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 ...
“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...”
Allowing resistance?
“(Indiana) Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry”
Another reminder of Nazi Germany!!
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?
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.