(IN State) Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling In Officer Resistance Case

http://www.theindychannel.com ^ | 12:49 pm EDT September 20, 2011 | WRTV

[FunkyZero]

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling in a controversial case involving unlawful police entry. The court granted a rehearing, then supplied a five-page opinion on its May 12 opinion that declared that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.

[Cboldt]

-- That means even if he is off-duty, or acting in a blatantly illegal manner, that the court will not recognize your right to resist. --

No, only half of that is true. In the court's holding, "unlawful police entry" does not include an off-duty action. It does, however, as you posit, cover blatantly illegal actions conducted while on duty.

[Nowhere Man]

Ever since 9-11 the so-called institutions (LE, Homeland Security,corporations, airlines, TSA, etc) have been grabbing power at the expense of the rights of every American. It is now 10 years later and the trend continues where citizenry sacrifices and is being reduced to fodder, while those who either serve or work for us as public servants are being given carte blanche ability to do with us as they wish.

We need an individual in power who understands the difference between liberty and rights and protection, and those in government who are there to serve us.

Agreed. My father said, "the terrorists have won."

I remember an episode of "Picket Fences" where Sherriff Tom Skerritt was on a jury where a drug dealer picked up an Uzi and shot and killed three cops during a no knock raid. The perp's attorney argued the case where the perp shot back in self defense and Skerritt agreed because the dealer did not know they were the police, it could have been anyone and thusly he acted in self defense. I know some might not agree with me but I have to agree with that premise since the police did not announce themselves.

Ironically, I'm currently watching a "Twilight Zone" episode where Burgess Meredith was a librarian deemed "obsolete" by an all powerful state, a metaphor of what could happen.

[Cboldt]

-- I do believe you will find this to be the case in 50 out of 50 states. I doubt very seriously if there is a court in America that would give a homeowner or occupant the right to violently resist police officers who are acting in their official capacity even if it is later determined that the entry was not legal. --

I don't have a list of cases or states lined up, but I am certain some states admit a castle doctrine affirmative defense, even against police officers actions in the line of duty.

[P-Marlowe]

The state of the law in Indiana, courtesy of the Indiana Supreme Court, is that if a police officer is acting illegally, in his official duty, a homeowner may not offer resistance.

I think the term "acting illegally" is overbroad. The question is whether or not he is acting in his official duty. If the officer is, in fact, violating some criminal statute for which he could be charged and imprisoned or jailed, that he is no longer acting in his official duty and the Castle doctrine would be applicable.

I think a lot of people just are having a knee jerk reaction to this holding. The holding is not a carte blanche permit for cops to make illegal entry. They have to be acting in their official capacity as safety officers and law enforcement officers. If they are off the reservation, then the Castle doctrine is still in effect.

This is not an unreasonable decision.

[Talisker]

The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling in a controversial case involving unlawful police entry. The court granted a rehearing, then supplied a five-page opinion on its May 12 opinion that declared that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.

They did NOT rule on the "rights" of "Hoosiers." They ruled on the restriction of privileges of presumptive corporate individuals.

And if you don't want to study what that means, you deserve what you get.

[Talisker]

Entry and search are one thing. Rape is another. Please, do not post such stupidity. It makes us all look bad, not just you.

Denial of Constitutional rights are all the same - deny one, you've denied them all. A five year old can grasp this, yet you seek to modify the absolute horror of this ruling with sophmoric pseudointellectual insults?

Thanks SO much for sharing - and when the cops illegally kick in your door, don't worry, they wouldn't THINK of exceeding those entry limits.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The state of the law in Indiana, courtesy of the Indiana Supreme Court, is that if a police officer is acting illegally, in his official duty, a homeowner may not offer resistance.

They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it.

This is really a tautology since the cop on the scene has already said, backed up by his deadly force, that you cannot resist. All the court has done is enforce a penalty for battery, as one might expect.

The effect and unintended consequence will be that police will have less fear of using questionable tactics, which will raise public anger and escalate encounters. The state can escalate response until the public is disarmed and unable to resist or there is revolution.

[Cboldt]

-- I think the term "acting illegally" is overbroad. The question is whether or not he is acting in his official duty. --

Your argument puts those two in mutually exclusive categories.

The castle doctrine is phrased in terms of illegality, with that being used to justify the use of measured force.

-- I think a lot of people just are having a knee jerk reaction to this holding. --

I agree.

-- The holding is not a carte blanche permit for cops to make illegal entry. --

I agree with that too. Indeed, it would quite unusual for a court to greenlight illegal conduct.

The effect of the ruling is, as I said a couple posts above, related to the availability of an affirmative defense instruction.

-- If they are off the reservation, then the Castle doctrine is still in effect. --

No, the holding is that a police offer can act illegally (while on duty), and the homeowner may NOT offer resistance. If he does, he may be charged with resisting, battery, etc., and may NOT assert a castle doctrine affirmative defense. Not even if the police are acting illegally. The plain language of the case says this.

-- This is not an unreasonable decision. --

I think a conclusion in that regard will be driven by the understanding one has, of the effect of the decision.

The castle doctrine does NOT give a homeowner a blanket right to resist, any more than this ruling gives the police a blanket license to act illegally. I think it's a bad decision, and it is a(nother) finger in the eye of the state legislature.

[Stayfree]

84% against

[Cboldt]

Just to add, this is also a bad decision because it is UNRELATED to the facts and findings of the case!

In this case, the entry was legal. End of discussion, at worst, it is harmless error to deny the instruction; at best, the court below properly denied the instruction. But no, the Indiana Supreme Court decided it would render a ruling, because it can, on what the law will be when the police act illegally.

Bully for them, but it costs them respect and credibility. They aren't even following a basic rule of deciding cases. Simple, arrogant pricks.

[P-Marlowe]

In this case, the entry was legal. End of discussion,

I have done a lot of appellate law and one of the primary things you have to do in appellate law is to make sure that you don't make bad law. The last thing you want to do is to have your name or your client's name attached to some ruling that will hurt your client's interests or your own reputation.

Here this idiot's lawyer decided to take this silly jury instruction issue to the Supreme Court and as a result he has made some bad law, or at least made the law worse than it was.

I think the ultimate effect of the ruling will be minimal. You have to batter a police officer as he enters your home before this will have any effect. Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available but you will not only have to prove that the entry was illegal, but that the police were acting in either a criminal manner or outside the scope of their duties as police officers. It's an extra hurdle, but in the end it is no big deal. Anyone who batters a police officer (whether they have a right to do so or not) is an idiot unless their life is in imminent danger. This defendant was clearly an idiot. His attorney was an idiot. A pox on both their houses.

[Cboldt]

The idiot Indiana Supreme Court made a ruling about castle doctrine, and not one time in the ruling, did they mention the castle doctrine statute, and you call the defendant an idiot?

-- I think the ultimate effect of the ruling will be minimal. --

Yes, it only affects people who resist unlawful entry by the police. They can't justify any resistance to the unlawful entry, as a matter of law.

-- Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available --

Did you read the opinion?

Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers' entry into Barnesas apartment.

[P-Marlowe]

Did you read the opinion?

Yes I did. The second opinion modifies the first. The second opinion is controlling.

Are you a lawyer?

[Cboldt]

-- The second opinion modifies the first. --

Yeah, it says if the legislature wants to provide an affirmative defense in case of unlawful entry, it can write a statute to that effect.

The second opinion does not change the blockquote section I provided above.

[Cboldt]

-- The second opinion is controlling. --

Did you read the dissent?

Obviously, it's not in any way controlling, but the dissent wants to at least explore whether or not the castle doctrine statute permits the affirmative defense jury instruction.

By my reasoning, the dissent supports a conclusion that the affirmative defense jury instruction is not available.

The line drawing by the majority, at "battery," is equivalent to saying the defendant was charged. Well, yeah, and if he's not charged, then he needs no affirmative defense.

-- Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available --

Heh. Just like the Massachusetts case cited by the majority.

[Lmo56]

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.

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.

How many Post Toasties Cereal box tops did these Maroons on the Indidana Supreme Court need to send in to get their seats on the bench ???

Granted, they got the ruling right in this particular case, BUT to issue such broad statements [above] is IDIOTIC !!!

If I lived in Indiana, I'd be getting the hell out of Dodge ...

Imagine getting a knock on the door, opening it and a uniformed "officer" is at the door. You know you haven't done anything wrong, 'cept be watching "Project Runway" on cable. BUT, if you resist, you can be arrested. STILL, something seems hinky to you ...

In the end, you are proven to be right, cuz the uniformed "officer" turns out to be a criminal ...

Small consolation to you, since you are lying on a slab in the morgue ...

[P-Marlowe]

By my reasoning, the dissent supports a conclusion that the affirmative defense jury instruction is not available.

The dissent was discussing whether it would be available under the facts of this case. I don't think it would be. The controlling authority clearly states that if the police are acting within the course and scope of their duties as police officers then the castle doctrine will not apply.

The court clearly left open the opportunity that the defense is available if the police have entered into criminal conduct or are otherwise acting outside their authority. An illegal entry can be a lawful exercise of police discretion. The remedy for such an illegal entry is to sue for trespass, sue for damages, and to exclude any evidence collected. In other words, the remedies are CIVIL remedies and the remedies do not include a right to beat the hell out of a police officer because you think you have some right to privacy that is being intruded upon.

[Cboldt]

-- Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available but you will not only have to prove that the entry was illegal, but that the police were acting in either a criminal manner or outside the scope of their duties as police officers. --

Being impolite about it, I think you are just making shit up.

There is nothing in either the original opinion, or in the rehearing, that has a conditional grant of the affirmative defense if "the police were acting in either a criminal manner or outside the scope of their duties as police officers."

-- Anyone who batters a police officer (whether they have a right to do so or not) is an idiot unless their life is in imminent danger. --

It doesn't take much in the way of resistance to commit a "resisting" charge. Pushing the door closed, if you have superior force, is probably enough to get the charge. You know, there really are idiot police officers, and sometimes they act illegally.

-- This defendant was clearly an idiot. --

I agree with that.

-- His attorney was an idiot. --

Many vigorous defenses end up looking like idiots, in my opinion.

How could this attorney predict the Court would go off the reservation?

[Cboldt]

-- An illegal entry can be a lawful exercise of police discretion. The remedy for such an illegal entry is to sue for trespass, sue for damages, and to exclude any evidence collected. In other words, the remedies are CIVIL remedies and the remedies do not include a right to beat the hell out of a police officer because you think you have some right to privacy that is being intruded upon. --

Are you sticking with the contention that the affirmative defense is available? Because above, you are discussing alternative remedies at law.

What's with "an illegal entry can be a lawful exercise"? That's doubletalk. There's nothing in either decision that has language like that. The entry is either lawful, or not. If it is lawful, there is no right (which has to be positively asserted as a defense) to offer resistance.

Nobody is claiming a right to beat the hell out of a police officer because you think you have some right to privacy that is being intruded up. You know damn well the limits of force available in self defense.

You get the last word here. The cases speak for themselves, and I've had my say and then some.

[P-Marlowe]

Being impolite about it, I think you are just making shit up.

Then we are done with this discussion. Good night.