Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home‏

http://www.nwitimes.com ^ | 5/13 | Dan Carden

[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."

[Cheeks]

Didn't see this posted anywhere.

[Concho]

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

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

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

[Sherman Logan]

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

[Sherman Logan]

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

Never mind.

[ctdonath2]

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

[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?

[RobRoy]

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.

[MindBender26]

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Didn't see this posted anywhere.

[RobRoy]

>>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.

[null and void]

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

[null and void]

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.

[MrB]

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”?

[Dead Corpse]

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.

[freedomwarrior998]

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

[Republic of Texas]

Slavery is Freedom.

[Girlene]

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.

[MindBender26]

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

[longtermmemmory]

the means no more search warrent required.