Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

Examiner ^ | May 16th | Howard Portnoy

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

In a move that flies not only in the face of the U.S. Constitution but defies common law dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that residents of the Hoosier state have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David, writing for the majority, expressed the view that

a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.

[G Larry]

On the heels of the AZ slaughter of an innocent man, this may end up in the USSC?

[muawiyah]

I suppose you think the cops should not respond to 911 calls?

[muawiyah]

No one will bring this case up to cite it in another case.

[muawiyah]

Washington led the army out after the guys making untaxed whiskey and not paying the tax. Even shot a guy.

Now, did they have the 4th amendment on their side?

[Dead Corpse]

Any other words you want to put in my mouth? Careful, I have sharp teeth...

Of course the police should respond to 911 calls. But, comma, however... Rulings like this can be construed as giving them unlimited power to enter any home at any time for any reason.

You can throw the BS flag if you want, but now think of how a privacy ruling became a National mandate on abortion and how Eminent Domain was used to take private property away to give it to another private interest.

If you can't see how this ruling is BAD, then there is ZERO hope for you. Period.

[muawiyah]

This was a single ruling in a single case with unique facts ~ one of the facts was that the "ruling" was about something that didn't happen.

Now, back to the question, do you favor having the cops answer 911 calls, or just waiting till whatever happens has happened?

There are a lot of police forces who do that ~ just stay away ~ when they leave the stationhouse they pick up chalk and tape on the way!

They know.

[muawiyah]

This was a single ruling in a single case with unique facts ~ one of the facts was that the "ruling" was about something that didn't happen.

Now, back to the question, do you favor having the cops answer 911 calls, or just waiting till whatever happens has happened?

There are a lot of police forces who do that ~ just stay away ~ when they leave the stationhouse they pick up chalk and tape on the way!

They know.

[old3030]

Exactly. The issue is not the particular case, in which the cops were quite probably justified in entering the house, it is that the decision exceeds the bounds of the case. It says that law enforcement can't be resisted in any case. That's where it conflicts with the Fourth.

[Dead Corpse]

Everything starts out as a "single" something... How many times has that slowed them down?

Now, back to the question, do you favor having the cops answer 911 calls, or just waiting till whatever happens has happened?

Already answered.

Are you in favor of a drunk off duty cop busting in to his neighbors house?

[Dead Corpse]

That’s how I read it too. There are factors at work in our government that would LOVE to get their hands on this kind of power...

[muawiyah]

A drunk off-duty cop busting in a house is breaking and entering unless he owns it, or rents a room there.

How about this, since you want to discuss hypotheticals (you really should read yesterday's threads BTW), cop comes to your door with a report that you should come down to the morgue to identify someone. Your son is missing and has your second car.

It's raining hard. The officer asks if he can step in out of the rain before you leave together to go downtown.

You then reach over your doorway and blow his brains out for an illegal entry.

[Dead Corpse]

How about this, since you want to discuss hypotheticals...

No. You started that. You asked me what I thought a cop should do in response to a 911 call.

The court made it clear, a cop can enter your house for any reason they want. Period.

The rest of your post is sheer idiocy.

[Girlene]

It turned into a kidnapping.

Where did you read there was a kidnapping?

[muawiyah]

From the facts of the case. Guy moves out. Woman calls police for help. Guy closes apartment door on her when cops arrive.

She pleads with him to open door and not bar the police.

He refuses.

That's an unlawful detention right there!

[Girlene]

I read the reports as well. From Indiana Supreme Court Abrogating Citizen's Right To Resist Unlawful Police Entry Into Home Making Headlines

.........."Officer Lenny Reed, the first responder, saw a man leaving an apartment with a bag and began questioning him in the parking lot. Upon identifying the man as Barnes, Reed informed him that officers were responding to a 911 call. Barnes responded that he was getting his things and leaving and that Reed was not needed. Barnes had raised his voice and yelled at Reed, prompting stares from others outside and several warnings from Reed.

Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was ―very agitated and was yelling. Barnes ―continued to yell, loudly and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, ―if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you’re going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell. Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes’s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed’s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don’t do this and ―just let them in. Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital."..........


I wouldn't call that kidnapping. Anyway, the Indana Appeals Court had ordered a new trial for this case because the trial court had refused to give jury instructions that the defendant had a right to reasonably resist an an unlawful entry. It was the Indiana Supreme Court that reversed that ruling and said "[in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

That is quite disturbing.

[muawiyah]

The ruling from the court is irrelevant from the case ~ which, almost unbelievably, is part of the decision.

The news media reports are not adequate ~ did you notice the reporter left out the most critical part ~ to wit: SHE CALLED 911 AND ASKED FOR HELP.

The guy's lawyer is the one begging for some statement about illegal entry. I don't quite understand why he did that ~ he's probably defended people on the other side on that issue.

The big issue here, once you get by the facts in the case, is that the decision is irrelevant.

Mitch Daniels may run for President. The Obots, Mitbots, Paulistas and some others oppose Daniels, so they've been dragging this case out to criticize him. Turns out Indiana's Supreme Court Justices are selected by a committee of lawyers. They recommend 3 to the Governor who gets to pick one.

Obviously Daniels should have shot the three recommended to him if this guy was the best of the litter, and imprisoned the commission members for incompetency and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Used to be Indiana's SC members were elected by the whole body of the people. We need to return to that. It's the sheerest nonsense that you can isolate the process for selecting judges from partisan interest ~ and that was just demonstrated here.

[Girlene]

The news media reports are not adequate ~ did you notice the reporter left out the most critical part ~ to wit: SHE CALLED 911 AND ASKED FOR HELP.

The article says Barnes was informed that 911 had been called. I read in other articles that it was the wife who had called.

The guy's lawyer is the one begging for some statement about illegal entry. I don't quite understand why he did that ~ he's probably defended people on the other side on that issue.

The Indiana Appeals Court agreed with the guy's lawyer and ordered a new trial. The jury should have been given instructions that he had the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry. Then it would have been up to the jury to decide what is reasonable.

It was the Indiana Supreme Court who then stepped in and reversed the Appeals Court decision and said:

“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

I don't think that should hold up under SCOTUS.

This is not about Daniels, for me. This is about the merits of the Indiana Supreme Courts ruling.

[muawiyah]

Any ruling that doesn't in some manner attach the law to the facts is more than meritless. It's the sort of thing NO ONE WILL EVER REFER TO in another case.

The guy wants a retrial on the three felony convictions. He'll lose again.

The Chief Justice is a former Army colonel who's been used to pushing people around for many years. It appears he is not making the transition to civilian life well. I see a VA hospital in his future.

[Girlene]

The guy deserves a retrial. He might lose again, but this ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court should be reviewed because of the bad precedent it sets for future situations.

I hope this gets plenty of attention when he comes up for reelection, or retention, or whatever it’s called, in 2012. It seems Justice David is not very well versed in the Constitution.

[muawiyah]

There are NO future situations like this ~ nothing happened until he attacked the cops. They didn't unlawfully enter ~ SHE ASKED THEM TO BE THERE.

The Chief Justice, though, should resign. This case shows that he, and two of the others (one of them in dissent) do not have that character we like in judges called Judicial Temperment.