I guess you didn't read the Supreme Court's opinion. The SC said that if the officer is acting in his official duties, then the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to battery. If he is off duty or doing something illegally, then he would not be acting in his official duties and you can shoot him (if the circumstances permit).
This holding only applies to police officers who are acting in their official capacity and performing official duties. If they are not in their official capacity, you can batter them to your heart's content.
>I guess you didn’t read the Supreme Court’s opinion. The SC said that if the officer is acting in his official duties, then the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to battery.
>If he is off duty or doing something illegally, then he would not be acting in his official duties and you can shoot him (if the circumstances permit).
That’s certainly NOT what the original opinion said, it said: “we hold that Indiana [sic] the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
That means even if he is off-duty, or acting in a blatantly illegal manner, that the court will not recognize your right to resist.
They are saying that a police officer can now bust down your door and rape your wife in front of your very eyes and YOU CANNOT LEGALLY RESIST HIM. Period.
This is the inescapable conclusion of the declaration that they made that “THE RIGHT TO REASONABLY RESIST AN UNLAWFUL POLICE ENTRY INTO A HOME IS NO LONGER RECOGNIZED UNDER INDIANA LAW.”
Another point to make is that it can never be the duty of a public official to commit a crime.
Your scenarios seem to presume that if he is acting illegally, he is not acting is his official duties. But the combination of Pin official duties" and "illegal" is possible, although adjudicated in hindsight. The question becomes whether or not a homeowner can raise the affirmative defense provided by the statutory castle doctrine if the police, in their duties, acted illegally. The Indiana Supreme Court says "No."
The state of the law in Indiana, courtesy of the Indiana Supreme Court, is that if a police officer is acting illegally, in his official duty, a homeowner may not offer resistance.
This is a judicially created carve-out to the statutory castle doctrine in Indiana.
b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
"This holding only applies to police officers who are acting in their official capacity and performing official duties. If they are not in their official capacity, you can batter them to your heart's content."
IF he doesn't identify himself as a police officer then your premise holds. If he does, it must be assumed by the homeowner at that time he is under official duty and you cannot resist him once his identity as a police officer is established. This is the crux of the argument, of course it is illegal to interfere with a police officer when he is performing his duties, that has always been the case. Boiled down this decision says "The homeowner cannot determine at the time of the search whether or not the search is legal. He MUST submit to it and file his grievance afterwords."
If a police officer goes to the wrong home address accidentally and performs search you cannot resist them even knowing full well that they are in the wrong, he is acting in his official capacity and lets face it, **** happens. This is to protect both the homeowner and the police officer, don't escalate the situation by resisting, go along with it and things will get ironed out later.
If your neighbor who is a cop comes home and finds his wife missing, and he suspects she is having an affair with you, if he walks into your house looking for her and you know he is a police officer You cannot resist the search, period. How do you know he didn't see her running into your house bleeding being chased by a guy with a knife? Absurd example I know, but it makes my point that the courts have determined that the officer is to be submitted to, your "opinion" of the legality of it is not an excuse to resist.
Determination of whether or not the search is legal, or whether he is under official capacity, cannot be determined by the homeowner at the time no matter how blatant the illegalities of it are. You can not resist, only submit and then report it later after he identifies himself as a police officer, period. This is the key to the whole argument here - Even in the case above knowing full well the officer was not acting in his official capacity, if you resist, you are guilty no matter what the outcome and punishment of the officer.