Replies

Before we all overact on this....consider the fact in this one particular case that the wife who has some authority in telling the cop he has permission to enter....she can do so.

We may misinterpret the case and try to compare it to SWAT issues in America, but those are radically different in terms of legal aspects.

Critics of the decision say the court – in a 3-2 ruling – tossed out hundreds of years of common law when it could have focused more narrowly, noting police in the case had probable cause to investigate a domestic abuse allegation and the wife inferred her permission for them to enter the home.

I also think this would fall under the exigent circumstances exception to the fourth amendment. The court is making up law where it doesn't need to.

Meanwhile, a Fourth Amendment expert at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington said the decision was sound.

“The Supreme Court’s decision means that we can’t allow people to take the law into their own hands,” professor Craig Bradley said. “The law should not allow people to assault police whenever they claim that they ‘thought’ the entry was illegal.”

He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”

I beg to differ. The police where I live are better educated than to barge into a home without permission, wife’s opinion notwithstanding. In fact, my wife would stand at my side and we would both be armed. Maybe this is OK in Indiana but NOT HERE. SCOTUS needs to rule on this issue.

“Before we all overact on this...”

I think it was the Court who over-reacted. They could merely have found there were exigent circumstances that gave the cops the right to enter, but they didn’t do that.

In the decision the Court actually, plainly says that the cops can enter a persons home for “any” reason or “no” reason.

Do these dopes think Americans are going to stand for that? Because we’re not.

Before we all overact on this....consider the fact in this one particular case that the wife who has some authority in telling the cop he has permission to enter....she can do so.

We may misinterpret the case and try to compare it to SWAT issues in America, but those are radically different in terms of legal aspects.

Excuse me pepsionice but you are full of sh**. The ruling was that NO ONE has the right to resist an unlawful entry by police and they also said that the 4th amendment is obsolete because we can now sue the cops after the fact.

This case wasn't about if the wife gave permission or not, if that was true the ruling would have read something like, "we find the police had probable cause and also permission of one of the owners of the property to enter". That is not how the ruling went.

The justices totally ignored the fact that some house breakers wear cops suits and yell police when they break down the door in order to forestall any resistance. If cops enter unlawfully they are no better than any other person who is breaking and entering. This ruling is totally unconstitutional and is based on the idea of a "living constitution" which is open to interpretation which is a false assumption.

There is no overreaction on this issue, the court did not limit it’s ruling to the specific case, it used the case to further erode 4th amendment rights. It should tell you something when even the government’s own attorney says the court went too far.

The central issue here is that the ruling addressed an issue not before the court...and got it wrong. The police had the right to enter in this particular case, but not for the reasons stated in the decision. The court did not need to consider the Fourth Amendment issue, since the wife had given permission.