Posted on 05/15/2011 11:36:35 AM PDT by John Semmens
In a stunning reversal of nearly 800 years of common law, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that homeowners have no right to refuse entry to police at any time for any reason.
Writing for the majority, Justice Steven David asserted that “if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason, or for no reason, the homeowner is not entitled to refuse, resist, or in any manner impede that entry. A right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The proper course for a homeowner who feels that an officer has acted illegally is to file a civil suit after the alleged improper entry has taken place.”
Justice David argued that “the archaic notion that a person’s home is his castle is an invitation to escalation. A situation in which police have executed a ‘no knock’ break-in into a home is already fraught with danger. If inhabitants think they have a right to resist, police may be compelled to deploy deadly force against what may turn out to be innocent parties. A uniform policy of obedience toward the police at all times would avoid this.”
The Court was unmoved by evidence that in some home invasion robberies criminals pretend to be the police to help gain entry. “In such rare instances the victims could subsequently call the real police for assistance,” David wrote. “On balance, though, it is clear that in most instances cooperation with whoever is breaking into your home—whether it be criminals or the police—seems likely to be the safest option.”
In related news, former President Bill Clinton said “we need a national or international authority to police all the lies and misinformation that’s out there on the Internet. Right now, anyone can retty much say whatever they want. That’s just not right. Somehow we’ve got to get control over what is disseminated.”
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/court-rules-police-may-enter-any-home-anytime/
The Judges in the actual case disagree.
Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson dissented, saying the court’s decision runs counter to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”
Sourced via: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/05/14/indiana-supreme-court/
We believe . . . that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).
oh well, I guess in that case there’s nothing wrong with it...NOT!
Doesn't that amount to automatic surrender to any home invaders claiming to be the police?
Are you a libtard troll trying to again put out wrong legal advice?
There have been such cases. The problem is, if they are cops, and you resist, you can end up LEGALLY dead. But if resistance was permitted, every person whose home was to be legally searched could claim that they believed the search to be illegal, and therefore resist, even with deadly physical force.
No one said life, or the law, was perfect.
What is the alternative?
ABSTRACT
Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary.[EXCERPT] THE FOURTH AMENDMENTThis article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.
Now to the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This protection was clearly regarded as one of the more important provisions of the Bill of Rights during debates in and out of Congress prior to ratification. To this day, the Amendment is probably the most cited constitutional provision in challenges to police action.CONCLUSIONThe cold, hard reality, however, is that the interest protected by the amendment — security from certain types of searches and seizures — has been drastically scaled back since 1791. In saying this, I am mindful that there are those among the highest echelons of the bench and academy who claim that current Fourth Amendment law is more protective than the Framers intended. Indeed, there are those claiming the mantles of textualism and originalism who would decrease Fourth Amendment rights even further. The ever-influential Akhil Amar, for example, has argued that the Fourth Amendment's text does not really require warrants but merely lays out the evidentiary foundation required to obtain warrants. Amar joins other "originalist" scholars who emphasize that the only requirement of the Fourth Amendment's first clause ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated") is that all searches and seizures be "reasonable." The warrant requirement pronounced in many Supreme Court opinions, according to Amar, places an unnecessary burden upon law enforcement and should be abandoned for a rule Amar considers more workable — namely civil damages for unreasonable searches after the fact as determined by juries.
This type of "originalism" has appealed to more than one U.S. Supreme Court justice, at least one state high court, and various legal commentators. Indeed, it has brought a perceivable shift to the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Even the U.S. Justice Department has adopted this argument as its own in briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for elimination of the warrant requirement.
The problem with this line of interpretation is that it does not square with the original view of the Framers.
The United States of America was founded without professional police. Its earliest traditions and founding documents evidenced no contemplation that the power of the state would be implemented by omnipresent police forces. On the contrary, America's constitutional Framers expressed hostility and contempt for the standing armies of the late eighteenth century, which functioned as law enforcement units in American cities.The author: Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., M.C.J., graduated from Roger Williams University School of Law in 1999, Roger Williams University School of Justice Studies in 2001, and Montana State University-Billings (B.S., Sociology) in 1995.The advent of modern policing has greatly altered the balance of power between the citizen and the state in a way that would have been seen as constitutionally invalid by the Framers. The implications of this altered balance of power are far-reaching, and should invite consideration by judges and legislators who concern themselves with constitutional questions.
If your standard for interpreting the Constitution is what the Courts say, then you must agree that Roe v Wade is constitutional, yes?
So if the police try to grab your guns, like they did to that old lady in New Orleans during Katrina, do you have a right to resist in your (not the Court's) opinion?
Once again, it gets hard to tell satire from “policy.”
In the history of the court, "I dissent" are two of the most important words a justice can utter.See http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4615.htm
To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.He was right then, he is right now. The MAJORITY in that infamous case was wrong, and be being wrong brought on our Nation a great tragedy, of which the echos continue to this day.Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New [60 U.S. 393, 573] York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.
They have the 911 call to back that up.
He didn't retreat to his apartment, but instead went into her apartment and blocked her exit and the cops' entry.
He's lucky he got hit with only three minor felony counts for his attack on the cops. He could have been taken away for many years for unlawfully detaining his wife.
The cops were quite forgiving with this guy.
The satire you'd want to write for this one is where we have a crazy judge writing militaristic BS ("Ve haf' ways) about an event that didn't happen ~ which, it turns out, didn't happen.
The judge is a former colonel ~ and that's the rank known for crazy stuff ~ the guy who wrote "MASH" knew them well!
How bout fairness?
Instead of giving cops an automatic free pass to illegally search any home and shoot them if they resist, how bout we give the homeowner the right to roll the dice and resist if he truly believes it is an unlawful entry.
Afterwards, if it turns out the homeowner is wrong, throw the book at him(if he is still alive). If he is right, then he is right.
Merely allowing the option of resistance will help keep the cops in check.
this law gives cops too much power
Instead they ruled that no-one has the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by the police. What is reasonable? Closing the door if they fail to produce a warrant?
He's demonstrating a decided inability to get outside the mode of speaking commonly found among army colonels.
Since the DECISION reflects NONE OF THE FACTS (outside of how they spelled names) it would be dangerous for anyone to ever cite it in a future case.
You'd ruin your own reputation.
Any of you folks remember Sarge? Remember General Half Track? That's what we are talking about ~ this simply was not a normal situation.
There was NO ILLEGAL ENTRY involved in this case yet ALL of them talked about that (one way or the other).
Not giving up on the blue ice angle though. These guys were stoked. Somebody check under the bench for one of those pump thingies.
I see the point but if I resist in some way, and I am in the right (as determined afterwards), then they can’t punish me for whatever happened because of my resisting, if anything, right?
The judges seem to think otherwise, given that they take no consideration of that possibility in thier decision.
“Cops enter, thinking they have a legal right to do so. Homeowner thanks they do not. It really doesn’t matter who is right if the homeowner pulls a gun and 2 or 3 people end up dead.”
How about “people dressed as Cops enter, Homeowner trying to comply with new law lays down his gun and 2 or 3 people end up dead! Home invader now has new guns.
It is Very Common for home invaders to yell “police open up”
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.