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.
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.
THIS is what we fought the Cold War for?
Might as well have let the Soviets win.
Many in Indiana will use the old judged by twelve is better than carried by six rule.
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.
“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).
Police often don’t let people they want dead (like someone who shot a LEO) make it far enought to be judged by twelve.
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.
“I dont 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.
This will not stand.
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.
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.”
Sounds like the ex-droogie cops in Clockwork Orange
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.
First appeal the ruling then recall/remove/fire those judges.
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.
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.
While I lean on the side of shooting uninvited visitors, at that point, the homeowner knew that they were police.
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.
yeah tell that to the guy in Pima County, AZ
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.
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.
The Judicial system has the same illiteracy rate as Detroit’s school district.
And if he can't make bail? Can't afford a liar...I mean lawyer...
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.”
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.
Did you read my scenario (criminals can yell "police" just as easily as police can)? Did you know that this is actually happening already?