Replies

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.

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 2^nd 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 4^th and 5^th 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 2^nd Ammendment is the answer to that.

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