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 ...
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.