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

Examiner ^ | May 16th | Howard Portnoy

[muawiyah]

There's a commission that recommends three people to the Governor for appointment of one to a position on the court.

Before there was a commission this sort of partisan politics surrounding the Governor didn't exist ~ they used to elect the judges.

One of the more intriguing things about Daniels is he says he prefers this system to the elective system. I can only suppose he imagines it belches up better judges at lower cost.

Now he finds out what the cost is to the governor for appointing a dud. The best way to remove court cases from the Governor's political burden is to go back to electing them.

[Girlene]

I bet your concern is with the warrants, but it should be the right to be secure in your possessions

No need to bet, I'm concerned with this:

"Now this court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such rights."

ANY such rights, for ANYone. THAT is my concern.

[muawiyah]

The court had no need to deal with unlawful entry at all. Once that woman called in the cops, that was the end of any such claim.

She lived there. He'd moved out. The court seems to believe there are facts behind the claim ~ which can only mean they didn't read the briefs, they were inebriated, or they are incompetent.

Hey, Daniels, the commission system for picking judges flunked a test. Dump it.

[old3030]

I don’t know anything about the specifics of the Indiana statutes. Castle Doctrine does relate to unlawful entry, but it wouldn’t necessarily apply to law enforcement personnel, so I expect the courts could legitimately ignore that aspect.

[Girlene]

The court had no need to deal with unlawful entry at all.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that the trial court's refusal of Barnes tendered jury instructions was not harmless error. They also found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain disorderly conduct. They ordered a new trial on battery and resisting charges.

So it seems the Appeals Court DID think his right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry was relevant at least at the jury instruction point.

[muawiyah]

Then the Appeals Court clerks forgot what 911 calls are about and all the implications they have.

Again, I think we are dealing with appointed judges, and there's just no way you can guarantee suitible performance if you just hand the jobs out.

I suspect the perp imagines his ex wife won't testify against him (which would cut off the alimony, eh).

[Dead Corpse]

You know what’ll happen if I pull my gun ? I MAY take a few out, but they WILL immediately fire on me. If I speak sternly ? I’ll be ignored. Myself, my family, and even my cats may be tasered. We may be roughed up. Anything we do or say won’t work - because we can’t just announce “I didn’t do nothin’ wrong!” They won’t stop. I will go away in cuffs.

IOW... You are a slave and you bend to your Masters whip. We all are. Beaten into submission and giving lip service to the Enforcers not out of respect, but out of pure fear.

[DanMiller]

Here's the essence of it:

Dictum is a statement, comment, or observation in a judicial opinion that is unnecessary to the decision in the case. Unlike the holding (final determination) in a case, dictum is not binding on other courts deciding similar issues. However, sometimes dictum is so widely recognized by other courts that it is adopted into an opinion as though it were binding authority on a matter, and in such a case it is referred to as "considered dictum". Although dictum may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the binding force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the remark was not part of the legal basis for the decision.

Here, however, since the Indiana Supreme Court called its statement a holding, several times, it seems unlikely that an inferior court would disagree with that characterization.

As noted in my article at Pajamas Tatler,

Appellate courts generally limit their legal analyses to the facts of the case before them, for good reason. Failure to do so not only results in otherwise unnecessary future litigation, it also changes the law for no valid reason. The creation of new law is the proper function of legislatures, not courts. Here, however, what the court did went well beyond what even the Indiana Legislature could properly have done.

Quite properly, Justice Dickson stated in a dissent, “In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

Justice Rucker also dissented, despite his belief that the right to resist an unlawful police entry is passe.

. . . .

Under the court’s quite unnecessary holding that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers (emphasis added),” there would be no right to resist even a patently unlawful police intrusion into one’s home to force payment of a bribe, to steal one’s silverware or for other grossly illegal purposes. Nor would there even be a right to have a jury decide [if the resister were tried for the criminal offense of resisting] whether that’s what happened. Far fetched? Sure. Are there bad cops? Sure, again. This holding gives them great opportunities.

This case may not get to the Supreme Court of the United States; that requires time and money. It should get there because it purports to abrogate — in Indiana — prior Supreme Court rulings on the Fourth Amendment and because cases embodying bad law tend to breed and multiply. They seem to enjoy higher fertility rates than do cases embodying good law.

As I see it, the "holding" had little to do with the facts as recited by the court in the decision. It was unnecessary and inappropriate to utter that "holding." Having done so, and having characterized it as the holding of the case, it will probably be deemed the law in Indiana until reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court or, more likely, by legislation declaring that there is a right reasonably to resist unlawful police action.

[wtc911]

iow...Even though you state that an apparantly liberal judge appointment cancels Daniels for POTUS you don't have the balls to state that a decidely liberal jidge appointed by Palin does the same.

You set the standard, not I. You made this type of appointment a disqualifier, not I.

[antonico]

“iow...Even though you state that an apparantly liberal judge appointment cancels Daniels for POTUS you don’t have the balls to state that a decidely liberal jidge appointed by Palin does the same.
You set the standard, not I. You made this type of appointment a disqualifier, not I.”

The original misguided conflation was yours - you brought Palin up as a comparison in a discussion where she wasn’t mentioned. Since you brought her up, you bear the responsibility for why you did, not me. I don’t have the responsibility to answer your polemic about her because it isn’t a direct response about HIS action. Your attempt to conflate the two was really an attempt to smokescreen him. and smear her - all of which is far too easy to see through. Daniels is unfit, period. Ergo, it’s you who were gutless. Your smear at her was a lame attempt to defend him. Instead of you defending him on the merits - you included her as a sideshow. A typical tactic of The Left when their chosen ones are in trouble (and make no mistake - The Left WANTS to have Obama run against RINOS like Daniels, Romney or Pawlenty).

You still have not said whether or not Daniels is fit for the presidency. In English. He isn’t. let’s hear you defend HIM instead of create diversions. Point blank to you: are you a Daniels supporter, or not?