Skip to comments.(IN State) Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling In Officer Resistance Case
Posted on 09/20/2011 12:41:36 PM PDT by FunkyZero
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling in a controversial case involving unlawful police entry. The court granted a rehearing, then supplied a five-page opinion on its May 12 opinion that declared that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
They just outlawed the “Declaration of Independence”.
In addition to absolutely guaranteeing the deaths of a few cops and even more pissed off citizens.
81% disagree with the ruling
19% agree with the ruling
Gimme a break; enter at your own peril, whoever you are.
I bet every home invasion perp in the state is heading to the costume shop to get a police uniform and fake badge...
you can’t protect anyone’s rights by infringing on everyone’s rights.
sounds like an overly broad, idiotic ruling.
Once they make an unlawful entry, they are mere thugs not police. People need to wake up.
Ever since his appointment, Chief Justice Randall Shepard has been pushing for centralization of all judicial power in the central organs of State Court Administration, which of course Shepard controls. On the way there, he has uniformly written opinions in favor of the power of the state over the rights of the individual. While he didn’t write this opinion, he certainly concurred in it.
He’s just the sort of judge Stalin was looking for to conduct his show trials.
It’s time for the Legislature to get into action then. This is too important to not be ‘clarified’.
Of course knowing the legislature they will wait until a horrible incident occurs and then call it XXXXXXXXX’s law.
I see dead people.
Let these so-called “justices” be subject to the death sentence for all of the bloody murders that will ensue on both sides of the thin, blue line.
“sounds like an overly broad, idiotic ruling.”
I’d say it was a wrong ruling. They should have been questioning whether or not the woman who called 911 was in fact giving them permission to enter the premises and whether or not she was doing so legally. If she gave them permission, does that trump the man who tried to prevent them from entering? Was she legally able to do so or not? Not enough clarity on this point AT ALL and the half assed ruling doesn’t help.
for your ping list, sir
I don't think that is the question. In the event of an illegal entry into my home, I would assume it was not the police (I wouldn't have to pretend, I would really believe they were not cops), and I would respond appropriately to an illegal entry by armed criminals. And, yes, I am willing to shoot an armed criminal who breaks into my home. Sadly, if it really is the police, I suspect that will end badly for me and possibly for a few cops.
Mark my word: this reckless ruling will be “clarified” one way or another; by Law or by lead.
Stack the bodies on the steps of the State Supreme Court, and indict the judges as accomplices.
Did you read the decision?
I hate to say it, but I agree with the Supreme Court on this one. The defendant's wife called 911 because her husband was allegedly beating her. The husband refused to allow the police entry but his wife had granted them permission by calling 911.
The police had every right to enter to protect the wife and the husband had no right to prevent the police from entering under those circumstances.
The castle doctrine is not applicable to the facts of this case. There was a crime in progress and one of the occupants of the home wanted the police to enter and the alleged perpetrator stood in the way.
At least one of the justices (David, I believe) is up for a retention vote in 2012. Will Hoosiers vent all of their frustration on internet chat rooms or will they organize as necessary to toss Justice David off the bench?
I read the decision, and based on he facts of this particular case, I don’t really disagree with he decision.
To repeat, based on the particular facts of this case,...
His domestic partner called 911 to make a report, and I can easily contrue that to be an invitation to enter the residence. This is not a case of a search without a warrant where any resident can object to search.
I think the court was very clear that this decision was based on a very narrow set of facts.
Before anyone thinks I am pro-cops, I am totally suspicious of cops, DA and judges based on personal experiences.
Supreme Court and Appellate Court justices routinely “win” these retention votes with “yes” percentages around 90%.
The vast majority of voters have absolutely no idea who they are.
You and I wrote pretty much the exact same post. Mine was two posts later.
No, what they said was that the courts are the place to argue this issue, not some 3:00 am gunfight between a homeowner and the cops.
When we cannot understand an issue as simple as this, we simply give liberals ammunition to attack us.
So you agree that an Indiana citizen does not have a right to resist police entry into his home without a valid warrant? .. because that is exactly what the decision states. Even the Indiana AG is up in arms about the broad implications.
The decision says (in boiled down words) that you cannot resist ANY unwarrantable search and that you must take civil action at a later time if you feel you have been violated.
Are you agreeing with this?
“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.”
A am with you on this. The original poster was right on the case used, but the SC went out of their way to take civil liberties. The whole "nose in the tent" argument.
Now that this is done, one would think that there are a few legislators out there equally offended by this ruling and are taking the appropriate actions to counter it.
You are totally correct.
To think otherwise means that anytime a homeowner through (or simply made it up that he thought) that a search was illegal, he could resist, with up deadly force.
Much better to have a later exclusionary hearing than a 3:00 AM gun fight.
If the police barge in and shoot you dead, you have a right to complain.
Yep. The judge just told them how to amend the Castle Doctrine law that they (the Court) ignored the first time around.
I think the opinion in the rehearing pretty much addressed any concerns I would have with the original decision. It appears the court did not intend to raise concerns, and appropriately dealt with them.
A state that is really bad is the State of Washington where it is a crime to protect yourself from being savagely beaten by the cops.
While that is probably true, the Indiana Supreme Court nonetheless issued a ruling that the Castle Doctrine did not apply in ANY case. The original ruling didn't account for the presence of the Castle Doctrine statute, so it was a mystery if/how/whether the statutory defense was also stricken. They clarified here, yes, that too was stricken, when the illegal entry is by the police.
I am saying the court addressed the concern you and I have about the original decision.
The court also STRONGLY suggested the legislature provide further guidance to the courts through legislation.
In this particular case, the wife clearly invited the cops to enter to check up on her. Had the cops not done so and she was killed by her husband, her family would have had a slam dunk civil rights action against the local government.
“The police had every right to enter to protect the wife and the husband had no right to prevent the police from entering under those circumstances.”
I don’t want to be unnecessarily picky, but I want to point out that the “police” as agents of the “state” don’t have “rights.” Citizens have “rights: not the state - it only has “authority.”
The police “may”, by the circumstances (probable cause provided by 911 call), have “authority” to enter and render protection to a citizen. However, it is not a “right.”
This is not an easy nut to crack. I can see both sides to the issue. I believe this could set a bad precident that overextends police “authority” at the cost of a citizen’s “rights” under the 4th Ammendment. However, were the woman trully in imminent danger....where obtaining a warrant is not possible....should the police have the “authority” to enter? (I don’t care what courts have said - what would the Founders say? I don’t have a clue.)
I want to place limits on police authority, but not to the point where it endangers a citizen....so this is a tough one.
A defacto refutation of the 3rd amendment, iff’n you take “police” to be a member of the army against the “War On Drugs,” as a police officer may enter an apartment and take up residence w/o paying.
“Exigent circumstances” trump everything.
everything comes out in the wash later.
however, an exigent circumstance for one does not broadly apply automatically to everyone.
I very much disagree with this ruling; the case which brought the question up is irrelevant because the State’s Supreme Court is violating due process (that is, the US Constitution via the 14th Amendment’s 1st section) and attempting to redefine the State’s own Constitution (thereby violating that State’s Constitution’s article regarding amendment).
A more complete argument here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2761352/posts
I’m guessing this one’s headed to SCOTUS.
You are right, they do not have a "right" to enter the house under these circumstances. They had an OBLIGATION to enter the house under these circumstances.
“...but his wife had granted them permission by calling 911.”
You don’t grant anything by merely calling 911. You can grant entry as part of the conversation after calling 911. That’s probably what you meant.
I want to make it clear folks don’t have to fear calling 911, because that would automatically give police the right to enter their home.
... assuming it is the real cops coming in your door at 3AM, and not some thugs in rented uniform.
When we cannot understand an issue as simple as this, we give the state the right to do whatever they want.
The incredibly stupid War on Drugs has turned too much of the police forces in the US and internationally into the very kind of “standing army” — a militarized civil police force — the Founders despised.
Too be sure the founders rejected the concept of a professional standing army for a number of reasons (1) the tendency of a nation’s regent with such an army to use it prematurely and recklessly instead of pursuing equanimity and peace (2) such military expeditions and wars tended toward ruinous expense to the nation, but the last reason was closet to home with them, and probably the strongest reason at the time the Declaration was written. And that is (3) the use of the standing army to enforce abhorrent laws, seizures and taxes upon the citizens.
By the time the Constitution was ratified, that ideal of fierce rejection of a professional standing military had tempered, abated. It was clear that such a standing professional military was needed to quell major civil strive (tax rebellions), internal civil attacks of one state’s militia against another (the Wyoming Valley War), to protect and hold the frontier against foreign and Indian excursions and raids, and to protect the naval trade.
Still, the Founders would not have tolerated today’s negations of the natural rights of property and transit — a man’s home is his castle, and free men may travel freely unmolested by authorities when in that travel is made in good order — in ways that do not harm others or disturb the peace.
Agreed, the woman called 911, she was a resident of the home, and there is no 5th amendment issue.Ruuling was quite clear.Without the 911 call it would have been a very different matter:.......No entry without a warrant.
The Indiana statute specifically makes it a class I misdemeanor to commit a battery on a police officer who is engaged in the execution of the officer's OFFICIAL DUTIES. There is no Castle Doctrine defense in the statute so if you batter a police officer and the police officer can prove that at the time he was engaged in his OFFICIAL DUTIES, then you are going to be convicted. The common law "Castle Doctrine" does not apply.
Now if you could prove that the police officer was not engaged in his OFFICIAL duties, then the castle doctrine would apply and is not affected by this ruling.
The facts of this case are so bad, that there is simply no way the defendant was going to win. To even raise the "Castle Doctrine" on a case with these facts does nothing more than to draw unnecessary attention to the doctrine and thereby risk that the doctrine will be diluted merely by the fact that it forms the basis of this appeal.
Again, I have read the opinion of the court, and I am not in disagreement. There are remedies available to citizens for unlawful entry by police, but battery is not an option where the police officer is engaged in official duties.
In the facts of this case, there was no way for the defendant to show that the police were even acting illegally. There was no illegal entry. If you want to blame anyone for this ruling, blame the idiot attorney who raised the issue on appeal. Bad facts make bad law. The facts on this case couldn't have been worse.
If someone calls from inside your house requesting the police to arrive, then you have granted them permission to enter and to search the house for evidence of a crime. 911 is an EMERGENCY number. The police do not have time to stop by the courthouse and obtain a search warrant and the call itself is probable cause for entry and search.
So if you don't want the police to enter your home, make sure you don't have any phones in your house that someone might use to call 911.
And as I said earlier. If someone inside a home calls 911 to report a crime in progress, the police don't have the right to enter the home, they have an OBLIGATION to do so.
Wrong, that was what many of us had a problem with when it went through round one. Even if the officer was acting illegally and was off duty, if he identified himself as a police officer and kicked your door down and you resisted him you were guilty, period.
If you hired a lawyer afterword and proved he did it illegally you were still guilty of resisting him and not pardoned for your actions. Why this was such a big issue was this exact point, no matter what facts come out later, if you resisted you are guilty of a crime and remain guilty.
I believe what the justices are trying to say is "999 out of 1000 times it will be better for all if you let the search occur then take the matter up later with your lawyer in civil court". This very premise is what bothers us so much, let him violate you, submit to it, THEN seek damages when it's over. (at your expense I might add)
Great, have a shootout at 3:00, and your widow will learn if they are real cops by 4:00 AM.
>I read your dissertation, and quite frankly I think you have jumped the one winged shark.
So then, under what power can they alter the State’s own Constitution? They cannot, this sort of overreach by an official has a name: malfeasance.
>he Indiana statute specifically makes it a class I misdemeanor to commit a battery on a police officer who is engaged in the execution of the officer’s OFFICIAL DUTIES. There is no Castle Doctrine defense in the statute so if you batter a police officer and the police officer can prove that at the time he was engaged in his OFFICIAL DUTIES, then you are going to be convicted. The common law “Castle Doctrine” does not apply.
That is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand: that the court is either a) amending the State’s Constitution, or b) violating the US Constitution which constrains even State’s judges.
(And even if it WERE at hand, how can ILLEGAL ENTRY be a part of a police officer’s OFFICIAL DUTIES? Or are you going to tell me that “just following orders” is an acceptable legal defense?)
>Now if you could prove that the police officer was not engaged in his OFFICIAL duties, then the castle doctrine would apply and is not affected by this ruling.
See the above.
>The facts of this case are so bad, that there is simply no way the defendant was going to win. To even raise the “Castle Doctrine” on a case with these facts does nothing more than to draw unnecessary attention to the doctrine and thereby risk that the doctrine will be diluted merely by the fact that it forms the basis of this appeal.
Where are you getting this? I NEVER brought Castle Doctrine into play, did I? Furthermore, I explicitly said that THE CASE is not the problem here, the [Supreme Court’s] RULING is.
>There are remedies available to citizens for unlawful entry by police, but battery is not an option where the police officer is engaged in official duties.
That is not what the court said; the court said that EVEN IF IT IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY there is no right for the citizen to defend himself... that is a BIG difference.
>If you want to blame anyone for this ruling, blame the idiot attorney who raised the issue on appeal. Bad facts make bad law. The facts on this case couldn’t have been worse.
Actually that’s not even an option: the attorney’s appeal could have been taken care of if the Supreme Court had simply stated that a) the woman had indeed called the police, and b) was evicting the man (thereby denying him the ability to legitimately refuse). Wham, bam, simple and closed. But that is NOT what the supreme Court did, is it?
or, following your idea, and get shot and killed that night!
>If someone calls from inside your house requesting the police to arrive, then you have granted them permission to enter and to search the house for evidence of a crime.
Not necessarily true; a vandal could break into your home and call the police from there, in which case you have not given any sort of permission.
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.