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.
This judge is a Mitch Daniels appointee.
Daniels’ Presidential Campaign just ended before it got started.
What is the political affiliation of these 5 judges - especially the 3 judges who voted for this monster ruling?
So, you're a former LEO and you didn't pick up on the fact that the case involved a KIDNAPPING?
Hmm.
Ever shoot a dog or two?
Did the dogs live there?
Tell me, which is more important ~ the kidnapping, the guy attacked an officer (doing nothing but standing there), the 911 call the lady made, or the need to discuss points of law that don't apply to the case.
That's four choices ~ (no peeking at other answers either). Back in a couple of minutes.
Indiana also has the Castle Doctrine. What you have here is an event that didn’t happen.
BTTT
“reasonable search” ~ read it all some day.
RE: This judge is a Mitch Daniels appointee.
Daniels’ Presidential Campaign just ended before it got started.
He can redeem himself by consulting with his Atty. General to challenge this ruling in the Federal courts.
There's amovement in the legislature to rescind the commission systems but until then that's all the choice the Governor has. Before this the judges were all elected ~ as God Created it.
In California, Supreme Court judges come up for "confirmation" by citizen vote perodically. In one famous period the Chief Justice and two others were thrown out on their butts quite spectacularly in one single election.
It is possible, and supremely effective in sending a message.
Thank you for that contribution.
Funny how one little detail changes everything.
I can further assume that if a bank calls the cops during a holdup, the responding swat team Does not need to have a warrant.
Funny how that works.
I fell for it again.
Assuming that the MSM will give you all the crucial facts up front.
The majority are 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The minority are 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Believe me it does. ANYBODY who simply barges into your home without identifying themselves properly and/or producing some sort of a warrant is basically fair game.
Indiana has an "independent board" which gives a governor 3 choices for judicial appointments. He picks one.
Daniels appointed this guy less than a year ago.
If retained, he serves the rest of the 10 year appointment.
There’s only one problem with their review on how one may resist: when the “police” are criminals who bought police uniforms.
Ignoring the fact that a policeman acting illegally is a criminal, how can we know that the guy at the door is really a cop?
That kind of thinking could be applied to rape by a government official. Sit back, take it, and sue later.
Fair enough. I’m not questioning whether such action is illegal.
I’m questioning whether you are legally covered if you resist intrusion with force or even lethal force.
If you know the guy is a cop (or you think he is, he could of course be a phony) and he is forcing his way in, are you legally covered if you blow him away?
Perhaps you should be, but I suspect in most states you’d get a trip upriver for a long stay.
This is so outrageous that the people of Indiana should ask their state legislature to bring impeachment proceedings against the three judges who made and supported this ruling. They have violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
It would also be advisable for Mitch Daniels to speak out about this decision, whether or not he decides to declare himself a candidate for the presidency.
"The problem with with the Consitution is not any structural problem. The problem with the Constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously."
- Judge Napolitano
You really have to read the decisions in these cases.
This is sickening.
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.