Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home‏

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

[OneWingedShark]

>>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.

Ex Post Facto arrest? WTF?

[Girlene]

Specifically, the ruling doesn’t say cops can enter your house illegally. It simply says that if they do, you can have your day in court, but you must respect the badge when it is in your home.

The ruling says, "“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

So, yes, it doesn't say police officers can enter your house illegally, but if you have no means to resist them, even when you "get your day in court".......it would appear they can. For the case in question, the jury was not given instructions that the man had the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry. So where was his justice in court?

[OneWingedShark]

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

Somewhat tangential: What if the court is the offending entity?

[OneWingedShark]

>Without the 911 call LEO are required by law to have a warrant.

And I’m of the opinion that EVEN WITH a 911 call they should be required to have a warrant; and falsehoods in their oath/affirmation to get the warrant should be prosecuted as perjury.

[Girlene]

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

Got links?

[OneWingedShark]

>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.

Question: have you ever arrested the female in such a case?

[OneWingedShark]

>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.

So would State Statutes that violate their State Constitution, and are upheld in the courts as law, be an example of such?

[SFRigger]

I agree that the jury should have been given those instructions so they could have made a more informed decision. It also comes down to what it means to “reasonably resist.” Some here have suggested that blasting away at the officers as they enter is reasonable. That is no more reasonable than an illegal warrantless search. In that situation, no one wins because gunfire is going to be exchanged, someone could be injured or killed, and the mistakes just continue to compound. As has been said, tell the officers they can not enter. If they come in any way, don’t start a physical confrontation, you are going lose. Hire a lawyer and take the matter to court. Understand that in DV situations, LEOs must do all they can to ensure that no crime has been committed. You can thank OJ Simpson for that.

[SFRigger]

Yes I have, and on multiple occasions. Because of DV laws, I have had to arrest a mother for smacking her 16 y/o son for cursing at her and refusing to obey. I disagreed with the need to arrest her, but did as I was instructed by my supervisors.

[Girlene]

Understand that in DV situations, LEOs must do all they can to ensure that no crime has been committed.

Yes, I imagine that made this case difficult to assess.

I just hope the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling is challenged and continues on through the courts. Their ruling was not well thought out, and could be used to justify more bad law in the future.

[raygun]

If cops enter private property, they need a reason that'll stand up to scrutiny. Its not going to fly if the cop says, "I was checking out the property with my thermal imager and seen illegal activity going on behind closed doors." Or, "I was monitoring radio traffic in the area with my cell-phone cracker as I was driving around looking to see what cell or cordless phones I could crack into and intercepted communication indicative illegal activity." Or, "I accessed the property looking to make sure everthing was o.k. there, or to check that they weren't up to illegal activity." Or, "I stopped the vehicle because 1 out of 10 drivers are drunk, so I figured I'd check if they were one." Or "the person is a class of individuals known to have a high percentage of the prison population." Etc.

Those are unlawful police entries. Resistance against such kind of incidents is justified when such become exceedingly commonplace and egregious w/out rational foundation in the jurisprudence of natural law.

You'll know it when you see it. Its probably shortly before you notice your neighbors disappearing during the night. The 2^nd Ammendment is the last defense against a system where law enforcement and the judiciary are acting in concert (usually at the behest of the legislature) for draconian ends.

If you're a Tutsi and the Hutu cops are busting down your door its your call I'd not wait for the jurisprudence of due process; that habeus corpus has been suspended.

That notwithstanding, cops are not going to lose in any encounter with a citizen. The proper venue for jousting with LEO is in a court of law and the court of public opinion. The latter has a tendency to make the mayor's life miserable. When the mayor becomes miserable, the balls of feces rolling down onto the police comissioner's head make them miserable, and so forth.

The question needing answering is: is it worth the consequences to resist at the time of any encounter with LEO?

[Still Thinking]

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

You should be able to shoot with complete legal immunity. To do otherwise puts the onus on the homeowner, who should be on top of this particular totem pole, to guess correctly whether the invaders are cops or criminals. That's not acceptable, no matter if there is a good outcome we're trying to get to by illegitimately forcing him to take that responsibility. The ends do not justify the means, and the cops shouldn't expect the public to jeopardize their own security to guarantee officer safety. They signed up to serve the public, citizens never signed up to serve the PD.

[Still Thinking]

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?

I was under the understanding that the ruling said you can't physically resist illegal entry by the cops. The ruling doesn't make the entry legal now and you can still sue them after the fact. Still a bad ruling IMHO.

[MindBender26]

It would simplify the options if the only people doing this were criminal gangs. Actually it the police stopped doing it, so would the criminals. Win-win.

Please, It's time for Reality 101.

The ones they hit at 3:00 Am heavily armed perps, gangbangers and other groups with a proven propensity for enjoying shooting at LEOs. Why don't we just call them first so they can have some extra ammunition handy.

[OneWingedShark]

Good to hear; I always feel a bit leery of those sorts of mandates because there is a huge possibility of such laws being selectively applied.

[MindBender26]

So if the cops have a valid search warrant, and they come at a time you do not approve of, you can shoot them, right?

[raygun]

Tyranny is absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly. When no recourse exists through judicial review because it is powerless, in fear for its own safety or is in legue with the absolute power(s) that be, self-defense against such government through use of lethal force is a God given right.

If a State Statute violates the State Consitution, and the State Supreme court upholds the law, and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, that be the beginning of The Troubles.

[OneWingedShark]

>>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.

This is EXACTLY why warrants (or lack thereof) are a big deal; warrants are the official proof that there *IS* a legal right for the officer to enter the property.
Sadly many people, even here, think that police should be allowed to enter wherever they want, whenever they want, and however they want; but such is NOT what the Constitution prescribes: the Constitution prescribes warrants which are issued with a supporting oath/affirmation and SPECIFIC information relating to that entry.

[Still Thinking]

No, just the wannabe gangsta raids, where you can’t tell the difference. Why should the onus be on the cops employers to take the chance? If they knock, and have what appears to be a warrant, and are willing to wait while you check out the warrant as long as they can insure you aren’t destroying any evidence, then shooting them would be excessive.

[OneWingedShark]

>The ones they hit at 3:00 Am heavily armed perps, gangbangers and other groups with a proven propensity for enjoying shooting at LEOs.

When the SWAT has the right address, you mean.

>Why don’t we just call them first so they can have some extra ammunition handy.

You’re assuming that police departments AREN’T compromised, that nobody there will leak the information.