follow this anomalous and highly unconstitutional principle.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
ORDER
Comes now the Appellant in the above entitled cause by his attorneys and now files and presents his petition for immediate certification of the opinion and judgment of this court to the LaPorte Circuit Court in said cause, said petition being in the words and figures as follows, to-wit:
(H. I.)
And the court having seen and examined said petition and being duly advised in the premises, finds that the opinion and judgment of this court should be certified immediately to the LaPorte Circuit Court.
It is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by this court that the clerk of this court be and he is hereby commanded and directed to certify the opinion and judgment of this court in the above entitled cause to the LaPorte Circuit Court forthwith.
/s/ Floyd S. Draper
CHIEF JUSTICE
Note. — Reported in 116 N. E. 2d 108.