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