Posted on 05/16/2011 8:46:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:
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.
The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.
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. [emphasis mine]
Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.
Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Bzzzzzt.
Wrong – in Indiana
“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.”
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.
How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”
The given reason by the Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that? For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?
Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.
Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity? Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.
And check out this “analysis”:
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”
So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?
One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.
The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”
I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.
How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances? What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand? It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?
Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.
Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?
Amazing.
And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?
This is why.
|
|
[ Find User ] |
| Indiana Supreme Court rules Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful entry of homes by police |
||
|
05/16/2011 8:46:27 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Bruce McQuainNo, you read it right. ThatÂ’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasnÂ’t so serious: 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. The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if... |
||
|
|
||
| Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home‏ |
||
|
05/16/2011 6:25:46 AM PDT · by Cheeks · 38 replies nwitimes.com ^ | 5/13 | Dan CardenINDIANAPOLIS | 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... |
||
|
|
||
| No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry: Indiana Supremes |
||
|
05/15/2011 8:17:50 AM PDT · by KeyLargo · 64 replies Outside the Beltway ^ | May 14, 2011 | James JoynerOutside the Beltway No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry: Indiana Supremes James Joyner May 14, 2011 For as long as the notion of individual rights has existed, one of them has been the notion that one’s home is sacrosanct. As of Thursday, that’s no longer true in Indiana. AP (“Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry“): People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law. The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers... |
||
|
|
||
| (Indiana) Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry |
||
|
05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT · by markomalley · 138 replies AP/Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/13/11People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law. The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said. "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment... |
||
|
|
||
| Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home |
||
|
05/13/2011 6:33:44 PM PDT · by WildSnail · 81 replies NWI Times ^ | Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm | Dan CardenINDIANAPOLIS | 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. |
||
|
|
||
| Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home |
||
|
05/13/2011 6:33:44 PM PDT · by WildSnail · 81 replies NWI Times ^ | Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm | Dan CardenINDIANAPOLIS | 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. |
||
|
|
||
| Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home[Indiana] |
||
|
05/13/2011 6:35:22 AM PDT · by jaydubya2 · 194 replies nwitimes ^ | Thursday, May 12, 2011 | Dan CardenINDIANAPOLIS | 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... |
||
Do the police at least have to have a warrant?
It was to be expected, after we’ve suffered through the Illegal invasion of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
We don’t need no stinkin’ warrants!
When is this shitheads term up? I will gladly help show him the street.
Man, you'd hope so, but unlawful is a very broad brush to be sure.
RE: Do the police at least have to have a warrant?
They do and should, but this report tells us that EVEN IF THEY DON’T, no one can resist UNLAWFUL entry.
The Courts were supposed to protect ordinary citizens from tyranical acts like these. This is just one of the dominoes that are slowly falling.
‘Public policy’ not to escalate violence is their story? This is pure circular social justice type reasoning, not constitutional law. I’d argue that the lack of police deterrent that’s been created is going to escalate these kinds of incidents as cops now know they can act with impunity. Violence is escalated when cops act illegally, meeting violence with the appropriate application of force ends and deters violence, not escalates it.
The other part is that the court is giving up it’s own authority. Why would you tell the cops that they don’t have to come to you any more to be able to enter someone’s home? Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
RE: When is this shitheads term up? I will gladly help show him the street.
And what if they insist, and refuse to leave?
Sounds like Nazi Germany! Is this one going to the SCOTUS?
Guess I won’t be moving to Indiana if that is how they treat their residents.
RE: Is this one going to the SCOTUS?
Someone in Indiana ought to challenge this ruling as a violation of the US Constitution. If Mitch Daniels had any balls, he ought to start the process.
I hasten to add though, that we are hanging by a slim thread EVEN in our SCOTUS. everything depends on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy happens to wake up on in the morning.
Countdown till (police uniforms are stolen from dry cleaners) fresh round of home invasions begin in 3....2...
I may be confused on this issue, but I don’t recall that common law authorized violent resistance to unauthorized entry by an officer of the law.
The court’s decision is not about whether the entry is legal or not, but about how the illegal entry can be legally resisted.
see fourth amendment
castle doctrine
(even the quartering act)
no government official, in any form, can just enter without a warrent.
Gee Whillakers! They're just 'modernizing' EVERYTHING these days, aren't they?! And golly, now that we have a genuine SAVIOR in the White house, and we KNOW we can rely on the government at ALL levels to look out for us, and take good care of us no matter WHAT, we don't need that out-dated 4th Amendment any more anyway!
And for those who disagree, wouldn't you feel just TERRIBLE if some of those nice, honest, hard-working government officials who only want what's best for YOU and me were to get hurt or killed just trying to do their job making us feel safe? I mean, shucks, no dusty old 'Constitution' with its fancy words and its unnecessary 'Amendments' could POSSIBLY be worth all THAT!
/s --------------------------> (for the unusually dense)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.