You are right, but in what manner, what venue?
If LEOs demand entry, they obviously think they have a legal right to do so. If homeowner refuses entry, he obviously thinks they have no right of entry.
So the question becomes, what is the proper venue to decide this? A shootout or fistfight at 3:00 AM, or in court with suit for damages, exclusion, etc.
Actually, this decision is a homeowners friend, because in such a 3:00 AM altercation, the cops are not going to lose.
You’ve changed the scenario to a confrontation at the front door, with the homeowner awake and conversing/arguing with the police,
vs the situation where they bust down the door unannounced.
Also, should the homeowner be able to record/video the LEOs in your scenario?
>>Of course there’s a right to resist ‘unlawful police entry’
>
>You are right, but in what manner, what venue?
>If LEOs demand entry, they obviously think they have a legal right to do so. If homeowner refuses entry, he obviously thinks they have no right of entry.
This is EXACTLY why warrants (or lack thereof) are a big deal; warrants are the official proof that there *IS* a legal right for the officer to enter the property.
Sadly many people, even here, think that police should be allowed to enter wherever they want, whenever they want, and however they want; but such is NOT what the Constitution prescribes: the Constitution prescribes warrants which are issued with a supporting oath/affirmation and SPECIFIC information relating to that entry.