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.
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?
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.
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.
American NAZIs on the march...
Our very own Gestapo!