Posted on 05/15/2011 8:17:50 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Outside the Beltway
No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry: Indiana Supremes
James Joyner May 14, 2011
For as long as the notion of individual rights has existed, one of them has been the notion that one’s home is sacrosanct. As of Thursday, that’s no longer true in Indiana.
AP (“Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry“):
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....
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 outsidethebeltway.com ...
This will hit the skyline with the other wanna be nominees so I think this should well tank his aspirations for the top job...I wouldn’t vote for him for the nomination...
I hope Michele Bachmann gets into the fight.
Thugs who suddenly realize that Nobody Loves Them, will start being more terrified than ever that someone is out there planning...
They will start tasing 5-year-olds for "resisting arrest."
Cops will start shooting family pets.
Illegally searching and seizing property and cash, claiming it's drug related.
Little old ladies will get beaten up and shot "resisting legal commands" at traffic stops for imaginary violations.
Video tapes that show the badged gangsters' crimes will get "lost."
Thugs will try to avoid contact with the public by using cameras to spot "law breakers," and issue "legal" fines by computer, through the mail, and with image recognition tech, they can do it without any human intervention.
They will start arresting people for "disrespect of authority" or "failure to confess" or "Silent contempt."
Crazed power drunk Secret State Police always over-react to civilian challenges to authority.
Oh, wait...
Never Mind...
What part of “unlawful police entry” is it the police don’t understand?
I’m a little confused by the use of the word “illegal”. It seems like they should have used warrantless? If the homeowner has no right to stop them, then it would appear that what they are doing is within the law and not illegal (I’m not commenting on whether or not it should be, only on the use of language).
I’m only saying that reading this, it seems confusing. If the police can do something and it’s sanctioned by the courts, isn’t it by definition “legal”? It can be wrong, and it can be unConstitutional at the same time, I think. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer (thank goodness!)
It is long past time for the American people to reclaim their nation an liberty. And it will have to be the PEOPLE who do it. Spineless Republicans are useless. And the overwhelming majority are spineless.
At which point you will probably by null and void. :(
I haven’t paid much attention to Daniels (he seems awfully lackluster to me, the small amount I’ve seen of him), but it’s interesting to me (a little off topic, sorry!) that Herman Cain, who seems excellent, gets ignored when I see lists of Republican potential candidates right now. I’m not sure why. I think he could be formidable against Obama, and he seems like the real deal.
THERE IS NEVER A BACKLASH!
Yep. Dead men tell no tales.
They also don’t sue...
In all fairness to police abuse, here is the irresponsible opposing viewpoint. It will not brighten your day, but is worthy to bookmark whenever you feel too optimistic.
Are you suggesting this?
Uhhhhhhh.....a question from the back of the room?
Couldn't that same argument be used to deny homeowners the right to defend their home against non-police entrances, i.e., burglars, rapists, murderers, etc.?
The courts handle those sorts of human interactions all the time, don't they?
Pacific Street Film Projects - Foreclosure Diaries
Here's a link to the actual Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
You are correct, tells me he supports the idiocy.
Head shots and groin shots.
I have a brother in law who died as a result of a SWAT team. Officially it was suicide, but the family wasn’t ever sure. Whatever, it made little sense, since he had no one with him, so they could easily have sat and waited him out instead of moving in on him. But, I guess he won’t be telling any tales. So, yeah, you’re right.
The title of this article is so misleading, this was not a case of illegal entry by the police. It was legal and called for f one takes the time to read what actually happened.
>>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.... <<
I actually agree with this. However, they have to prove you KNEW they were police, if you get my drift...
People confuse this with the police’s right to enter without a warrant. They don’t have that right, but that is not what this is about.
This is about what you have the right to do if they do it. You have the right to take them to court. Yeah, I know that’s laughable, but still, it’s the law.
However, I’ve heard of several cases where they did not properly identify themselves. That’s a different subject and is not the least bit related to this court’s decision.
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.