Skip to comments.Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home[Indiana]
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.
Wow...these rules would make the gestapo proud.
Welcome to the Police State.
The Fourth was dead, and it has just been buried.
I detect the putrid smell of liberal reasoning.
And which joke of a law school did this “judge” slither out from?
I don’t care. Shoot the MFs.
We are so screwed.
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...
Just wait ‘till it’s a Mus-slime home that gets “invaded” and see what the lib-O-dung types rule.
No Warrant,no problem...
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.
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.
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”.
I’d like to say “Send this to SCOTUS!” but I don’t have faith they’d overturn it.
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.
Try that here and see how well that works for you...
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.
‘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.
I heard crimminals are already doing just that in some areas.
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.
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.