Even the dissenting justices admitted that the officer probably was entering the home legally (he was responding to a 911 call from the home for domestic violence).
The majority mentioned the fact that most states have eliminated the common law right to resist an illegal entry. AFAIK, those state statutes have not been tested by the US Supreme Court. Anyway, read the decision. There's no way a sheriff would use it as a basis to conduct random entries.
We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers
That's in the first paragraph! Then they go on to engage in a little stroll through history concluding with why they can just skip along with the 1960's fad of making up laws whenever they want to! Oh, and throwing out mmmmm 800 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Because see, the prisons aren't as mean as they used to be.
Got it. Since tyranny is oh so softer nowadays, it's cool for the cops to step on you.
Reading that "decision" is like a nightmare. These are power mad Leftists ruling from the bench - I don't care if they call themselves something different. That's all they are - totalitarians who believe in state power and state power only. To them, rights are anachronisms that must be crushed in the name of "state policy".
Even Dred Scott didn't capriciously crush the rights of citizens the way this cavalier screed does.
Would you care to bet some money on that?
not only no cause sited, no evidence sited, shot 71 bullets at him in 27 seconds, lied about his having shot at them and refused him waiting medical team for over an hour while he bled out - a Marine vet who worked the mines at night - and a child in the house.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/may/13/tucson_swat_team_kills_armed_hom
“Anyway, read the decision. There’s no way a sheriff would use it as a basis to conduct random entries.”
Decisions? We don’t need no steenkin’ decisions.