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.
the world system people have taken over our republic.
At least 99% of this crap would vanish the day after the “War on Drugs(TM)” was ended. Whatever anybody thinks they’re getting out of the war on drugs is not worth the price we pay for it.
I've got to say that I don't think this ruling would come out of MD. The COA pretty much hates the police and the CSA would have Charlie Moylan deal with this since he gets all the law enforcement/4th and 5th Amendment cases.
He's sharp as a whip and truly understands police/state power vs the individual and is not afraid to tell the police when they are wrong.
Regards.
I think that most of you are purposefully mis-interpreting this case and the ruling.
I believe that the ruling was that the homeowner had no right to assault the police officer, who was performing his duty. You can’t just run in the house and shut the door when a police officer shows up to investigate a complaint. Now, if you are already inside when the officer arrives, it may be a different story. The courts are not just going to rule it mutual combat when an officer is trying to investigate a complaint.
I think that we are missing a lot of the details, here.
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
“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 right.”
How has either of those sentences been misinterpreted?
I just cannot imagine that those are the exact words of the court ruling.
No right to “reasonably resist” throws up questions in my mind. Reasonably resist is not what happened in this case. It seems to have nothing to do with this particular case.
At the very heart of nearly all that is wrong, or going wrong in our country, is our obeisance to the USSC. The Supreme Court has no right shaping the laws of this country. We bow and scrape to their every decision, even letting them tell us what “IZ” is. It empowers the legislative class, and the executive class too. They hold the sword over our heads with the threat of “liberal judges” or “fascist judges”, depending on your POV. In truth, the USSC should have very little effect on the laws of this country, other than to make sure they fit within the structures of the Constitution, and to balance the other branches of government. NOT to overrule control them all. Rather than being a co-equal branch, they are the top of the food chain.
There is no “modern” 4th ammendment. There is always the Bill of Rights. They can word it otherwise, but it will always be there. Stand up People.
Who were the judges that ruled in favor of this violation?
You see, we are very close to a place that people in the USSR, or many other tyrannical societies have lived in. The police can do what they will, as long as it is not on videotape. When caught they are put on paid leave, given raises, or transferred to another district.
You think like me, I posted something similar in #189. We truly are in a most dangerous time in our history.
The very existence within the courts of ruling by precedent, abrogates the restrictions on govt by the Constitution. THAT is the seed by which our Republic fell.
Certainly the courts of today put estranged chains of precedent ahead of fidelity both written law and natural law. By “estranged” I mean that the chains of precedence become over time more and more distant from the law, written and natural.
Those sentences come directly from the pdf of the court ruling. Look for yourself.
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
“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 right.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Now that you have looked at the actual court ruling, how can you argue that either of those sentences been misinterpreted?
No, and I think that it is time to look into the background of the judge that would write such a thing. Who appointed the judges, where they went to law school, etc.
Your scenario is not far from being plausible. I see if the victim complains then they would even be further harassed. For example, a “new” drug charge. Easy enough to do. Pull one over, plant the drugs and do an arrest. In no shape, form or manner does this ruling do anything but hinder/hurt real law enforcement officers. The separation between civilians and the police will even widen. Maybe to levels never seen before. We truly are living in dangerous and frightening times.
“Where the hell is Mitch Daniels?”
Mitch Daniels appointed this sh*&t for brains judge recently!
Google: Mitch Daniels & Steve David
Police state alert!
Constitutional crisis grows...
IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, J., concur.
Dickson, J. dissents with a separate opinion.
Rucker, J. dissents with a separate opinion in which Dickson, J. concurs.
Their biographies can be read here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios/shepard.html
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.