Posted on 05/13/2011 3:52:05 PM PDT by BCrago66
The decision is Barnes v. State, and the Indiana Supreme Court divided 3–2.
In this case, the officer had come to the home in response to a domestic violence call. He found the defendant, Barnes, outside. The officer and the defendant exchanged heated words, and the defendant started yelling at the officer. The officer threatened to arrest the defendant if he didn’t calm down, and the defendant threatened to have the officer arrested if he arrested him. At this point the defendant’s wife came outside, threw a duffel bag in the defendant’s direction, and told him to take the rest of his stuff. She then went back inside the home. The defendant then reentered the home following his wife, but once inside he blocked the officer (and another officer) from entering. The officers asked if they could enter the home, and the defendant’s wife pleaded with the defendant to let them enter. The defendant refused. The police then entered anyway, and the defendant “shoved [an officer] against the wall.” The officers then tazed the defendant and arrested him.
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
I can think of no other country in the world other - including the UK - in which the common-law tradition of liberty still retains enough strength to make a case like this one a close question.
The wife gave her implied permission to enter, the man became violent. They should have beat the daylights out of him.
I hope you’re not a cop, Stockpirate.
He sounds like a cop
The wife gave the cops permission to come in. End of story.
The cops arrived.
There was no unlawful entry.
Her rights to consult with the cops were violated by her husband (presumably separated).
Unlawful entry plays no part in any of this yet the state supreme court wrote their entire decision as if there was an unlawful entry.
It's a nutso case ~ none of these judges could get past a rolling drunk test.
I'm not at all worried that a Virginia cop is going to use this as an excuse to just bust into my house. I'm not concerned about that if I visit relatives in Indiana.
Do you have any idea what the percentage of households possessing both guns and pickup trucks is in Indiana?
This was posted here earlier.
Upon following a few links the facts and circumstances seem to be that the couple was having an argument outside the house, both parties went back into the house and then there were sounds indicating he was threatening and/or injuring her. Not exactly a no knock raid by a SWAT team, more akin to if a cop outside had good reason to believe someone was beating or about to beat their wife (or husband)..
Not that I think the police should *ever* be allowed to enter a home without a warrant, and at that *always* be required to identify themselves, present the warrant and allow examination of it (and yes, if that means that on occasion the bad guys can flush some drugs down the toilet that’s less of an injury to society than no knock raids by dog shooting jack booted thugs) except for a hostage situation.
Can I accidentally spill 5 gallons of water and while fleeing drop a lamp in the water, accidentally?
Are you saying that implicitly?
I gather from the decision that there were no serious injuries in any of this ~ if it'd been out in the county and Sheriff was answering the call, I really don't know what would have happened. They work hard to keep those creases in those starched brown shirts.
Under the circumstances as discribed the man had no legal right to refuse the officers entrance.
First off he was acting badly and followed his wife in to the house. If the officers felt she was in danger, which his later behaviour indicates, they could enter in order to protect her. She also implied consent when she told her husband to let them in.
All the officers need to say is they felt she was in danger.
Now if they come to your house and just to come in without a warrent that is of course different.
An interesting note: Though he did not permit the police to enter his house, it was noted that his wife “begged him to let in the police.”
Now, as far as *legal* entry goes, this would be a slam dunk, because the police only need *one* adult who lives there to give them authority to enter.
Because of this, the trial court should have found that despite what the husband said, the police were authorized to enter, so from that point, his attacking them was assault and resisting arrest.
But while the defendant would ignore this, the prosecution and the judge should have noted it, as it would have made his appeal fruitless from the get go, and the State supreme court would have turned it down.
This suggests that the State supreme court was looking for an excuse in this case, and might have possibly colluded with the trial court judge.
I don’t want to get too pedantic here, but the legal question here is not whether the cop’s entry was unlawful. The question the Indiana Supreme Court was addressing was: Assuming the entry was unlawful, did the defendant have the right to shove the cop (or was the shoving a crime.)
I’m not pretending to know the answer to this question, before studying the case further.
(Someone complained about “incomplete” information: I don’t get that complaint. On FR, we post excerpts so as to to violate copyright law. If you go the post, it links to the entire Indiana Supreme Court decision.)
As for the cop’s tazing and arrest: Maybe that was justified under the circumstances. But we want cops to possess self-control, and use force to the extent necessary to defend themselves or to effectuate an arrest. In a free country, it’s not really that funny to say cops should “beat the daylights” out of someone, like am out-of-control kid thug.
It also suggests they all drink too much.
agreed. this looks like it should have been an open and shut case.
Here’s the decision:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Remember, reading is FUN-damental.
If the entry is unlawful, it doesn’t matter if they have a uniform or not. Sounds like the entry was unlawful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.