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.
This needs to be repeated on every available online forum and in every newsrag’s letters column, because it will not be noted by the liberal media outside of the local market. Hannity, O’Reilly and all other talk hosts as well should be pressed to address the issue.
yeah tell that to the guy in Pima County, AZ
Certainly traditional "hot pursuit" doctrines would allow the cops to take in the miscreants ~ by retreating into their apartment they didn't really resolve their complaint WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
The geeks on the Indiana Supreme Court went too far in their ruling, but I bet the nonsense part showed up back in an appeal.
The couple are probably still a nuisance to their neighbors, but the Court has let everyone ~ the couple and the cops ~ off the hook and left unresolved the grievance of the neighbors.
Next time those people take off after each other outside somebody else's front door they might well get shot.
It is the ruling of Indiana the eventually will (hopefully) mean nothing. Until then the good people of Indiana have no right to bar entry or resist a LEO entering their home for any reason, or for no reason at all.
The Judicial system has the same illiteracy rate as Detroit’s school district.
And if he can't make bail? Can't afford a liar...I mean lawyer...
Pretty sure the line was deliverd TO ‘William Wallace’ by the ‘Irishman’:
“The Lord says He can get me out of this mess, but He’s pretty sure you’re fooked.”
Indiana’s Supreme Court is usually far more level-headed. I am stunned by these decisions this week. There must be more to it than is being reported. I’ll have to find the decisions and read them for myself. I really do no believe that they would toss out the 4th Amendment.
Did you read my scenario (criminals can yell "police" just as easily as police can)? Did you know that this is actually happening already?
Ridiculous.
The anti-constitutional judges - acting outside of their responsibility and illegaly themselves - have just defined police as EXACTLY the same as criminals.
If a criminal breaks into your home - you are entitled to seek redress in court as well.
The judges basically have NO CONCEPT what the Constitution is about - LIMITING the powers of the government. The judges see no limit - therefore - what is the point?
sfl
I did not owe it but it cost me $100.00 in bail and the neighborhood could not stop talking about my "arrest".
I, after 30 minutes of discussion, left with the sherriff but I never allowed them in or stepped over the door stoop before conceding.
I have since moved to New mexico and I can tell you, I'l make a last stand before I go through that crap again.
Constables make about 250 dollars per warrant served, it is not police work, it is a cash cow and the state of indiana, is horrible about it.
My bill ( which I did not owe) was $112.00 my bail was $100.00 and i never got that back so the state won.
Thus the judge says that "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" is at complete odds to the original wording and meaning. He ruled on the side of modern perversion of process and law that has be built using feckless chains of stare decisis.
The kind of law modern lawyers take as absolute gospel. Which is strange, since it is absent of gospel, absoluteness, or even logic beyond the logic of fearful power.
BTW, missed something on first read ~ the guy's wife was KICKING HIM OUT. She placed a 9/11 call on him. He told the cop there was no further problem because, as he picked up the bag of stuff his wife had just tossed at him out in the parking area, he had his stuff and was leaving.
That's the point when the guy went back into the apartment. His wife (they were breaking up so she's still his wife) told him to give it up ~ don't try to stop the officer(s).
She let them in.
This is one of those multi-party tenancy things where everybody walking around has a right to enter or authorize entry.
The Court didn't say, but most likely they were focused on the "reasonableness" of an officer entering a dwelling when, in fact, he'd been invited in by one of the residents.
That would be the only factor involving the question of "reasonableness". Future decisions will focus on that point even though the court didn't dwell on the matter ~ they will undoubtedly IGNORE THE REST.
Not likely Indiana cops are going to just bust in your house without a warrant, but Fur Shur if somebody let's one of them in, don't touch.
Now, another point, DON'T LET A COP IN until he shows his warrant.
Finally! A gaggle of judges that makes the 9th Circuit look good.
so, the cop could want to rape your wife and daughters... rob your safe... kick your dog... and there is nothing you can do about it.
seriously... wtf is wrong with these people?!
Does Indiana has a Castle Doctrine Law?
He was there "reasonably"~ so he didn't need a warrant. The focus of the court was primarily on whether or not the perp could be charged with an assault on the officer.
My conclusion is that the justices didn't read the final write up at all ~ this is a concoction by a power mad law clerk who's trying to show off to his buddies at the Turkish baths or something.
It's like the conclusions fit some other case ~ maybe ~ but certainly not this one.
So where are the real liberals now. They should be screaming bloody murder over this ruling.
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.