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.
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.