[muawiyah]

That's not how disputes are argued. Remember, you argue the facts, then you argue the law, then you argue the person. (something like that).

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!

[Durus]

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.