Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:22 AM PDT by jaydubya2
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "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."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
"We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."
Amazing!
Robert D. Rucker was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Governor Frank O'Bannon (D) in 1999.
Brent E. Dickson was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court in January, 1986, by Governor Robert D. Orr (R)
Majority:
Randall T. Shepard of Evansville was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Governor Robert D. Orr (R)
Frank Sullivan, Jr., was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court effective November 1, 1993, by Governor Evan Bayh. (D)
Steven H. David was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels in 2010. (R)
Thanks. I was stunned that this came from Indiana. Some of my husband’s family is from there. I wouldn’t be surprised if this came from Mass or MD. That would make more sense since the elimination of freedoms are very common in those states. However, INDIANA? I am hoping this will be challenged legally and overturned. If not, I would suspect many more states trying this. IMHO
I've been thinking about all this. State level. Federal level.
Well THAT just reset the rules of engagement, didn’t it? Draw your own conclusions. Do what must be done.
This sets a precedent; it is a tool to be used elsewhere and in a different manner. None of it to our advantage.
As the economy slips away so does our rights,there always seems to be more and more fear that as the money dries up for enforcement-the cure is to make that enforcement as easy to affect as possible.
This country goes on,just remember that laws can change,that the wrong steps can be redressed.That we can keep moving this land into a right direction.
Ecclesiastes discusses this in great detail.
Ecclesiastes 1:14
here ya go...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1803496
Executive Power and the Law of Nations in the Washington Administration
Robert Reinstein
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
1 April 2011
thx, saved for more indepth reading when my brain & body is not so fried fronm having the grandchildren for 2 days
“The ruling is idiotic. I don’t know whether this can be challenged, but I believe it can be since the issue here is 4th Amendment.”
I can only assume this is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is a seriously bad idea.
Jonah Goldberg had a little post one day (I don’t remember what prompted it) remarking that he was surprised to see that a big divide on the Right was between those who were “pro-cop” and those who were “anti-cop”. That’s just shorthand and those are my words not his.
Of course, as a dweller on these boards I was surprised he was surprised.
I’m in the middle on this stuff, but I’m coming to think we’ve got to start watching and being wary of the cops even more lately. I’m concerned about what may happen in some situations involving unions and just in general I’m concerned that cops are starting to be used to restrict our liberty.
This decision in Indiana fits right in there. It needs to be appealed and it needs to be reversed.
I knew the 4th Amendment was on life support in this country, but hell, I didn’t know Indiana decided to fire a Gatling gun for 20 minutes into its now bullet ridden body.
Just wow.
Stuff like this is why I am no longer comfortable flying the flag. It means little.
Including me. This decision may end up causing more shootings of LEO.
Why not just force the homeowner to give beds, shelter and food to the police and military?
Seriously, how far of a step is that from this?
Indiana Supreme Court
Division of Supreme Court Administration
State House, Room 315
200 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Hours: 8:30am-4:30pm
Phone: (317) 232-2540
Fax: (317) 232-8372
3 traitors to the U.S. Constitution listed below, who unbeknownst to them (give it time) just nullified there own Constitutional rights upon the first causality of their decree:
1) Randall Terry Shepard
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios/shepard.html
2) Frank Sullivan Jr.
(Frank E. Sullivan) married to Cheryl Gibson Sullivan
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios/sullivan.html
3) Steven Howard David, married to Catheryne Elaine Pully
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios/david.html
Investigators & patriots, feel free to post their home addresses and phone numbers.
Unless the good, honest police officers rebel, and publicly refuse this obvious violation of the 4th Amendment, we will head down the path to our Police State in very short order.
Unfortunately, I don't envision the law enforcement community doing anything, except taking advantage of this 3-2 "decision" by a group in black robes who should be thrown into prison themselves for treason against the Constitution of the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.