Posted on 06/10/2011 8:01:14 AM PDT by Abathar
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court may reconsider its ruling that eliminates the right of homeowners to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
The attorney for Richard Barnes, whose criminal case in Vanderburgh County led to the court ruling last month, filed a formal petition for a rehearing Thursday.
Barnes' attorney argues the ruling violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," part of the petition read.
The court issued its controversial 3-2 ruling May 12, declaring that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who are entering their home without a legal basis to do so.
The ruling said homeowners could instead seek legal remedies through court proceedings after the fact.
The decision sparked large public outcry, including from state officials. Seventy-one Indiana lawmakers filed a joint brief with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the court to reconsider its opinion.
Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
A real President would have had the involved justices arrested and incarcerated until they saw the error of their ways.
State court not fed, Obozo has nothing to do with it.
Federal pre-emption—States cannot pass laws which violate rights spelled out in the Constitution.
on second thought a butt-smacking from Antonin Scalia would not be the most beneficial thing to one’s career as a jurist
Yeah but that is done thru the courts and not the Oboso, get real.
What in hell is 'MODERN' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? Is the Constitution a variable on a day to day basis now? Silly me. Obama and the Marxists don't even recognize its existence.
It has been for decades.
REVERSE the decision? The proper thing is to IGNORE it!!! Sooner or later a homeowner will take a stand and kill some rogue cop. That’s when all hell will break loose and the leftists on the Indiana SC will be “retired.”
- sigh -
But there may be no “after the fact” if the homeowner is somehow killed.
Not only incompatible with modern thinking, incompatible since 1789.
“What in hell is ‘MODERN’ Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?”
Well, to give just one example, prior to Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Fourth Amendment protected you only from the Federal Government. In other words, until that case was decided, the Fourth Amendment would do nothing whatsoever to prevent a police officer of the State of Indiana or any of its counties, cities or towns from waltzing right into your house any old time.
Gov. Mitch Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller have publicly questioned the decision.
############
Question hell!!! If they had a set of balls between them they would be filing a suit in federal court to overturn this ruling AND working to remove the three fools who made this ruling.
“Modern” is the giveaway that the judge is a “postmodernist”,
denying that any written law has any value compared to the judgement of those making decisions today.
It’s one of the basic assumptions in liberalism.
That's what Constitutional Amendments are all about. It's time to hold Congress accountable for their responsibilities and eliminate the need for the Courts to make an interpretation when the laws are clearly and plainly written.
They ought to be reconsidering...I would have thought the good citizens of Indiana would have already tarred and feathered these idiots. I’m really shocked this happened in Indiana frankly.
A real freeper would understand the legal term “unqualified immunity.”
Judges are immune from any legal consequence of an action taken from the bench.
You may impeach them, but other than that, zip.
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.