Posted on 05/21/2011 5:40:57 AM PDT by John W
INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller on Friday joined the chorus of Hoosiers protesting a controversial Fourth Amendment ruling recently decided by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Zoeller released a statement saying he will support a rehearing of the case due to concerns that the court ruled too broadly when it found citizens have no right under common law to reasonably resist police who unlawfully enter their homes.
The Barnes v. State ruling came last week and was the first major opinion penned by Justice Steven David – Gov. Mitch Daniels’ appointment.
“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,” David wrote. “Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.”
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
The court ruled that the centuries-old standard no longer applies because if police wrongly enter a home, residents can sue them and, unlike hundreds of years ago, get quick bail, have a quick court date and not be tortured in jail.
Since the decision was released, attorneys, newspaper editorials and Hoosiers of all sorts have come out against the ruling. A rally protesting the decision is scheduled for Wednesday at the Statehouse.
Court officials have also acknowledged boosting security after receiving numerous harassing phone calls and emails.
The case involved a Vanderburgh County man who was arguing with his wife while moving out of their apartment. The man, Richard Barnes, yelled at police, who followed him back into his apartment. Barnes told police they could not enter, and he struggled with an officer who ignored him. Barnes was later charged and convicted of battery.
Critics of the decision say the court – in a 3-2 ruling – tossed out hundreds of years of common law when it could have focused more narrowly, noting police in the case had probable cause to investigate a domestic abuse allegation and the wife inferred her permission for them to enter the home.
Zoeller said he will argue for keeping Barnes’ convictions but scaling back the legal impact of the case upon future cases, consistent with judicial restraint.
“In our brief and argument to the Indiana Supreme Court last fall, my office did not advocate for the type of ruling the court issued last week. I believe a reconsideration is appropriate. A rehearing and a new ruling would afford the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify any misperceptions regarding people’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches and seizures – even against unlawful entry by police,” said Zoeller, a Republican.
“While there is no right to commit battery against police, I believe the individual has the right to shut the door, stand his ground and communicate with police without engaging in an altercation. In balancing the perils of domestic violence with respect for law enforcement, I will continue to advise our police clients to respect people’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
Barnes’ defense attorney also is seeking a rehearing, which must be filed by June 13.
Meanwhile, a Fourth Amendment expert at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington said the decision was sound.
“The Supreme Court’s decision means that we can’t allow people to take the law into their own hands,” professor Craig Bradley said. “The law should not allow people to assault police whenever they claim that they ‘thought’ the entry was illegal.”
He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”
Before we all overact on this....consider the fact in this one particular case that the wife who has some authority in telling the cop he has permission to enter....she can do so.
We may misinterpret the case and try to compare it to SWAT issues in America, but those are radically different in terms of legal aspects.
In the state of Washington, it is a crime to resist an unlawful arrest.
I also think this would fall under the exigent circumstances exception to the fourth amendment. The court is making up law where it doesn't need to.
>> Critics of the decision say the court... could have focused more narrowly, noting police in the case had probable cause to investigate a domestic abuse allegation and the wife inferred her permission for them to enter the home
Duh. I’m not a judge or even a lawyer, and to me it’s obvious this is how they SHOULD have ruled.
Damn judicial tyrants! They’re the worst kind.
Meanwhile, a Fourth Amendment expert at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington said the decision was sound.
“The Supreme Court’s decision means that we can’t allow people to take the law into their own hands,” professor Craig Bradley said. “The law should not allow people to assault police whenever they claim that they ‘thought’ the entry was illegal.”
He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”
I beg to differ. The police where I live are better educated than to barge into a home without permission, wife’s opinion notwithstanding. In fact, my wife would stand at my side and we would both be armed. Maybe this is OK in Indiana but NOT HERE. SCOTUS needs to rule on this issue.
That occurred over the many years when he was Chief Defense Counsel for detainees subject to the Military Commission’s proceedings at Guantanamo Bay.
It's pretty obvious that he's Gone Over and simply can't be trusted to write a case decision according to American traditions.
“Before we all overact on this...”
I think it was the Court who over-reacted. They could merely have found there were exigent circumstances that gave the cops the right to enter, but they didn’t do that.
In the decision the Court actually, plainly says that the cops can enter a persons home for “any” reason or “no” reason.
Do these dopes think Americans are going to stand for that? Because we’re not.
Even after they commit suicide by cop?
-—He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”-—
Wow. Evidently one has 4th Amendment rights only after they have been violated and then one must spends years and lots of money in courts to have them upheld. Has Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said anything on this ruling? Especially since he thought the judicial appointment process in Indiana was far superior to electing jurists.
The case and the written ruling are apparently in different universes.
Sad isn’t it...
The justice who wrote the opinion is NOT the chief.
Obviously there are risks in any system that leads to inferior judges ~ and it's pretty obvious the Indiana system leads to weirdos and freaks getting appointed.
Governors really don't have a choice in these systems ~ they get to pick 1 out of 3, or 2 from a list ~ that sort of thing.
Sarah Palin was faced with a choice between two radical abortion fanatics so she chose the least bad ~ not having any other choice.
We have to remove our Governors from this sort of partisanship and the way to do that is either select judges by lot from the broad masses of the people OR have them run for election and let the people chose.
It's always good to expand the franchise ~ that's the history of America.
You’re right ~ Dau’d is not the Chief ~
We may misinterpret the case and try to compare it to SWAT issues in America, but those are radically different in terms of legal aspects.
Excuse me pepsionice but you are full of sh**. The ruling was that NO ONE has the right to resist an unlawful entry by police and they also said that the 4th amendment is obsolete because we can now sue the cops after the fact.
This case wasn't about if the wife gave permission or not, if that was true the ruling would have read something like, "we find the police had probable cause and also permission of one of the owners of the property to enter". That is not how the ruling went.
The justices totally ignored the fact that some house breakers wear cops suits and yell police when they break down the door in order to forestall any resistance. If cops enter unlawfully they are no better than any other person who is breaking and entering. This ruling is totally unconstitutional and is based on the idea of a "living constitution" which is open to interpretation which is a false assumption.
Impeach those who voted for this first.
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.