Replies

It was her house, not his, at that moment, and she called the cops on him. They arrived.

Since they were married, not sure about that. In a domestic disturbance, it may be totally different.

You really need a cause of action to get yoursef' a new precedent.

Not sure I understand what you mean. The Indiana Appeals Court did not find "harmless error" and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed and decided not only that the conviction should hold but further decided that no one could resist a LE officer's unlawful entry to their home at any time. The Indiana Supreme Court set precedent, IMO, when they said 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."

Maybe we are talking past each other, but that is precedent, IMO.

Whether you are married or not you can change your residence, and when you do that there goes your expectation of privacy in somebody else's house where you are not welcome.

Just the way it is.

She called the cops ~ they arrived. Different jurisdictions deal with the issue of who can let in the cops in different ways.

If you'd read earlier threads you'd found some dissertations about that and you would be enlightened.

The issue to most folks is about why there's a madman on the court. It's not what he's saying, it's "where did that guy come from"?

I agree. Although much of the language in the decision should be treated as mere dictum in view of the facts of the case, the court said, "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." (emphasis added) It strikes me that inferior courts in the state would be hard pressed to ignore that characterization.