Yeah... I'd hit it too...
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.
I'd look into heavy use of Ecstasy or something ~ maybe even Blue Ice ~ watch to see if any of these judges' teeth are loose! That's a sign.
I no longer care. I yearn for the sweet embrace of death.
The "facts" of this case will not ever line up with the facts of another case ~ that is, there will be no similar case ~ and principles found in Sharia law will enter into consideration.
Those future cases will be based on OTHER thoughts in other decisions.
Nothing requires prosecutors or defense lawyers to adhere to this Supreme Court decision, and the best way to nullify it is to simply never resort to it.
Remember, the ONLY case it can possibly match in terms of fact is one where the police have lawful entry. The decision mentions unlawful entry but that's irrelevant here since there was NO unlawful entry!
From another former resident. I can tell you there was a time when, if you had a few too many, they would follow you home to make sure you got there all right. I still go back to visit, and when I do, all my friends warn me to not go even 1 MPH over the posted limit.
Yeah... I'd hit it too...
It doesn’t matter how disputes are argued. The decision stands as is until argued again. Nor does it matter if there was or wasn’t illegal entry in this case, as the decision stands. Now, legally, you cannot defend your home against illegal entry by police officers. That is simply the fact of the matters.
No, seriously. Cannot wait to die.
It's an idea... The sovereign citizens of this country, just as an English king, have the right to prorogue their government.
The saying, "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing", sure applies to our country nowadays.
"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."
Looks like a more thorough reading of facts are in order.
Obviously you will win in the end.
If he doesn't mention this state court decision, and the prosecutor doesn't mention it, the decision will be made in conformance with OTHER decisions that might have bearing on the matters at hand.
You will notice that no officer was shot ~ so that right there is a fact that lends itself to the question ~ he just got pushed around (on a legal entry). If he were shot and killed (on an illegal entry) any darned fool can see that the facts are totally different and the decision issued by the court is not relevant to the case at law.
There are defense lawyers lining up to take this to federal court I am sure!
Agreed.
Welcome to the police state.
“Bravest” my butt.
I hope there are defense lawyers lining up to take this case but that will depend entirely on how much money someone is willing to give them.
It is one reason I moved.
Why are you eager to die?
I think there are enough guys in that racket to carry this case to federal court for free!
It's still a bad decision ~ I'm kind of wondering if the change of a single word, namely "Unlawful" as in "Unlawful entry" to "Lawful", would make the decision match up better with the facts ~ and most of the rationale.
Is this a typo? Or are the judges on drugs?
I don't think there's any possibility of there being a different explanation.
Because life is a foul joke, a feeble and thin hopeless exercise in weak justification, made foolishly.
Granted, she did call 911. I'm not trying to nitpic, yet according to the link you provided:
"Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don‘t do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖"
Domestic disputes are the worst. It's a fine line given that the behavior that caused her to call (husband trashing the apartment). I still have my doubts the LEOs shouldn't have handled it differently given what's written about the circumstances.
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.