Replies

I have read this in multiple sources:
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing the official response for the court stated, if a police officer wants to enter a home for any or even for no reason, a homeowner or any other person can not do anything to resist or block the officers entry into a private home. “We believe… a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties without preventing the arrest.” David Goes on saying a person arrested following a unlawful entry by police can still be released on bail and will be given ample opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

So what do I have wrong here?

Nothing:
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” IS the second-to-last sentence on the first page of the decision. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

“Here, the trial court’s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. BECAUSE WE DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO REASONABLY RESIST AN UNLAWFUL POLICE ENTRY, WE NEED NOT DECIDE THE LEGALITY OF THE OFFICERS’ ENTRY[…]”

——— In other words, because we say there is no right [to bar entry] the jury may be kept uninstructed in the FACTS of the case, namely: the legality of that entry.

“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. Accordingly, the trial court‘s failure to give Barnes‘s proffered jury instruction on this right was not error.”

——— Notice the retro-activity of this, they NO LONGER hold the right to exist, so therefore it *DIDN’T* exist prior to this case; even though they previously cited United States v. Di Re (1948) and its quote “One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases…”

[/disgust]

Note that what you just posted contradicts the erroneous claim made in the article posted above.

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2720824/posts?page=82#82:

Nowhere did the court affirm the right of the police to conduct random searches. Just because the court said there was no right to make a specific response to an illegal activity doesn't make the activity suddenly legal.

By the logic being used, if a court case ruled that a cop was wrong in just shooting someone for speeding, we'd have a chorus of FReepers claiming the case said that people had the right to speed.

I have as many questions about the ISC case as anyone, but that doesn't mean we should be making things up or acting like idiots.

82 posted on 05/17/2011 3:11:13 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)

By posting "will be given ample opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system," you note that "[...] said police may force their way into a home for any reason or no reason at all [...]" is a false claim.

The decision involved a domestic where one party said for them to enter, the 2nd party said no. The police really have no choice but to enter. According to the information provided, the homeowner immediately assaulted the officer and was arrested.
The Judge here is trying to say that an officer does have authority to enter into your home. After the entry you have the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy but not at the time of the entry.
The 4th amendment states that we are secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Who decides when it is unreasonable?

The courts have held in many decisions that it is up to the courts to determine reasonableness. So, if only the courts can determine reasonableness, what makes you, the individual think you can? You have no constitutional or legal basis to make that decision.

If an officer makes an illegal entry you can sue the officer and or sue the agency if it is improper. If the officer clearly illegally enters your home you can have him criminally charged as well as seek civil relief. If he does actually violate your civil rights you can have him charged federally.

So, tell me again where our 4th amendment rights have been diminished? I think the courts clearly spelled out the time and place for the challenge (courts) and how, in a civilized society, you should behave.

If there was no recourse for relief as mentioned above, then I would say our 4th amendment rights have been diminished. Otherwise this is just grandstanding without thinking.