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.
“If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.”
Nope. Freedom that must be ajudicated in a courtroom is not freedom. Rather it is license to the state to do as they damn well please. If armed men entering a home illeagaly is not an escalation of “violence” then I don’t know what is. Iknow what I would do if I felt the state treating me like some kind of cockroach.
Sounds like the Indiana Supreme Court has a few a priori considerations and is torturing the law to fit them, if so.
Nicely stated. The notion that our basic liberties must be dispensed by the courts runs afoul of one of the founding principles of our Republic, that as a free people we have unalienable rights, and those are endowed to us by our Creator and are not granted by an agency of the government. This has to go to the USSC and be overturned, otherwise we're all in a bad way.
If the court feels that way then perhaps they could put their money where their mouth is and provide a cheap, easy way for the aggrieved citizen to get them to consider a case. As it is now the deck is stacked against the common guy who is the victim of either an honest mistake or outright excessive force. Between the jurisdiction, and the union that represents the law enforcement entity, it’s all but impossible to seek, let alone actually get, redress for harm.
I have a cousin who spent the day in jail because he snapped a picture, from his front porch, of a crime scene and declined to surrender the exposed film without a court order. No local attorney would touch the case for fear of reprisal from the police, and the nearest attorney would consider taking the case wanted money, lots of it, up front.
A law that is to expensive for the average person to use in his or her defense is the same as no law at all for that person.
4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment?
The police state coming to a neighborhood near you, and they said alex jones was crazy
I do not grant the government that right, period.
I am of two minds depending on what "resist" means. If it means deadly force then I might be inclined to agree that the use of deadly force would not be a proper response. If it means locking the door and refusing entry and using non deadly means then I would think that is reasonable.
If however, the person has reason to believe the officers might do them or their property physical harm then the resident should have the right to protect themselves.
Movin on up................to .30 cal. If I’m goin to jail anyway, might as well make it for something worthwhile.
After they get a few of the rogue cops shot and buried, it will go to the SCOUTS and get thrown out. The Gestapo feels a need to martyr a few of its own first.
You’ve been reminded repeatedly that Congress approved lethal action against bin Laden years ago.
“”We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence...”
“(Indiana) Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry”
Another reminder of Nazi Germany!!
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.
Mostly dead ones.
When will this madness end?
Interesting comment at the link...
“...this new law”
I don’t want to register to dispute the fact the judge is legislating from the bench. There is no codified “new law.”
This ruling is horribly bad.
I’ve been a victim of a violent crime in my own home...intruders will be shot first and asked questions later.
If you knock on my door claiming to be ‘officers’ and I resist your inquiry by demanding dispatch proof you are real officers at my home...and you proceed to force entry...you will be shot.
From the opinion:
The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215. Craig Hemmens & Daniel Levin, ―Not a Law at All‖: A Call for the Return to the Common Law Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest, 29 Sw. U. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1999). The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535 (1900): ―If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.‖ The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948)(―One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.‖).
In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where ―resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.‖ Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ―(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.‖ Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 2425.
The cities, along with their rootless atomized urban lifestyle are responsible for producing and enabling the police state, welfare state, Marxism, communist and entitlement mentalities.
what Constitution do these guys read?
"If you knock on my door claiming to be officers and I resist your inquiry by demanding dispatch proof you are real officers at my home...and you proceed to force entry...you will be shot."Do you seriously think your buckshot or .30 cal or whatever is going win against a fire team wearing armor, NVS goglles, secure comms? Even military training without the miliary grade weapons, comms and equipment, won't help you, just as it did not help this Marine (see the link.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719700/posts
Soon it just becomes open warfare ala many parts of Los Angeles. In that scenario all cops lose. Then the cops will escalate to even more paramilitary operations and more citizens and cops will be killed. This could get out of hand very fast.
The other thing I wonder about is the castle doctrine that many States have. Witnesses to the Tucson murder are saying the cops never identified them selves. As far as I am concerned it is a free fire zone if you are trying to break into my home and do not identify yourself.
body armour may contain 7.62X39 and smaller...but will be like tissue paper to .30-06 and bigger...
see #46...this crap needs to end....
...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.