"Whoops... Sorry, citizen. We thought you were someone else" PING
Click the link to be added to the "Whoops. Sorry, citizen. We thought you were someone else" PING list.
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.
If they not doing anything wrong then they got nothin to worry about.
You know, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they were appointed by Republican administrations.
Just a hunch...
Keep making excuses for those brave men in blue.
Just because they wera a badge doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Thugs are thugs.
Only liberals can do that kind of damage and be duplicitous enough to blame it on someone else.
I supposed if they come into your house uninvited with no warrant and see a stack of cash lying on your kitchen table they can “confiscate” it as well.
People who believe that will hit anything.
"Whoops... Sorry, citizen. We thought you were someone else" PING
Click the link to be added to the "Whoops. Sorry, citizen. We thought you were someone else" PING list.
How did he know that?
He wasn't the complainant. In fact, he said he just came to get his stuff and was going away.
There's a breakdown in how it came to pass the perp got into the apartment with the cop ~ several of the folks commenting appear to have bought into the idea that the guy was IN THE APARTMENT THE WHOLE TIME ~ yet, he was in the yard. She even brought him his last bag of "stuff".
I still think there's a toker in the link here ~ and the other justices know who it is but aren't sayin'.
You forget one thing Mom, and that is you are still entitled to a trial by jury. I live here in the heart of Indiana and I can tell you first off that if a local city or sheriff’s deputy were to come into a home illegally and the homeowner beat the snot out of him to keep him outside there won’t be too much sympathy for the prosecutors side of the case.
IMHO this law violates the 4th amendment completely. Until it makes its way to the USSC and gets slapped down a good lawyer will make that claim on his opening statement. He or she will have a very good chance of convincing the jury that it WILL be overturned, and also point out that a year ago this never would have made it to trial.
I am shocked the decision came down like this, but then again a Conservation Officer has been able to walk his butt into your house and search it without a warrant since there were COs, so perhaps they looked at that as justification for this BS ruling.
“Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.”
A liberal lawyer who believes in social justice rather than either the constitution or English common law. Just the type to have endorsed the ridding of a European nation of certain undesireable minorities during the 1930s.
Bet they can still bust you if they *happen* to find a roach in the ashtray??
Wassa Matta U
First, obedience to the state. Then, later you can ask the government if the government violated your rights.
Wrong!
Not even if they are wearing SS arm bands and swastikas.
What is to prevent an overzealous man or men, under the color of law, from executing you on purpose or by “accident”?
I see dead people...
You mean like criminals would be so dastardly as to pretend the be the police to invade your home unopposed?
THAT would be Illegal
Oh wait..
All this did was give our local police the same powers as the Conservation Officer has.
It has irked me to no end that they can search your home without a warrant any darn time they want without any court supervision and its perfectly legal. People are up in arms about this but since there are so few COs compared to police (especially in the city) people overlook their overpowered search and seizure rights all the time.
Modern day LEGAL searches involve bashing your door off the hinges while screaming “SEARCH WARRANT - POLICE” while a few men with with automatic weapons and wearing body armor throw in a few flash bang grenades.
If they people coming through your door are using anything less than that amount of force, they are not police.
3-2 decision. Are any of these judges his appointments or do they elect them in Indiana?
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.