Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home[Indiana]
nwitimes ^ | Thursday, May 12, 2011 | Dan Carden

Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:22 AM PDT by jaydubya2

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.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; banglist; communism; constitution; corruption; daniels; fourthamendment; govtabuse; indiana; judicialtyranny; liberalfascism; mitch; mitchdaniels; police; policestate; rapeofliberty; stevendavid; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
No Warrant,no problem...
1 posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:23 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Wow...these rules would make the gestapo proud.


2 posted on 05/13/2011 6:37:30 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Welcome to the Police State.

The Fourth was dead, and it has just been buried.


3 posted on 05/13/2011 6:38:27 AM PDT by old3030 (I lost some time once. It's always in the last place you look.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

I detect the putrid smell of liberal reasoning.

And which joke of a law school did this “judge” slither out from?


4 posted on 05/13/2011 6:38:33 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

I don’t care. Shoot the MFs.


5 posted on 05/13/2011 6:38:37 AM PDT by jimfree (In 2012 Sarah Palin will have more quality executive experience than Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

We are so screwed.


6 posted on 05/13/2011 6:38:42 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

I hate to say it, but if someone breaks into my home in a violent manner with (seeming) intent to do me harm, I am going to shoot first, ask questions later. Looks like I am screwed as I am a resident of the police state of Indiana...


7 posted on 05/13/2011 6:39:26 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Mantra of the left: 'It's only okay when WE do it.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Just wait ‘till it’s a Mus-slime home that gets “invaded” and see what the lib-O-dung types rule.


8 posted on 05/13/2011 6:39:29 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

No Warrant,no problem...


No way Hosay...this is crazy.


9 posted on 05/13/2011 6:40:22 AM PDT by DefeatCorruption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

This is to end the financial damage awards for bad cop practces in municipalities. How can this be in America? The constitution describes quite clearly the rules for searches in the fourth amendment.


10 posted on 05/13/2011 6:40:41 AM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

I do not think the case in question really represents the decision that was handed down. The cops were no doubt called by neighbors because the argument was getting out of hand. The couple were disturbing the peace if nothing else. The judge should have ruled that in that case, the police were not making an unlawful entry as they had probable cause due to the neighbors calling it in. Instead, they took the case as an opportunity to throw out unlawful search and seizure.


11 posted on 05/13/2011 6:41:12 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

OK, Judge...

I’ll let the criminals know that all they have to do is yell “police” before they invade your home and attack your family,

and at that point, you have no right to “resist”.


12 posted on 05/13/2011 6:41:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

I’d like to say “Send this to SCOTUS!” but I don’t have faith they’d overturn it.


13 posted on 05/13/2011 6:42:22 AM PDT by Gena Bukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"

KEY WORD: "modern"

Indeed, your instincts are correct, this is "liberal reasoning", that those making decisions here and now always trump the reasoning and decisions of those in the past.

14 posted on 05/13/2011 6:43:00 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

How about you let the legislature worry about that and stick to the law.
15 posted on 05/13/2011 6:43:04 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Try that here and see how well that works for you...


16 posted on 05/13/2011 6:43:23 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly
Obviously the court overreached ~ and now it is walking into federal territory. There are a vast number of USSC rulings to point to in case of any conflict arising out of a contrary claim by any Indiana police body.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Now, to the legislature ~ these people should be removed before they do some real harm that doesn't have a remedy elsewhere. They are obviously DERANGED.

17 posted on 05/13/2011 6:44:05 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
Considering the fact that several home robbery outfits have dressed as Police Officers, and the propensity of Police Officers to be involved with criminality - this is a really really bad idea.

‘You can sort out illegal entry later in the Courts’ isn't applicable when they are there to rob you and/or kill you.

The 4th Amendment now means nothing Indiana - you have NO right to unreasonable search and seizure - and the Police can and will search you and your home with or without any reason.

Sick.

18 posted on 05/13/2011 6:44:10 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I heard crimminals are already doing just that in some areas.


19 posted on 05/13/2011 6:44:31 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

This is such an injustice... I am somewhat speechless. So, police can enter your home any old time they want to, shoot your dog, kick your kids, smack your wife and you are suppose to just stand there? The first thing that came to mind is this: what a great way to do a home invasion. Buy some police badges online, smash through a door and do what you want because you know your victims will be afraid to fight back. Extremely disturbing.


20 posted on 05/13/2011 6:44:38 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

This article is the reason why it is almost impossible to make up a humorous parody of government actions any more.

What looks like satire is real.


21 posted on 05/13/2011 6:45:30 AM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
Wow.

THIS is what we fought the Cold War for?

Might as well have let the Soviets win.

22 posted on 05/13/2011 6:45:38 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Democrat Party is Communist. The Republican Party is Socialist. The Tea Party is Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
This case must surely wind up in the USSC.
23 posted on 05/13/2011 6:46:51 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (A "Moderate Muslim"? Nothing more than a Muslim Extremist who has run out of ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Many in Indiana will use the old judged by twelve is better than carried by six rule.


24 posted on 05/13/2011 6:47:16 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EnigmaticAnomaly

I can’t see how this possibly makes it safer for police or the citizens. And you know there are lot of people who become cops just so they can exert power over people—they have to be loving these rulings.

They don’t need to get a no knock warrant and they don’t even need a warrant. What they hell, why not just say they can rape woman while they are at it—there will be plenty of time via the justice system and free health care system to get your life back on track.


25 posted on 05/13/2011 6:48:47 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

“Hi, I’m a police officer and I’m here to watch the Pacers game; what’s in the fridge?”

Benighted ruling from idiots on the bench (No, not the Pacers’ bench).


26 posted on 05/13/2011 6:49:43 AM PDT by Jack Hammer (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Police often don’t let people they want dead (like someone who shot a LEO) make it far enought to be judged by twelve.


27 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

So if a thug decides to break into your home wearing a Police Uniform your supposed to surrender and do nothing.

While your trying to figure out if the thug is a real cop he decides to kill you and your family.To hell with that.

A cop without a search warrant should Not be allowed to get away with this and the Home owner has the right to defend himself.

That judge should be thrown off the bench.


28 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:07 AM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimfree

“I don’t care. Shoot the MFs.”

With the increasing disregard of property boundaries by merely claiming to be police - both by police and in home invasion robberies, we’ll probably only resolve this after many more police and citizens are shot and killed by each other.

If the stated purpose was to avoid unnecessarily escalating violence, then it will fail - It may change where it escalates, but it will still fail.


29 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:11 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

This will not stand.


30 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:23 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Eh ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
This case must surely wind up in the USSC.

Only if the homeowner has the time and resources to appeal to the federal level. There is a good chance that he does not. Much of this comes from the intentionally broad definition of "domestic violence" to include simple arguments.

31 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:25 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimfree
Easy to say. But I can guarantee that the POlice will have superior firepower as that poor Marine Corp veteran in Tuscan found out.

When the SWAT team arrives in full combat gear their adreline is pumping so hard, any sign that THEY feel is resistance will be met with massive firepower.
SHOCK & AWE!

In the immortal words of Mel Gibson as William Wallace, “We are fooked.”

32 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:40 AM PDT by Tupelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Sounds like the ex-droogie cops in Clockwork Orange


33 posted on 05/13/2011 6:52:59 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (The only crimes that are 100% preventable are crimes committed by illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

This case must surely wind up in the USSC.

What do you think they’ll rule based upon their current history of ruling for institutions and against individual citizen rights? International bankers and corporations have more rights than citizens.

The trend in the USA is towards loss of privacy, loss of individual rights, and a police state and that has been in place even before 9-11. In MD and other states you can’t even record police actions as a defense or you’ll be charged. 9-11 was just icing on the cake for the fascists.


34 posted on 05/13/2011 6:53:59 AM PDT by apoliticalone (Conservatism is about putting the USA first, not international bankers and corporations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
Instead, they took the case as an opportunity to throw out unlawful search and seizure.

Like MOST liberal court decisions, they took a slim situation to over throw a HUGE law (you know that pesky 4th Amendment)! Can anyone say "over-reach?"

More importantly, their reasoning and ruling for the "modern" 4th Amendment, reads like current police officers would NEVER do anything illegal! What a crock! Corruption is readily available in every business/industry/service - all it takes is someone who is willing to be more self-serving! PERIOD!
35 posted on 05/13/2011 6:54:37 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

First appeal the ruling then recall/remove/fire those judges.


36 posted on 05/13/2011 6:55:25 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The 4th Amendment now means nothing Indiana - you have NO right to unreasonable search and seizure - and the Police can and will search you and your home with or without any reason.

Well no actually, since the US Constitution trumps a ruling by a state Supreme Court. It is their ruling that means nothing. Of course to prove it, you would have to get a cop to enter your house illegally and then shoot him or something. Then appeal to the federal courts if your prosecuted under this ruling. So it might be a while before there is a test case.

37 posted on 05/13/2011 6:55:43 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
Any LEO who thinks this ruling is like “body armor” will end up seriously hurt. They should ask themselves right now...”Is the buzz that I get from violating a persons civil rights worth me not going home to my family tonight?”
38 posted on 05/13/2011 6:57:00 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Jared Lee Loughner - Disciple of Michael Moore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Where the hell is Mitch Daniels?

The legislators need to pass a law to tell the courts that the Fourth Amendment is still in effect and to bug off.

Seriously.


39 posted on 05/13/2011 6:57:09 AM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I’ll let the criminals know that all they have to do is yell “police” before they invade your home and attack your family,

While I lean on the side of shooting uninvited visitors, at that point, the homeowner knew that they were police.

40 posted on 05/13/2011 6:58:04 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

This needs to be repeated on every available online forum and in every newsrag’s letters column, because it will not be noted by the liberal media outside of the local market. Hannity, O’Reilly and all other talk hosts as well should be pressed to address the issue.


41 posted on 05/13/2011 6:58:04 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

yeah tell that to the guy in Pima County, AZ


42 posted on 05/13/2011 7:01:18 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
You have a circumstance involving a multi-family dwelling (apartments). The couple took their dispute out into the common area ~ the neighbors called the cops.

Certainly traditional "hot pursuit" doctrines would allow the cops to take in the miscreants ~ by retreating into their apartment they didn't really resolve their complaint WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.

The geeks on the Indiana Supreme Court went too far in their ruling, but I bet the nonsense part showed up back in an appeal.

The couple are probably still a nuisance to their neighbors, but the Court has let everyone ~ the couple and the cops ~ off the hook and left unresolved the grievance of the neighbors.

Next time those people take off after each other outside somebody else's front door they might well get shot.

43 posted on 05/13/2011 7:01:39 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: apillar

It is the ruling of Indiana the eventually will (hopefully) mean nothing. Until then the good people of Indiana have no right to bar entry or resist a LEO entering their home for any reason, or for no reason at all.


44 posted on 05/13/2011 7:01:56 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

The Judicial system has the same illiteracy rate as Detroit’s school district.


45 posted on 05/13/2011 7:02:25 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

And if he can't make bail? Can't afford a liar...I mean lawyer...

46 posted on 05/13/2011 7:02:29 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin
Seems like our “no standing” SCOTUS members are just riding the pine while they do whatever is irrelevant.
47 posted on 05/13/2011 7:03:44 AM PDT by mcshot ("...of the people, by the people, for the people..." but we aren't "his people".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

Pretty sure the line was deliverd TO ‘William Wallace’ by the ‘Irishman’:

“The Lord says He can get me out of this mess, but He’s pretty sure you’re fooked.”


48 posted on 05/13/2011 7:05:12 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

Indiana’s Supreme Court is usually far more level-headed. I am stunned by these decisions this week. There must be more to it than is being reported. I’ll have to find the decisions and read them for myself. I really do no believe that they would toss out the 4th Amendment.


49 posted on 05/13/2011 7:05:12 AM PDT by Teacher317 (really?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
at that point, the homeowner knew that they were police.

Did you read my scenario (criminals can yell "police" just as easily as police can)? Did you know that this is actually happening already?

50 posted on 05/13/2011 7:08:02 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson