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 ...
“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.)”
These days I think one could make the case that a cop unlawfully entering your house is a self-defense situation.
That's not a "what-if". I just read about a couple of dirt bags that were arrested for doing just that...dressing up like cops and breaking in. Anybody can buy a uniform/hat/badge/jacket and carry on.
That's why I say...whether you're a cop or a criminal (and it's getting hard to tell), if you break through my door, I will do my best to kill you, and you won't be bulletproof. I have nothing to hide, but I will not yield to the Blue Gestapo.
Entire article is written from an anti-police standpoint.
Wife had legal right to be in house. She clearly indicated her request for police to enter.
They then had a right to enter.
End of case.
Entire article is written from an anti-police standpoint.
Wife had legal right to be in house. She clearly indicated her request for police to enter.
They then had a right to enter.
End of case.
The guy was on his way out ~ they were breaking up. If I follow this right when she gave him that last bag of his "stuff" that was it ~ gone ~ fine'.
It was LAWFUL. What was unlawful was when the guy pushed the cop.
He appealed his conviction and then a bunch of whacked out inebriated or intoxicated judges got hold of it and did funny stuff with it. Bet there's some skid marks on the backside of the last page!
The justices addressed everything but the facts ~ it was a lawful entry. The guy who attacked the cop didn’t even live there.
What part of UNLAWFUL ENTRY, the finding of the court, do you NOT comprehend?
The justices called it an “unlawful entry.”
This case didn't have to go beyond the lady's call to 911. She lived there ~ not the perp.
There's probably some circumstance where you come upon a cop just minding his business and it is your job to leap out and give him a beating. I don't know what it would be, but I can imagine the Indiana Supreme Court thinking about it a lot and telling us what it might be.
This time, though, deep in thought (or their cups) they decided that when it's an unlawful entry the guy didn't have the right to push the cop.
There are laws that make it a crime to assault cops anywhere when you know they are cops. This guy knew he was dealing with the cops.
BTW, I really can't defend the logic the court followed. I think they were sloppy to the point of negligence ~ and that Mitch Daniel's star lawyer was a mistake to appoint to this job. The guy's a zoner.
Like you I noticed the wife asked the officer to enter. I forget the rule when one person consents to entry and/or search and seizure and another with equal right to the premises does not does not.
He can call it to the cows come home if he wants, but it wasn't an unlawful entry.
Now, to the Court's discussion, it is bizarre. They didn't need to say anything at all since it was strictly a hypothetical situation concocted by the plaintiff ~ and not tried in a court.
Okay, but the ruling that you cannot resist a cop trying to unlawfully enter your house is plain wrong.
This is a very in-artful way of saying that if you know the guy is a cop and he's not doing anything to you, whether or not he arrived at the place he's standing lawfully or unlawfully the laws say you simply can't beat on him.
However, it is so in-artful it is INARTICULATE in the extreme, and is clearly not something that was proofread by anyone. I think even the dissenters did little more than review the "notes" made by the majority.
Alcohol will do that to you ~ particularly if you drink on the job or at lunch. So will some common narcotics that are subject to abuse.
I know that's a subtle distinction between having a residence and not having a residence, but there you have it.
It's an action that happens all at once ~ not like what happened to the nasty mouthed evil dwarf who is now Mayor of Chicago. They had him "easing out" of his residence yet they couldn't pin down a time where it happened or even where he'd become a new resident.
This case is different. You tell the cops "I'm outta' there" they are, presumably, allowed to act on that information. It's called "a reasonable expectation".
Based on my reading it wasn't - he had permission to enter.
The point that gives me pause and goes against everything I believe is this statement in the Opinion by Justice David - it's a non-starter for me:
If there is no right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry, just what else is left - unreasonable resistance? And no, I do not buy the socialist driven mantra that the court is the place to get resolution. As we have seen time and time again, we have lawyers making law, interpreting law, and judging law - and we are stuck with "no standing"!
Maybe not. Would he go to the back yard and shoot the family's elderly lame, blind minature poodle?
American NAZIs on the march...
Our very own Gestapo!
Judge Dredd, huh?
I never said anything about a uniform. The title of the article is bad, and your belief is just as bad law.
And at my age I could explain why but figure it out for yourself.
The court ruled correctly in this case.
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.