It was my understanding that the SCOTUS review was about a case where a police department entered a home without a warrant using fuzzy logic. I believe the issue was whether the home-owners could justifiably object with use of force. The SCOTUS said no.
If I’m misrepresenting the case, someone please correct me.
It’s my take that the SCOTUS DID NOT okay blanked raids on homes at random. It merely said that if a department enters a home without due cause, the owner shouldn’t be allowed to open fire on them.
Granted, some departments will now flaunt the laws, claiming oops, but I don’t believe the SCOTUS intended to give police the right to completely ignore the forth amendment.
What’s other people’s take on this?
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.
SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States != Indiana Supreme Court
Other than it being the Supreme Court of Indiana and not the SCOTUS, that’s my understanding.