Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

Examiner ^ | May 16th | Howard Portnoy

[Celerity]

The “Why” is there, and the Need is there (The need to stand up against it).. but I can’t figure out the “How”.

Like I said, even today in areas where the 4th amendment is protected - -How- does one wield this right ? How do we practice it ?

If the police were to show up at my door now, it’s important (For many reasons) to maintain a semblance of respect (Don’t give them a reason to get angry, just like being invaded by criminals) and to remain calm. It’s also a good idea to express your unwillingness to comply, and your knowledge of law to continue to press them to keep up their end of the bargain (Do you have a warrant?)

But certain scenarios demand the police to come in, guns pointed. Even if it’s not “fair” or “Legal”, there is a chance that police could bust down my door (I live on a street with drug-dealing houses and gang-inhabited houses). My neighbor is even a shady guy with his hands in both narcotics and tail-end human trafficking. If this happens, do I pull my gun ?

You know what’ll happen if I pull my gun ? I MAY take a few out, but they WILL immediately fire on me. If I speak sternly ? I’ll be ignored. Myself, my family, and even my cats may be tasered. We may be roughed up. Anything we do or say won’t work - because we can’t just announce “I didn’t do nothin’ wrong!” They won’t stop. I will go away in cuffs.

It’s not a good idea to resist ANY form of the law coming into my home un-announced or otherwise asked to leave. There is no viable option here.

If these raids occur at night, god help them - because I don’t turn on lights before squeezing a trigger. I don’t have to. There should be, under no circumstances, a group of people in my home raiding it. My area has had several criminal home invasions this year. I’m not stopping at a threat.

When it comes to questioning the 2nd amendment, I know the “How”. I know what it takes to protect the 2nd amendment. But this ? I have no idea how to defend it.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

Actually, Souter’s record in NH was far more to the right than his SC record.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

This particular ruling has me at a quandary...it seems to contradict the Indiana Castle Doctrine. Comments?

[wtc911]

You wrote that Daniels having appointed this judge is evidence that he is not fit for the presidency.

Palin appointed a director of Planned Parenthood (can't get more liberal than that) to Alaska's Supreme Court.

Is that evidence that she is not fit for the presidency?

btw...I will not read any more private messages from you so answer here or ignore the question if you can't answer.

[antonico]

“You wrote that Daniels having appointed this judge is evidence that he is not fit for the presidency.
Palin appointed a director of Planned Parenthood (can’t get more liberal than that) to Alaska’s Supreme Court.

Is that evidence that she is not fit for the presidency?”

As I said, your smear of Palin isn’t a defense of the Daniel’s action, no matter how you spin it. Even if we take your polemic seriously, how does a smear against her make HIM more qualified or less suspect? How does your mention of her excuse his own action? Your own polemic undermines your defense, or attempt to uphold, him. If your point is to say she did the same rotten thing thing as he did, how does that negate my point he’s not fit? If you say it makes her unfit, then why doesn’t it prove he’s also equally unfit?

[Girlene]

There are NO future situations like this ~ nothing happened until he attacked the cops. They didn't unlawfully enter ~ SHE ASKED THEM TO BE THERE.

This ruling is not about this one case alone. The unlawful entry is a question that has not been fully answered at this point, regardless of whether she made the initial phone call. What was at question was whether the jury should have been given instruction that he had the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry by police officers. The Appeals Court said the judge should have done so, the Indiana Supreme Court not only said they did not need that instruction, they went further with their ruling:

“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

IOW, I have no legal right to resist an unlawful police entry if I live in Indiana. That is precedent that can only bring a ton of problems. So a police officer decides something suspicious is going on in my home. Later that night, they unlawfully enter my home on their suspicions. Something really bad happens because I, or someone in my home resists their home being invaded. I now have no right to resist or to sue based on the consequences of that right being violated.

The Chief Justice, though, should resign. We agree on that. This case may not seem like a big deal to you because you feel the guy was in the wrong. Fine. He might have been convicted in a second trial with the new jury instruction, regardless.

What the Indiana Supreme Court just did, was take away EVERYONE'S right to resist unlawful police entry, regardless of the circumstances. That is huge.

[muawiyah]

It's not a precedent. The laws you are complaining about were put in place several decades back by "enlightened progressive Democrat leadership" (/s).

It's really not new stuff.

At the same time the gratuitous comments by the Chief Justice were BIZARRE!

[Girlene]

muawiyah - It's not a precedent.

News to me.

From the Indiana Supreme Court ruling itself, via sciforums:

"The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). In Casselman, the defendant did not appear at a judgment proceeding on the advice of his attorney. Id. at 1311. When the sheriff‘s deputy went to his home to effect a civil arrest, the defendant attempted to close the door in the deputy‘s face. A brief struggle ensued, and the defendant was arrested when he retreated into his house. Id. at 1311–12. The Court of Appeals found that the deputy ―was not lawfully engaged in the execution of civil process‖ when he prevented the defendant from closing the door to his home. Id. at 1314. Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged the trend of abolishing the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest, it ultimately focused on the heightened expectation of privacy in one‘s home and recognized a right to resist an unlawful entry into a home by a police officer. Id. at 1315–18. "

But the Indiana Supreme Court decided in ANY case for ANY reason, the following:

“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

Quite a reach, IMO.

BTW, Dan Miller, did you write the blog you are being attributed with at Advance Indiana for Pajamaa Tattler/Pajamas Media? Indiana Supreme Court Abrogating Citizen's Right To Resist Unlawful Police Entry Into Home Making Headlines

[muawiyah]

You really need a cause of action to get yoursef' a new precedent.

There's no cause of action here. It was her house, not his, at that moment, and she called the cops on him. They arrived.

This particular ruling has no substance.

The court's clerk did some interesting research on statutes but that's about that.

The rest of it is a sign that the state has some guys at the top of the courts who do not have judicial temperment.

[DanMiller]

Yes, sir. I think it was a horrible decision and unlikely to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. It takes very few of the cases it is asked to take and just asking costs time and money. If the Indiana Legislature is interested, it could far more quickly pass a law countering the practical effects of the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court: The right reasonably to resist unlawful entry by, and other unlawful actions of, law enforcement authorities shall not be infringed.

I also wrote this follow up, dealing with the Pima County, Arizona SWAT raid with its "hail" of gunfire from the SWAT folks resulting in a 26 year old former Marine dead with sixty SWAT slugs in his body.

Today I wrote this article about some relevant police activity in Philadelphia.

The three instances seem to be in some way related: lack of respect for constitutional rights, state laws and human dignity.

Obviously, there are circumstances where police need to yell, cuss and get the upper hand. The Pima County and Philadelphia situations do not seem to be among them.

[Girlene]

It was her house, not his, at that moment, and she called the cops on him. They arrived.

Since they were married, not sure about that. In a domestic disturbance, it may be totally different.

You really need a cause of action to get yoursef' a new precedent.

Not sure I understand what you mean. The Indiana Appeals Court did not find "harmless error" and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed and decided not only that the conviction should hold but further decided that no one could resist a LE officer's unlawful entry to their home at any time. The Indiana Supreme Court set precedent, IMO, when they said this:

"Now this court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such rights."

Maybe we are talking past each other, but that is precedent, IMO.

[muawiyah]

Whether you are married or not you can change your residence, and when you do that there goes your expectation of privacy in somebody else's house where you are not welcome.

Just the way it is.

She called the cops ~ they arrived. Different jurisdictions deal with the issue of who can let in the cops in different ways.

If you'd read earlier threads you'd found some dissertations about that and you would be enlightened.

The issue to most folks is about why there's a madman on the court. It's not what he's saying, it's "where did that guy come from"?

[DanMiller]

I agree. Although much of the language in the decision should be treated as mere dictum in view of the facts of the case, the court said, "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." (emphasis added) It strikes me that inferior courts in the state would be hard pressed to ignore that characterization.

[Girlene]

Fascinating and good job on pulling this together. 60 slugs in a Marine trying to protect his family (and he had the safety on)?! I guess in Indiana, his wife could protest in court, try to sue, but the ISC would say he had no right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into his home (not that he knew it was the police/SWAT).

The Philadelphia situation is quite interesting, as well.

This ISC ruling was mentioned at the top of Rush Limbaugh's show today. It needs to go to the SCOTUS.

Thanks for the background, Dan.

[Girlene]

Although much of the language in the decision should be treated as mere dictum in view of the facts of the case, the court said, "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." (emphasis added) It strikes me that inferior courts in the state would be hard pressed to ignore that characterization.

Okay, in laymen's terms, what does this mean? Are you indicating that a lower (inferior) court would "likely" consider this the law of Indiana that "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers" in any situation? IOW, this may be "precedent" for no resistance allowed to unlawful entry by LE (at that instance)?

[wtc911]

If you say it makes her unfit, then why doesn’t it prove he’s also equally unfit?

___________________________________

That's the question you keep ducking.

You said that MD's appointment renders him unfit but you won't admit that your standard (note - it is the standard you set - not I) renders SP unfit.

Why do you find it so difficult to be consistent?

[antonico]

“That’s the question you keep ducking.

You said that MD’s appointment renders him unfit but you won’t admit that your standard (note - it is the standard you set - not I) renders SP unfit.

Why do you find it so difficult to be consistent?”

The question you asked regarding Palin had nothing to do with Daniel’s competence regarding HIS horrific appointment. Citing someone else who you say made a similar error isn’t a justification of Daniels appointment of a Judge to the Court who clearly has no regard for the US Constitution. You haven’t addressed that. Defend the Daniels move, if you dare, instead of changing the subject to something else. If you want to defend Daniels, tell us why he did what he did. Your smarmy conflation of Palin (who clearly frightens you) is the equivalent of one of your kids doing something wrong, and then justifying their action from any culpability by saying to their parent that they should just chill because their friend did the same thing. Your conflation is as transparently vapid as the guilty child’s justification. Lame.

This thread is about the Indiana Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling, which has nothing to do with Palin. The ruling is directly related to whether Daniels is competent. And again, even using your lame conflation, if you think it’s a wash between Palin and Daniels, you still have yet to say how that qualifies him to the presidency if your intimating it disqualifies her.

[Girlene]

The issue to most folks is about why there's a madman on the court. It's not what he's saying, it's "where did that guy come from"?

Okay, I get it. I'm interested in the ruling, you are interested in the judge that produced that ruling. Both are relevant issues. Regardless of whether the judge is relieved, gone, whathaveyou, his ruling stands in Indiana. That is my concern until this is taken up by the SCOTUS.

[muawiyah]

To the degree the court's ruling conflicts with USSC decisions regarding the Fourth Amendment it's null and void.

I bet your concern is with the warrants, but it should be the right to be secure in your possessions ~ to wit, the right of the woman to call the cops for help!

[PapaBear3625]

I can see the court's reasoning, in that the police may not realize that the entry is illegal.

OK, then. The Republican controlled Indiana legislature needs to put out legislation declaring that police officers illegally entering a home immediately lose their status as police officers, along with their pensions. Make cops very leery of making "mistakes".