Replies

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.

So the question becomes, what is the proper venue to decide this? A shootout or fistfight at 3:00 AM, or in court with suit for damages, exclusion, etc.

Actually, this decision is a homeowners friend, because in such a 3:00 AM altercation, the cops are not going to lose.

BTW, this court only reaffirmed what has been law since 1942 under the Model Arrest Act.

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?