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 ...
A man’s home is The State’s castle.
YOu can bet they would be singing a different tune.
Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is not qualified to run for President of the United States but probably will anyway....if his wife lets him.
And if you try to defend it thinking it belongs to you, you will be shot at least 70 times.
I contend that police who enter homes without any right increase the risk of violent confrontation.
...and no paramedic will be allowed anywhere near you until "the area is secure".
Just more proof that the Democrat Party is out to destroy the U.S. Constitution by re-interpreting what the Founders wrote and meant. They have no problem with this as they see the government as the solution and the be-all, end-all of everything. They worship at the altar of big government, the fountainhaed of all (their) power. It is their god.
Agents of the State are incapable of error, the sooner you learn and internalize this fact, the better.
I was going to blame the usual suspects (i.e., Democrat-appointed judges), but it appears that the hero to many here, a Mr. Mitch Daniels, put the key judge on the court that ruled this way.
Given this and about 20 other items, it looks like Mr. Daniels is going to take the McCain Path to the Republican nomination (i.e., media darling, with Medved support).
Ah, ‘Modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence’. Apparently, the Fourth Amendment means exactly the opposite of what it says.
Indiana is a good place not to live and I’ve had that figured before this one came up. Two other data points would include the David Camm case and the question of a feminist judge putting Mike Tyson in prison for “raping” a girl who’d walked into his hotel room of her own volition at 2 AM in the morning. The Camm case is a total abomination and one which Freepers shold be aware of. It rivals the Duke Lax case.
“UPDATE 2: See some interesting discussion in the comments below. To clarify my position on what the law should be here: Police officers entering one’s home without a warrant should be regarded exactly as any other intruder under similar circumstances. So, in the circumstances that led to this case, the homeowner was justified in treating the officer precisely as he would a pushy salesman attempting to enter his home after being denied permission. That means mild physical force, certainly to include pushing, but obviously not lethal force.
Regardless of law, however, there is such a thing as prudence. An assailant, whether he’s a police officer or a stranger, brandishing a weapon should obviously be treated differently than someone presumed not to be armed. And, as a practical matter, police officers have a long history of issuing trumped up charges, lying about what happened, and getting other officers to lie in corroboration. Resisting the police, regardless of whether one is fully in the right, is not likely to end well.”
James Joyner
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry/
I believe this one will be headed for SCOTUS.
In principle, the judges aren’t taking into careful consideration of the trust that individuals have in the state not to abuse its power.
If the citizenry cannot trust the state to not abuse its power, they cannot trust the state, period. This is only going to contribute to anarchy.
Visit the justices office or home, super-glue a gun in their hand, and dial up a 911 call referncing a baracaded depressed white male who refuses to let anyone thru the door. That aughta do it.
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.