Skip to comments.(Indiana) Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry
Posted on 05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT by markomalley
People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.
"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."
Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.
"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.
Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
This is friggin unbelievable.
Threads from yesterday if anyone is interested in reading the comments thereon.
Thanks. Neither came up from “search” (I guess since both were from blog entries)
Would be nice if the courts continued to respect this common law right. It exists whether they care to acknowlege it or not.
This makes me wonder what kind of “police” we’ll be dealing with in a few years.
You can forget the shotgun, here.
Your proper response to assailants with “bulletproof” apparal is standard military metal-cased ball. From a rifle. Armor-piercing is even better when you can find it.
Good ‘ol buckshot just won’t “cut it” as it were.
Just hit center mass and you’ll be fine.
My first thought was - who appointed those ‘judges’?
Combine this with the new Obama policy, supported whole-heartedly by almost everybody here on FR, that the government can now break into your house in the middle of the night and pump two bullets into your head as you stand defenseless in your underwear, as long as it really, really wants to.
So, all a criminal need do, is dress like a cop...
The next step is for courts to uphold evidence obtained in searches resulting from illegal police entires, if the police made the entry with the impression they were entering legally.
now that is the correct question.
this could sink mr daniels? “My first thought was - who appointed those judges?”
They may be elected, but I was think ‘which president’?
My father lived to 56 and he never had the police illegally enter his home.
Both my grandfathers lived into their 90’s and never had the police illegally enter their homes.
46 + 56 + 90 + 90 - 20 (years I lived with my father) = 262 years
So . . . warrents were never needed?
So . . . warrants were never needed?
What policy are you talking about? I must have missed something.
Chip, chip, chip......
Come on HG, this sort of thing only happens to people who were up to no good anyway, and mostly “those” people to boot, so who cares?
Sounds like some Judges need impeached. Or at least to have someone plant an anonymous tip that they are running drug smuggling operations from their house.