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.
Either that, or unseat this judge and his like-minded compadres.
Notre Dame speech and abortion
Gary ‘vary’ vote tallies
Elkhart and ‘all’ those new jobs
The confirmed death of 4A.
So, of course, the governor will be considered as a Republican candidate for POTUS in 2012.
How is it that this now makes perfect sense? Of course!
Thanks justiceseeker93.
I’m confused here. Are you guys saying that the initial conservative take was knee-jerk?
I’d rather keep it simple myself. If police mess up and are blocked, slowed, or even confronted with warning shots from illegal entry, I’m inclined to presume that the home owner should not be blamed for defending his home, his castle.
You might want to check muawiyah’s posts on this. There are points that blur the lines, although I’d prefer to err on the side of home defense aganinst possibly tyranny or scams.
That's what you are arguing. Take the facts of the case first. Then look at what happened to the cops.
Then pull a decision out of thin air that's not grounded to any facts in the case.
The other point made earlier (and in the decision though quite inartfully), was that let's say you have a cop on the scene and down the road it was found he might have been there unlawfully, was it OK to shoot him earlier?
The court restated some standard boilerplate which amounts to the idea that whether they are there legally or illegally, as long as you know they are really the police you are not allowed to just kill them.
The court didn't address the part about "if they are not really the police" because that was even further divorced from the facts of the case.
So far the decision looks like one of those abominations cooked up when you have someone trained in Shariah law doing the briefing on the case.
Hey, did you know the Chief Justice spent something like 8 years in charge of defense for the AlQaida crowd at GITMO? What ya' wanna' bet this fruitcake studied Shariah law ~ his only excuse for this has to be that he's senile or demented. Else, maybe we should take a real good look and see if he's GONE OVER (which I think he has).
only if the person being raped had jumped on the government official
“... is a little frightening. That’s what you are arguing.”
Now look, you don’t have to villify an inclination as a ‘decision’. I’m not trying to pick a fight, OK? I don’t read PDF, and your remarks so far are confusing. I respect the point that you are counter-point. That’s what I search for sometimes, silly.
“let’s say you have a cop on the scene and down the road it was found he might have been there unlawfully, was it OK to shoot him earlier?”
We are mainly concerned about jack booted thugs of the future, hypotheticals down the road. And recent news has been alarming, such as seniors being tazed because they sit up in bed in a “threatening” manner. Maybe technology will help cool things down in the future, but so far what I’m learning is doing the opposite.
“The court restated some standard boilerplate which amounts to the idea that whether they are there legally or illegally, as long as you know they are really the police you are not allowed to just kill them.”
Such boilerplate concerns me. I don’t respect our power hungry government one bit. For example, Kelo. Any home that’s Kelo’d should be allowed to defend itself with any possible weapon imaginable. I’m not saying we should, because the law is no longer constitutional, and we must obey our infernal, stinking, hideous “legal” system — no argument from me that we must submit before our current tyranny. But we need to quit respecting tyranny.
OK ... back to this subject ...
“Hey, did you know the Chief Justice spent something like 8 years in charge of defense for the AlQaida crowd at GITMO? What ya’ wanna’ bet this fruitcake studied Shariah law ~ his only excuse for this has to be that he’s senile or demented.”
You talking about the honorable Chief Justice, John Roberts? I’d rather have him than one of Obama’s “justices”.
I think the judges will never say it's just OK to shoot a cop for just standing there. Like that'd put the doughnut shops out of business wouldn't it.
Please help me understand since you read the PDF — did any police suffer any serious injury?
“judges will never say it’s just OK to shoot a cop for just standing there.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are correct. But please bear in mind, there are a lot of sleazy sheriffs. Over in Bedford, Virginia, there was a sheriff neck deep in drug dealing. He got away with it for over a decade, and it took the FBI to end his regime.
Bump.
“Hey, did you know the Chief Justice spent something like 8 years in charge of defense for the AlQaida crowd at GITMO?”
I scanned sourcing mentioned in wikipedia that referred to something like that. I’m definitely no fan of Shraia law.
Is there any html page that details specifics of this case?
Judge Steven David [wikipedia alert]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_David_(Judge)
[NOTE QUOTABLE but raw info for more research ...]
References^
“New Ind. Supreme Court justice swearing-in Oct. 18”. Chicago Tribune. 2010-10-02. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-supremecourt-newj,0,1478863.story. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “A decorated Army officer who once served as chief defense counsel for Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sworn in as a justice on the Indiana Supreme Court on Oct. 18 at the Statehouse in Indianapolis.” mirror
^ “Daniels: Steven David to interpret rather than invent our laws”. The Journal Gazette. 2010-09-17. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100917/BLOGS01/100919568/1044/LOCAL08. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Governor Mitch Daniels today announced he has selected Boone County Circuit Court Judge Steven H. David as the next member of the Indiana Supreme Court. David will replace Justice Theodore R. Boehm, who will retire from the court on September 30.”
^ “History unfolds”. The Wire (Guantanamo). 2008-06-06. p. 12. http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/WirePDF/v9/Issue15v9.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-10. [dead link]
^ How the trials will work. 144. U.S. news & world report, Volume 144, Issues 1-6. 2. p. 83. http://books.google.ca/books?id=pespAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Steven+David%22+Guantanamo&dq=%22Steven+David%22+Guantanamo&hl=en&ei=JeWnTIKwHMT9nAf5pNiqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Steven David, head of the military defense for Guantanamo, has said he does not have enough lawyers or resources.”
^ William Glaberson (2008-02-13). “Doubts as six face death over September 11”. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/doubts-as-six-face-death-over-september-11/2008/02/12/1202760302022.html. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Colonel Steven David, the chief military defence lawyer for the Guantanamo cases, said he did not have six lawyers available to take the cases, which the Pentagon described as a milestone in the “war on terror”.” mirror
^ William Glaberson (2008-04-10). “New roadblocks delay tribunals at Guantánamo”. International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=11844641. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
^ “Capital cases in Kangaroo courts”. Boston Globe. 2008-02-25. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/25/capital_cases_in_kangaroo_courts/?page=full. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
^ “Guantanamo: justice mocked — The Pentagon must see sense and accept the verdict of its own tribunal at Guantanamo”. The Times. 2008-08. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4488826.ece. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Nor does it ensure that the other 19 detainees due to be prosecuted will have their rights protected. As Colonel Steven David, Hamdan’s defence counsel, said afterwards, the trial was marked by the acceptance of hearsay evidence and secret testimony, restrictions on media coverage and allegations of abusive interrogations. It was time, he said, to scrap this “mess”.”
URG ... noTTTTTT quotable. NOT. Not “note quotable.”
NOTE QUOTABLE but raw info for more research ...]
when will the cops put the courts out of business.
Looks like your brave stand was solid, FRiend, and we both agree that the judge is a wacko to word his ruling the way he did, right?
Someone finally laid out the facts. Is this your take?
Gondring’s summary:
- - -
[quote]
It’s all laid out in the opinion. As I recall...
His wife called 911 because he was throwing stuff around. He hadn’t actually hit her.
When the police officer arrived, he said he was leaving (she was throwing him out) and that the officer wasn’t needed. But when the wife went back inside, the husband went to the doorway and blocked the officer from entering while the wife was telling him to let the officer in.
There was a scuffle and the guy tried to get jury instructions entered about blocking illegal entry. These were denied and the guy appealed. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the case didn’t really have to go into the illegal entry arena because it was conceded as likely legal entry even in dissenting opinion.
[unquote]
Well darned!
Being a resident of an apartment/house has got to have a start and stop. For him it stopped!
She had a right to call the cops and lo and behold she called the cops. The reason for a police presence is SHE CALLED THE COPS to come on over.
To write this case Mr. Sharia Law, the Chief Justice ignored her participation. That's pretty much it.
Only thing remaining is to REMOVE the Judge and send him to GITMO. We know where he stands. Guy went over.
Well darned!
Being a resident of an apartment/house has got to have a start and stop. For him it stopped!
She had a right to call the cops and lo and behold she called the cops. The reason for a police presence is SHE CALLED THE COPS to come on over.
To write this case Mr. Sharia Law, the Chief Justice ignored her participation. That's pretty much it.
Only thing remaining is to REMOVE the Judge and send him to GITMO. We know where he stands. Guy went over.
“To write this case Mr. Sharia Law, the Chief Justice ignored her participation. That’s pretty much it.”
Ah! Now I see what you are getting at.
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.