>Cboldt’s “definition” uses the term “unlawful entry” in it; it can’t be the definition of how to determine if something’s an unlawful entry...try again.
But the court’s decision said even “unlawful entry” was no grounds for resistance.
And it is patently obvious, according to the 4th Amendment, that ANY non-consensual entry without a warrant is unlawful.
And before you start spouting crap about exigent circumstances and the recent USSC decision, let me ask this: Does the Supreme Court have authority over the Constitution [as in to amend/revise], the very document that chartered their very existence?
There was no non-consensual entry in this case so why do you keep bringing it up?