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 ...
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.
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.
Perhaps LEO’s shouldn’t be doing hot home invasions at 3AM like a common criminal...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
That’s just some of the beauty of the internet...
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.
Thanks very much for your understanding.
Besides, she’ll turn you into a newt.
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
LOL!!
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.
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.
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?
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.