We wish it grew there
Posted on 05/16/2011 8:46:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:
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.
The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.
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. [emphasis mine]
Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.
Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Bzzzzzt.
Wrong – in Indiana
“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.
One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.
How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”
The given reason by the Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that? For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?
Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.
Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity? Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.
And check out this “analysis”:
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.”
So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?
One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.
The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:
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.”
I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.
How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances? What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand? It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?
Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:
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.
Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?
Amazing.
And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?
This is why.
RE: The court’s decision is not about whether the entry is legal or not, but about how the illegal entry can be legally resisted.
OK, I’ll bite, I am a non-vilent person... how do I LEGALLY resist an insistent and unlawful police entry?
My first instinct would be to say NO THANK YOU and SHUT THE DOOR on his face.
If he leaves, fine with me. But here’s the next question...
What if he bangs on the door and then forces himself in? What next?
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
Go here to download the PDF of the decision.
“The other part is that the court is giving up it’s own authority. Why would you tell the cops that they don’t have to come to you any more to be able to enter someone’s home?”
That’s right out of the Patriot Act. On the federal level the FBI writes its own warrants, ostensibly if it’s “terrorist” related, then goes back and gets permission retroactively.
It’s a short step to doing it for everything.
It’s for our own good, you know. (sarc)
Unbelievable! Rush is talking about this NOW!
http://v4.player.abacast.com/player/player.php?pid=1187
No, that’d just complicate the search with a bunch of unnecessary paperwork.
Besides, a warrant can always be obtained AFTER the search. I mean, after all, how are they supposed to know what things to list put on the warrant if they haven’t been able to look for them FIRST?
Frankly, I think it’s about time the whole ‘Catch 22’ situation that law enforcement has been in for the last 220+ years was cleared up.
Things will be SO much simpler now...
/s ——————————————> [for the unusually dense]
Since when does a state (or a judge within a state) have the right to circumvent the U. S. Constitution? If and when the SCOTUS get around to this one it will hopefully get tossed. If not, sounds like some police are going to get themselves shot at in the Hoosier State.
Of the three justices voting for this insane decision, two - including the decision’s author - were appointed by Republican governors. There truly is no difference left between the GOP and the Dummies. “More power! More power! More power!” That’s the mantra of anyone in government.
If you have no "legal" way to resist on the front end, then "illegal" is the only alternative.
I'm glad my home state, Missouri, has "Castle Doctrine" laws on the books; illegal entry is illegal entry no matter who is involved.
It looks like the press got the word out to the people of the state of Indiana, now it’s time for the people of that state deal with it.
Inaction of the greatest magnitude is acceptance!
You don’t get to sit on the sidleines, reading articles in the paper, and correct the judicial blunder. If they get away with this flagrant disdain of the Law of the land! Time to mobilize en mass! Get those judges off the bench!
It’s your state, not the judges.
America is lost to the totalitarians.
Inevitably, if Indiana citizens have no recourse/redress against the violation of their rights, the end result is citizens taking matters into their own hands after the fact.
Least that is where I see this going.
As a former Law Enforcement Officer and Correctional Officer my family/ house has standard rules of operation.
NO ONE up to and including the FBI enters the house without a warrant. Anyone armed entering the house without a warrant is a home invasion and will be repealed with whatever force is nescessary.
No you can not come in a ask me questions. We can come back with a warrant. Fine, see you then.
If you are taken into police custody you never speak until you have a lawyer present. PERIOD...........
Long past time for the PEOPLE to take matters into their own hands.
RUSH BUMP
Police in Indiana are celebrating their right to enter any home they wish in order to shoot the owner’s dog.
These tyrants in black need to have their homes entered for no reason at all.
However, if someone wants to phone in a reason that leads to an entry, it wouldn’t spoil my day.
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.