[DanMiller]

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.

[Girlene]

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.

Okay, in laymen's terms, what does this mean? Are you indicating that a lower (inferior) court would "likely" consider this the law of Indiana that "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers" in any situation? IOW, this may be "precedent" for no resistance allowed to unlawful entry by LE (at that instance)?