[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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

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?

[RobRoy]

>>The dissenting judges felt the ruling was far too broad and basically now allows govt agents to enter your home illegally for any cause.<<

I see it as black and white, which is how the law sees it and how judges should see it. If the cops do what you say above, it will cost them dearly in court. And I mean money. Lots of it.

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.

You’ll get ‘em later. And if you get a good ambulance chaser, you’ll get ‘em good. Think of that street person that was killed by the Seattle cop a few months ago. Without even going to court the city paid the family $1.5 mill. They cannot afford to do that on a regular basis. And a jury just may have REALLY socked it to them.

IOW, the issue is not whether the cops enter illegally or not. The issue is what you can do about the police presence, regardless of the legality. Notice I say “presence”, not “actions”. Sometimes a cop is so bad that you have to act in self defence AGAINST THE MAN. But you’ll probably wind up defending your action in court.

[RobRoy]

>>The dissenting judges felt the ruling was far too broad and basically now allows govt agents to enter your home illegally for any cause.<<

I see it as black and white, which is how the law sees it and how judges should see it. If the cops do what you say above, it will cost them dearly in court. And I mean money. Lots of it.

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.

You’ll get ‘em later. And if you get a good ambulance chaser, you’ll get ‘em good. Think of that street person that was killed by the Seattle cop a few months ago. Without even going to court the city paid the family $1.5 mill. They cannot afford to do that on a regular basis. And a jury just may have REALLY socked it to them.

IOW, the issue is not whether the cops enter illegally or not. The issue is what you can do about the police presence, regardless of the legality. Notice I say “presence”, not “actions”. Sometimes a cop is so bad that you have to act in self defence AGAINST THE MAN. But you’ll probably wind up defending your action in court.