Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home‏
http://www.nwitimes.com ^ | 5/13 | Dan Carden

Posted on 05/16/2011 6:25:46 AM PDT by Cheeks

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."

(Excerpt) Read more at nwitimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; bloodoftyrants; constitution; donttreadonme; fourthamendment; govtabuse; indiana; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last
Didn't see this posted anywhere.
1 posted on 05/16/2011 6:25:47 AM PDT by Cheeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cheeks

Somebodys gonna get shot over this deal. Going to have to martyr some gestapo before the SCOTUS overturns it.


2 posted on 05/16/2011 6:29:21 AM PDT by Concho (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks

Actually, there have been many threads about this insane Indiana ruling during the last several days, but this outrage bears repeating.


3 posted on 05/16/2011 6:32:20 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Obama is a bigger threat to the safety of America than Osama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks

Before getting too excited, you might want to know I saw this posted yesterday or the day before as satire.


4 posted on 05/16/2011 6:32:38 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Apparently I’m confused. The satire article was riffing off this ruling.

Never mind.


5 posted on 05/16/2011 6:34:36 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

There’s a lot posted of late which would be satire if only posted a few years earlier.


6 posted on 05/16/2011 6:35:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Concho

My Russian grandmother shared stories of her first impressions of communism. The first one she tells is of public officials (namely police) broke into her farmhouse and took the few nice things she had. Items such as a nice dress and shoes for her daughter to wear to church on Sundays. They announced proudly “ These things are no longer yours. They belong to the People!” and took anything of value. Is that what we have to look forward to?


7 posted on 05/16/2011 6:40:03 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks

Resisting an ON DUTY cop that is in your home illegally is different than allowing them in without a search warrant. I believe the court treated this as they would treat refusing to cooperate with a police officer that is giving you a bogus ticket. I can’t smack down a thug cop who is writing me a bad ticket either. I’ve got to take it to court.

They are seeing this as the same thing. But again, this does not include cases where you did not know they were cops. And in court they have to prove that you knew, or should have knew - if you did, in fact, shoot a few of them.


8 posted on 05/16/2011 6:40:10 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks
This has been posted all over FR.

The newspaper reporter's take is totally wrong.

It's not overturning 800 years of Common Law. This has been in place since 1942 under the Model Arrest Act.... long affirmed by SCOTUS.

This is not about allowing illegal searches.

This simply says that if a homeowner does not agree that the LEOs have a right to enter, the time and place to argue that position is in one of the many legal avenues of redress, in court, in the cold, sober light of day, not to get into a fight, perhaps a gunfight with the LEOs at 3:00 AM.

This is blown way out of proportion.

9 posted on 05/16/2011 6:41:26 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks
Didn't see this posted anywhere.
10 posted on 05/16/2011 6:42:38 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islamophobia: The fear of offending Muslims because they are prone to violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

>>My Russian grandmother shared stories of her first impressions of communism. The first one she tells is of public officials (namely police) broke into her farmhouse and took the few nice things she had. Items such as a nice dress and shoes for her daughter to wear to church on Sundays. They announced proudly “ These things are no longer yours. They belong to the People!” and took anything of value. Is that what we have to look forward to?<<

Maybe. But it really has nothing to do with this. This is common sense, actually. It’s on the other side of “the line”. Now, if it can be proven the cops KNEW they were entering illegally, that is a different matter. But they are saying the homeowner can not be judge and jury on such a matter. It needs to go to court. And I still think you can sue the pants off them if something bad happens. Look at Seattle and that trigger happy cop that shot the derelict.


11 posted on 05/16/2011 6:43:47 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

*sigh* Who can tell what is satire these days?


12 posted on 05/16/2011 6:44:25 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 845 of our national holiday from reality. - OBL Dead? The TSA can go away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
And in court they have to prove that you knew, or should have knew - if you did, in fact, shoot a few of them.

In that case you would only get a coroner's inquest.

13 posted on 05/16/2011 6:45:57 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 845 of our national holiday from reality. - OBL Dead? The TSA can go away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

So they break down your door at 3 AM, shouting “police”, shooting your dog,

and find out later that they had the wrong address,

and we’re supposed to roll over and take it?

What about the case of a hot burglary, with criminals yelling “police”?


14 posted on 05/16/2011 6:46:58 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks
Might no longer have a "right to resist", but with the Gods as my witness... I retain the ABILITY.

Screw the Commies in this Court. If the SCOTUS doesn't smack this down hard... Then we'll need to do it for them.

15 posted on 05/16/2011 6:49:00 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

You are wasting your time injecting facts and reason into the discussion.


16 posted on 05/16/2011 6:51:33 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cheeks

Slavery is Freedom.


17 posted on 05/16/2011 6:53:28 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Now, if it can be proven the cops KNEW they were entering illegally, that is a different matter. But they are saying the homeowner can not be judge and jury on such a matter. It needs to go to court.

Just read the whole article. This was a possible domestic violence situation. The couple was arguing outside an apartment, but went back inside when the officers arrived. The husband told them they were not needed, but the police entered anyway. When the husband shoved an officer against the wall, he was tazed and arrested.

The dissenting judges felt the ruling was far too broad and basically now allows govt agents to enter your home illegally for any cause. They would have gone along with it had it specified domestic violence situations.

Just going on the details provided in the article, it doesn't indicate there even was a domestic violence situation; the couple was arguing. The LE decision to enter their home was either based on knowledge of the couple's history or they were "acting stupidly" since it is (was) illegal to enter without a search warrant. This is not a "no-big-deal-thing" as your post seems to imply (IMO, of course). We still have a fourth amendment in the Constitution.
18 posted on 05/16/2011 6:58:41 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB

So someone breaks down your door at 3:00 yelling police, you should shoot them?


19 posted on 05/16/2011 6:59:59 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrB

the means no more search warrent required.


20 posted on 05/16/2011 7:01:08 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrB

So someone breaks down your door at 3:00 yelling police, and you think they are wrong, you should shoot them?

Your resolution is in the courts later, not at 3:00 with a gun in your hand... and dead at 3:01.

BTW, 80% of so-called “home invasions” are one drug gang ripping off another.


21 posted on 05/16/2011 7:02:17 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

In the courts later...

and the family pet is still dead,
and if it’s a drug gang with the wrong address,
your family is still victimized, possibly in some horrible ways...

No, what I’m saying is that it should ONLY be criminals that bust down doors at 3 am. There should be NO POSSIBILITY that it is the police.


22 posted on 05/16/2011 7:07:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Perhaps LEO’s shouldn’t be doing hot home invasions at 3AM like a common criminal...


23 posted on 05/16/2011 7:11:55 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
On FR Everyday?

Feed Your Passion

Donate

24 posted on 05/16/2011 7:21:08 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

A hard case (it could be argued that the wife’s wishes were not clear) has been turned into bad law.

I’d have a question for this court: does this “no right to resist” extend even to shutting the door?


25 posted on 05/16/2011 7:28:14 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

And I still think you can sue the pants off them if something bad happens.

How many of us will have the resources to pursue years of litigation? This ruling is just another step towards socialism. When personal property becomes property that the government has more authority over than the owner, it is the end of personal property. I see definite steps towards that end. This ruling implies there is no such thing as “illegal entry”. There would be nothing to sue over even if you could afford the cost of litigation or have I completely misread this ruling?


26 posted on 05/16/2011 7:32:30 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB
“No, what I’m saying is that it should ONLY be criminals that bust down doors at 3 am. There should be NO POSSIBILITY that it is the police.”

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

If it takes shooting a few cops who illegally break into your castle at 3:00 am to protect the constitution, then so be it. The constitution must be protected.

In a way it's like high speed chases. There is no reason for a high speed chase. You can just wait. Catch them in a few minutes without jeopardizing the unsuspecting public or the people, whoever they are, in the speeding vehicle.

At a home, surround the house and wait for them to come out.

David Koresh could have been arrested at the local store, but instead up to 86 people DIED because of Gestapo tactics.

The police have to be reined in. SWAT type raids for two bit drug dealers is just too dangerous.

27 posted on 05/16/2011 7:39:10 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Wowser, you the same guy who argued there is no legal reason that an imprisoned suspect should be treated with any more kindness than an imprisoned convict. Fancy you butting in here asking for money now.


28 posted on 05/16/2011 7:39:47 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
A hard case (it could be argued that the wife’s wishes were not clear) has been turned into bad law.

Agreed. A few more details about the incident here, Indiana Supreme Court Abrogating Citizen's Right To Resist Unlawful Police Entry Into Home Making Headlines

I’d have a question for this court: does this “no right to resist” extend even to shutting the door?

Not sure. The article does not say if the guy, Barnes, tried to shut the door, but he did block the doorway. It was the police officer who tried to enter with, presumably, Barnes blocking the door......and that's when it really escalated. Barnes had to go to the hospital after being tased.
29 posted on 05/16/2011 7:48:08 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Perhaps they should call before they come, or do them at 5:00 in the afternoon, right after Oprah, when everyone is wide awake, alert and ready to fight back.


30 posted on 05/16/2011 7:48:48 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: null and void

That’s just some of the beauty of the internet...


31 posted on 05/16/2011 7:50:46 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

If it takes shooting a few cops who illegally break into your castle at 3:00 am to protect the constitution, then so be it. The constitution must be protected.


Precisely. It's the only way to put a stop to this Liberty-raping horseshit.

32 posted on 05/16/2011 7:58:35 AM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; DJ MacWoW
There's no need to be rude to DJMacWow. She is a valuable and dedicated member of our FReepathon crew and trying her best to help bring our FReepathon to a close.

Thanks very much for your understanding.

33 posted on 05/16/2011 8:11:24 AM PDT by onyx (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want to be on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: onyx; HiTech RedNeck; DJ MacWoW

Besides, she’ll turn you into a newt.


34 posted on 05/16/2011 8:18:44 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 845 of our national holiday from reality. - OBL Dead? The TSA can go away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
It's not overturning 800 years of Common Law. This has been in place since 1942 under the Model Arrest Act.... long affirmed by SCOTUS.

At what point were the officers attempting to arrest this man? From what I've read, it seems the police officer was attempting an unlawful entry, not an arrest. Once the violence escalated, then they attempted and did arrest him.
35 posted on 05/16/2011 8:19:20 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

As an LEO I believe I can add some perspective here. I disagree with the court ruling. I would not consider busting into someone’s home without a warrant, unless there were exigent circumstances that required such action.
That being said, I am also going to address your idiotic statement that there is no need to chase a suspect fleeing in a vehicle. I can not speak for all police agencies, but our agency definitely defaults to public safety during pursuits. To the point that the other day, we let a known gang member who had already been involved in at least six shooting incidents and who has outstanding warrants, escape on a day with very little vehicle traffic and nearly no foot traffic.
Now it did not happen that day, but it has in the past that a fleeing suspect later goes on to kill someone in another criminal act. Do you think the police should be held responsible for that? Would you be surprised to find out that they have?
As LEOs, we always have to weigh the danger not only to ourselves, but the public as well, in every decision we make on dealing with criminals on the street. Some of those decisions must be made instantaneously with milliseconds between us going home alive, a citizen’s life being preserved, or someone dying. So, unless you are willing to strap it on everyday, and go out and protect and serve, keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. /rant off


36 posted on 05/16/2011 8:26:02 AM PDT by SFRigger (Is our national nightmare over yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: null and void; onyx; HiTech RedNeck

LOL!!


37 posted on 05/16/2011 8:26:42 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

This is part of story reporter chose to ignore.

Man and woman got into physical fight. She called 911. He was on lawn when cops arrived.

To run away from cops, he ran into house, baricaded door, told cops they could not come in.

Wife, also inside asked them to come in to protect her.

Cops entered.

He started fight, hit cops.

DEF sought to have case throw out on two grounds, Entry was illegal, and if entry was illegal, he had right to physically resist.

Courts said no on both counts. Entry/search was legal for a number of reasons; wife’s request, prevent further violence, fleeing suspect, etc.

Secondly, even if entry had been illegal, the husband’s redress is through the courts, not with his fists.


38 posted on 05/16/2011 8:44:00 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
With the 911 call there's probable cause for at a very minimum a police investigation. Resisting the investigation, even if it means entry onto or into private property will result in at a minimum obstruction of justice charges.

Calling 911 and then hanging up will result in the cops showing up at one's door. They will not be happy if the statement is made "oh, wrong number."

On the other hand the judge's opinion is silly. Of course there's a right to resist 'unlawful police entry'. What good is the 2nd Ammendment if not? Judge Black stated: "it is a strong moral check against the powers that be", i.e., armed resistance against tyranny.

I fail to see how this rises to the level of tyranny. If the police break and enter private property and look for evidence that residents are Sarah Palin supporters, and hauling them off to concentration camps, that is a different story.

Without the 911 call LEO are required by law to have a warrant. Warrantless searches get thrown out all the time, including all results obtained therefrom, i.e., fruit from the poisonous tree. However, with probable cause, 'knockless warrants' are served all the time.

If LEO are in pursuit of a suspect and suspect runs into one's property, perhaps w/out the property owner's knowledge, probable cause exists to enter and search the premises for the putative suspect. If the property owner interferes with that investigation they're causing themselves trouble they don't need. The key is that this is indeed a putative suspect or other reasonable reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Investigation into facts immediately at hand to establish a reasonable belief that a crime has indeed been commited is within the purvue of law enforcement.

The 911 call was made by somebody, either a neighbor concerned about the commotion, or from inside the house. The cops know who made the call. Even if it was a neighbor, and they show up and see a commotion, i.e., disturbance of the peace, they'll investigate.

Furthermore, cops are authorized to escalate use of force dependent upon the response recieved during an encounter. There are several, I believe about 7, the final one being use of lethal force. Violations of 4th and 5th Ammendments are to be handled in court, not the graveyard. Malice Green and Rodney King are two examples of such. When due process and the petions for redress of grievances are no longer the case, then that is tyranny and the 2nd Ammendment is the answer to that.

I believe the decision was proper, but for wholly incorrect reasons cited.

39 posted on 05/16/2011 8:48:07 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Your fleshing out of the story is appreciated. Under such circumstances, I’d bust through the door and try to plant dude beneath it as I did. This represents the type of “exigent circumstances” I referred to in my previous post. In domestic violence situations, we are required (as in we have no leniency in our decision making) to make an arrest if we can determine the primary aggressor. In this situation, this guy was not an innocent citizen whose rights were violated but a fleeing suspect who had assaulted his wife/girlfriend/significant other.
Now to all you LEO detractors, if it were you who were just assaulted, and you were locked inside your home with the person who’d assaulted you, would you rather the police enter your home without a warrant or wait until we could convince some liberal hack judge that we needed a warrant to come in and save you?


40 posted on 05/16/2011 8:59:20 AM PDT by SFRigger (Is our national nightmare over yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: raygun

Well stated raygun...thank you for saying it better than I was able. Not all LEOs are the jackbooted thugs we are made out to be. Most of us really do try to protect and serve.


41 posted on 05/16/2011 9:05:30 AM PDT by SFRigger (Is our national nightmare over yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SFRigger

Very well said.

If a person’s whose house is to be entered/searched is to be given the right to deny/delay the entry until a court ruling is obtained regarding their protest... gee, with appeals, that would only take about 30 months!

And you know.... I’ll bet every entry would be objected to, complete with ACLU notice posted on door.


42 posted on 05/16/2011 9:14:14 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
#1, the entry was lawful. Wife invited them in, exigent circumstances, fleeing perp, etc.

#2, even if the entry was unlawful, courts have ruled, since 1942, that the proper place to seek redress for an illegal entry is the courts, in the light of a sober day, not at 3:00 AM by getting into fight with or shooting cops.

43 posted on 05/16/2011 9:18:30 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
This is part of story reporter chose to ignore.

Man and woman got into physical fight. She called 911. He was on lawn when cops arrived.


I have not read about a physical fight. I read she called 911 after husband threw her cell phone (while in an argument). He was leaving the apartment when the police arrived. She had told them she had not been physically harmed over the phone.

To run away from cops, he ran into house, baricaded door, told cops they could not come in. Wife, also inside asked them to come in to protect her.

That's not what the articles say. The story presented said she went back inside the apartment and so did husband. He refused them entry verbally and blocked the doorway. The wife did not ask them in; she told her husband not to "do this" and to "just let them in"......not the police officers.

Cops entered. He started fight, hit cops.

Again, that's not what has been written. He blocked the doorway. The police officer had to have "started the fight" by, I'm assuming, pushing against him.....otherwise, how would the police officer have entered? He did not hit the cops. Barnes (the husband) shoved a police officer against the wall. After struggling with the police officers, they put him in a choke hold and tasered him. He had to be taken to the hospital because of being tasered.

DEF sought to have case throw out on two grounds, Entry was illegal, and if entry was illegal, he had right to physically resist. Courts said no on both counts. Entry/search was legal for a number of reasons; wife’s request, prevent further violence, fleeing suspect, etc.

The wife never invited them in. There had been no physical violence except for the cell phone being thrown, he was not fleeing. In fact, he was leaving the apartment before the police officers arrived. They said he didn't have the right to "yell" in the parking lot.

Secondly, even if entry had been illegal, the husband’s redress is through the courts, not with his fists.

This case came about because his defense attorney wanted the jury to be instructed that his client had the right to reasonably resist the police from making a warantless entry. The judge in that case denied the jury instruction. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it an error for the trial court to deny that instruction and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court (what we are discussing in this thread) reversed this ruling.

This is a VERY disturbing ruling, IMO. Oh, by the way, this same court decided LE officers don't even need to get a "no-knock" warrant issued when serving a warrant. OUR VIEW: The Knock on no-knock warrants
44 posted on 05/16/2011 9:28:40 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: raygun
Of course there's a right to resist 'unlawful police entry'

You are right, but in what manner, what venue?

If LEOs demand entry, they obviously think they have a legal right to do so. If homeowner refuses entry, he obviously thinks they have no right of entry.

So the question becomes, what is the proper venue to decide this? A shootout or fistfight at 3:00 AM, or in court with suit for damages, exclusion, etc.

Actually, this decision is a homeowners friend, because in such a 3:00 AM altercation, the cops are not going to lose.

45 posted on 05/16/2011 9:32:27 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: raygun
Of course there's a right to resist 'unlawful police entry'

You are right, but in what manner, what venue?

If LEOs demand entry, they obviously think they have a legal right to do so. If homeowner refuses entry, he obviously thinks they have no right of entry.

So the question becomes, what is the proper venue to decide this? A shootout or fistfight at 3:00 AM, or in court with suit for damages, exclusion, etc.

Actually, this decision is a homeowners friend, because in such a 3:00 AM altercation, the cops are not going to lose.

BTW, this court only reaffirmed what has been law since 1942 under the Model Arrest Act.

46 posted on 05/16/2011 9:34:06 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

You’ve changed the scenario to a confrontation at the front door, with the homeowner awake and conversing/arguing with the police,

vs the situation where they bust down the door unannounced.

Also, should the homeowner be able to record/video the LEOs in your scenario?


47 posted on 05/16/2011 9:36:00 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Please read police reports and original trial testimony from LEOs, wife, etc.... not what some reporter said.

This case came about because his defense attorney wanted the jury to be instructed that his client had the right to reasonably resist the police from making a warantless entry. The judge in that case denied the jury instruction. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it an error for the trial court to deny that instruction and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court (what we are discussing in this thread) reversed this ruling.

Exactly, but please also remember that this was decided long ago, in rulings starting in 1942, regarding the Model Arrest Act. Lawyer was blowing smoke..... because that's all he had.

48 posted on 05/16/2011 9:40:46 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SFRigger
Your fleshing out of the story is appreciated.

Do you have the same opinion after reading my "fleshing out of the story" in post 44?

I have a lot of respect for police officers and the difficult job they perform. I also respect my rights and those of my fellow citizens. This was a somewhat difficult situation involving a husband and wife. The Indiana Court of Appeals had ordered a new trial because it did not feel the jury had been given proper jury instruction of his common law right to reasonably resist a warrantless entry into his home. I suppose at that point, a jury would have to decide if his actions were "reasonable" or not. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed that ruling, allowing the original conviction to stand without any such jury instruction.
49 posted on 05/16/2011 9:43:19 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Yes, they should be able to record, as long as they do not interfere, and they should be able to call their lawyer immediately.
50 posted on 05/16/2011 9:43:43 AM PDT by MindBender26 (While the MSM slept.... we have become relevant media in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson