Do you mean Indiana Supreme Court? It ruled in a case where the cops entered the house (presumably lawfully), and the homeowner offered resistance. The homeowner wanted a jury instruction as to the right to offer reasonable resistance to unlawful entry. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that there is no right to offer reasonable resistance to unlawful police entry.
-- It's my take that the SCOTUS DID NOT okay blanked raids on homes at random. --
Again, do you mean Indiana Supreme Court? If so, your remark is correct. It said that the remedy for blanket raids on homes at random is found in court.
-- It merely said that if a department enters a home without due cause, the owner shouldn't be allowed to open fire on them. --
No resistance is permitted. No shoving, no holding the door, no obstruction, etc. This isn't just about deadly force, this is about the use of reasonable resistance.
Alito on board! and his reasoning is so convoluted it boggles the mind - all of them do. "Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame."
Something is afoot here -none of these pass the smell test.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_warrantless_entry