Skip to comments.Unlawful Police Entry Ruling Could Be Reconsidered (Indiana)
Posted on 06/10/2011 8:01:14 AM PDT by Abathar
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court may reconsider its ruling that eliminates the right of homeowners to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
The attorney for Richard Barnes, whose criminal case in Vanderburgh County led to the court ruling last month, filed a formal petition for a rehearing Thursday.
Barnes' attorney argues the ruling violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," part of the petition read.
The court issued its controversial 3-2 ruling May 12, declaring that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who are entering their home without a legal basis to do so.
The ruling said homeowners could instead seek legal remedies through court proceedings after the fact.
The decision sparked large public outcry, including from state officials. Seventy-one Indiana lawmakers filed a joint brief with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the court to reconsider its opinion.
Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
A real President would have had the involved justices arrested and incarcerated until they saw the error of their ways.
State court not fed, Obozo has nothing to do with it.
Federal pre-emption—States cannot pass laws which violate rights spelled out in the Constitution.
on second thought a butt-smacking from Antonin Scalia would not be the most beneficial thing to one’s career as a jurist
Yeah but that is done thru the courts and not the Oboso, get real.
What in hell is 'MODERN' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? Is the Constitution a variable on a day to day basis now? Silly me. Obama and the Marxists don't even recognize its existence.
It has been for decades.
REVERSE the decision? The proper thing is to IGNORE it!!! Sooner or later a homeowner will take a stand and kill some rogue cop. That’s when all hell will break loose and the leftists on the Indiana SC will be “retired.”
- sigh -
But there may be no “after the fact” if the homeowner is somehow killed.
Not only incompatible with modern thinking, incompatible since 1789.
“What in hell is ‘MODERN’ Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?”
Well, to give just one example, prior to Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Fourth Amendment protected you only from the Federal Government. In other words, until that case was decided, the Fourth Amendment would do nothing whatsoever to prevent a police officer of the State of Indiana or any of its counties, cities or towns from waltzing right into your house any old time.
Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.
Question hell!!! If they had a set of balls between them they would be filing a suit in federal court to overturn this ruling AND working to remove the three fools who made this ruling.
“Modern” is the giveaway that the judge is a “postmodernist”,
denying that any written law has any value compared to the judgement of those making decisions today.
It’s one of the basic assumptions in liberalism.
That's what Constitutional Amendments are all about. It's time to hold Congress accountable for their responsibilities and eliminate the need for the Courts to make an interpretation when the laws are clearly and plainly written.
They ought to be reconsidering...I would have thought the good citizens of Indiana would have already tarred and feathered these idiots. I’m really shocked this happened in Indiana frankly.
A real freeper would understand the legal term “unqualified immunity.”
Judges are immune from any legal consequence of an action taken from the bench.
You may impeach them, but other than that, zip.
“Federal pre-emptionStates cannot pass laws which violate rights spelled out in the Constitution.”
Herman Cain doesn’t think so and he made that clear last week when he said that states have the right to regulate the 2nd Amendment.
“Judges are immune from any legal consequence of an action taken from the bench.”
Recent history shows, however, that they’re not immune to lead. I imagine they’re also not immune to rope and that they may find walking on water while wearing 100# concrete shoes to be problematic.
Mind you, I certainly do not celebrate or endorse violence against errant judges, but I don’t mind them being aware that just because they wear a robe it makes them into supernatural beings.
“Doesn’t” should have been in there.
Woah Cain said that?
Where and when?
That is wholly uncalled for. Not everyone is a Constitutional scholar or an attorney.
Very crass on your part.
Cain said it here:
Very, very disappointing. I never would have expected that from him given his otherwise clear thinking stances.
If I were the local sheriff, I would have had my deputies walking into the homes of each of the justices the evening that decision was released.
ABOUT TIME to reverse this UNAMERICAN ruling!!
Your post would be considered more uncalled for since you were not involved in the original postings, sir.
Plain rude but perhaps not out of character?
These courts are part of a confederate prefab or the liberals and Zero. They all dig from the same trough. They are pretty much organized.
“You may impeach them, but other than that, zip.”
I’ve never so much as visited Indiana, so does that mean you do or do not support the tar and feathers option?
Actually that is patently wrong. I will be citing their own ruling, found here, the State's Constitution, the US Constitution and 2 sections of the US Code.
Page 6, 1st Paragraph:
In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.Note that what once was now is not, yet...
Page 4, last paragraph:
The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) ("One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.").Thus, the USSC (which rules on constitutionalities) affirms the right is present; further the case was precisely a 4th Amendment case, from wikipedia "which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile..." Therefore the 4th, being the subject of the case, must also allow for the exercise of the right to resist an unlawful arrest.
Indiana State Constitution, Art 1, Section 11:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
Now, seeing that the Indiana Constitution and the 4th Amendment are textually identical (excepting capitalization, I believe only on 'Oath') it must be agreed that the Indiana State Constitution therefore affirms the same right just as the 4th Amendment; and it is therefore obvious that to declare otherwise is either de facto alteration of the State Constitution.
But the State Constitution has this to say about its alteration:
ARTICLE 16, Amendments:
(a) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly. If the amendment is agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, the proposed amendment shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election.
(b) If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the proposed amendment is agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the electors of the State at the next general election.
(c) If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment becomes a part of this Constitution. (History: As Amended November 3, 1998).
Section 2. If two or more amendments shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such manner that the electors shall vote for or against each of such amendments separately.
Now, because the State's Constitution was not amended it is a violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It is now obvious that the State's Supreme Court has indeed deprived the whole of the people of their right to resist an unlawful arrest, and therefore in violation of the 14th Amendment. This is punishable under 18USC241 and 242 which say:
Conspiracy against rightsand
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Now we see that because they acted as a group it fits the definition required for a conspiracy; which is a felony. And Supreme Court Justices may be easily removed for felonies.
The Bill of Rights was created in 1789. I may have been looking for 1791, when it was ratified.
Excellent research on the subject!
Kinda makes me wonder when interpretation of laws can be made that contradict the plain meaning of the Constitution of the State or the U.S.???
No offense, but you’re speaking to common sense and I’m speaking to the fact of judicial egotism. I seriously doubt those a$$clowns will reverse themselves.
Any Indiana freepers know what became of this case? Has it been brushed under the rug?
"But, again, the piece went by fairly quickly and its possible that he simply misfired in response to Blitzers flurry of questions on a wide variety of issues. It would be worthwhile for someone to ask Mr. Cain to clarify these remarks in the near future."
He was emphatic about supporting the 2nd Amendment, but also same regarding State's rights. Perhaps someone should ask him to clarify his statements, which as the writer observes "went by fairly quickly and it's possible thae he simply misfired in response...".
I think he is a good man and deserves the opportunity to explain his stance.
Good question, I’ve lost track of what has been happening to this case. Time for some research...