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.
Anyone left still living in Indiana 6 months from now deserves whatever they get!
Read the article, talking about the Judges sweeping decision.
View my tag line. I’m not exactly hard to find.
Pretty hard to take any judge seriously who signs off on “unlawful” behavior by anyone.
Well... Don’t. We’d miss you.
SWAT just haven’t run into the right guy yet. That fine gentleman is going to wipe out a SWAT team with explosives and Armor-piecing rounds as they are lining up to pop the door.
The marine made two mistakes.
1. Insufficent cover.
2. Not Shooting.
KEY WORD: "modern"
--------------------------------
Yup. That sticks out like a soar thumb.
" modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence"...what they really mean to say is "progressive Fourth Amendment jurisprudence"
I had a cop come into my apt. once totally by accident. He scared the heck out of me, I mean he didn’t have his gun out or anything, but I was really startled.
I wondered later what would have happened if I had weed out or something like that.
I guess in Indiana I’d be seriously arrested.
Nope.
No warrant. You could have been flaying the skin off of your in-laws to make a coat and the evidence would have been thrown out of court.
There has to be exigency, which is probably why the Indiana liberal supremes decided to further blur the line here. The ruling is idiotic. I don’t know whether this can be challenged, but I believe it can be since the issue here is 4th Amendment.
The German “Christians” in the 30’s did the same thing with their “higher criticism” of the Bible.
They substituted their own wisdom and “reason” for the written standard,
just as modern “progressives” (the same name as the Fascist supporters in the 30’s used) do today with the Constitution and the Bible.
There are several amendments in on this one ~ not just the 4th.
Can a cop enter your home in hot pursuit of a criminal?
Yes. Including if you are the crook.
You might beat the rap but you won’t escape the ride.
Good luck on getting your computer, guns, food, etc
back too.
Meaning you only have rights if you have money for a good lawyer.
I don’t care how legitimate the actual circumstances of
the case were, this should never have been written by
any person graduating college, let alone law school.
Excellent insight.
Impeachment!
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.
