Posted on 05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT by markomalley
People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.
"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."
Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.
"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.
Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Thank goodness for the EMT’s. Being in a car accident, especially a serious one, is extremely frightening and disorienting. Been there, unfortunately. You really aren’t yourself after it happens. Confusion and disorientation are very common. Thank goodness you are okay.
“If it means deadly force then I might be inclined to agree that the use of deadly force would not be a proper response.”
If one or more armed men enter my house illegally, I have EVERY right (regardless of what that court says) to resist with whatever force I deem necessary. If that means one or more armed men end up as goo on my living room floor, so be it.
I agree. What’s to stop people from simply calling to report a disturbance at the homes of the justices?
Are there any rights a citizen will have concerning what they must allow the police to do once they are IN the home? Are they allowed to resist theft, gun confiscation, rape of one’s children? Or should we merely file a complaint later?
7.62X54R
This is why we have Guns, to “disagree” with the Government employees in black robes arbitrary disregard of the limits of their own power.
Sad to say, the Republican primary campaigns of two of the biggest losers in American politics is UNDER WAY!
He’s an Obot who supported Osama Bin Ladens “right” to kill American women and children ~ a nut case!
A man who said he didn't live there ended up attacking the officer inside her apartment.
That's the whole story.
Do you suppose people can request police assistance? Do you imagine cops have some sort of right to be free of physical assault while doing lawful business?
If you don't, you don't belong here!
They really don't want Mitch Daniels.
No idea what that means but their internal polling may well be inconsistent with Freeper general consensus.
Can you imagine what they'd be screaming if this involved a real unlawful entry.
They really don't want Mitch Daniels.
No idea what that means but their internal polling may well be inconsistent with Freeper general consensus.
Can you imagine what they'd be screaming if this involved a real unlawful entry.
Looks to me like a "home invasion" case ~ which is one of the reaons the legal cites look so contrived.
There was no unlawful entry EXCEPT possibly by the guy!
One Freeper noted that the Chief Justice is new to the job and this was the first decision he'd authored there.
Interestingly enough after his many years working in the military judicial system he blew it. It's exceedingly unprofessional for a judge to write a decision about hypothetical events that have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand.
There's much less here than meets the eye.
No one agrees with the ruling, but informed folks condemn the ruling since ALL OF THE POINTS OF LAW mentioned in the ruling have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this case.
We can get into the "cops as ninjas" stuff with something else. None of that happened here.
He's lucky he's getting off with three minor felony charges. He could be doing life!
it was sarcasm
When the Supreme Court rules on this abomination and crushes it beneath the heel of the Fourth Amendment
No, you cannot have a right taken away from you for any reason. They came from God, not man. You think it is bad now let them try to take the guns. It will make the Balkans look like a weenie roast.
Thanks for the details. What an obnoxious ruling, huh?
I thought I had that covered by the "it really really wants to". There is nothing magical about Congress. Under this theory, that killing people is OK as long as it is authorized in advance by Congress, there is no logical limit.
You really are tilting at a windmill here. Bin Laden directed an attack on this country that killed thousands. He admitted such publicly. He was not even a uniformed soldier to where those who captured him were bound by the Geneva Conventions. He could have legally been killed by the soldiers on the spot with or without Congressional or Presidential authorization.
And yes, Congress does matter as a means to check or authorize executive power. And there is a logical limit. Don't engage in lethal terrorism against this country and you won't get greased.
It's pretty pathetic that you are unwilling or unable to grasp the concept without trying to make more out of it than what is there. There are plenty of bona fide usurpations of power going on by the Obama Admin. Killing bin Laden is not one of them.
I like it, therefore it is legal.
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.