This all went too far because the guy was involved in a domestic dispute. His wife said let the cops in and he pushed the cop who tried to enter to make sure she was safe.
The courts take was that because it was a domestic that was easily aggravated and could escalate fast that the officers should have been able to enter.
(they noted exigent circumstances)
So what they are saying is that just because it is an arrest that is unlawful, you can not resist it just by bailing into your home and claiming the cops can’t come in.
Nor do they want to have people resist arrest and thus escalate force by both sides.
The court - instead of limiting the police, said .. let the courts determine later, through bail hearings, pre trials, motions etc.
If this had been about ANYTHING except domestic violence the consenting judge thinks he would have ruled different.
Bottom line is this is a bad deal, but not insurmountable since it is dealing strictly with an act that could have escalated in violence.
That will probably be the yardstick that this is based upon in the future.
the court document is here:
This will be treated as a single decision in a single case without any wider application. On the other hand I think it will be used as a reason to REMOVE this judge at the next confirmation election.