The Indiana statute specifically makes it a class I misdemeanor to commit a battery on a police officer who is engaged in the execution of the officer's OFFICIAL DUTIES. There is no Castle Doctrine defense in the statute so if you batter a police officer and the police officer can prove that at the time he was engaged in his OFFICIAL DUTIES, then you are going to be convicted. The common law "Castle Doctrine" does not apply.
Now if you could prove that the police officer was not engaged in his OFFICIAL duties, then the castle doctrine would apply and is not affected by this ruling.
The facts of this case are so bad, that there is simply no way the defendant was going to win. To even raise the "Castle Doctrine" on a case with these facts does nothing more than to draw unnecessary attention to the doctrine and thereby risk that the doctrine will be diluted merely by the fact that it forms the basis of this appeal.
Again, I have read the opinion of the court, and I am not in disagreement. There are remedies available to citizens for unlawful entry by police, but battery is not an option where the police officer is engaged in official duties.
In the facts of this case, there was no way for the defendant to show that the police were even acting illegally. There was no illegal entry. If you want to blame anyone for this ruling, blame the idiot attorney who raised the issue on appeal. Bad facts make bad law. The facts on this case couldn't have been worse.
Wrong, that was what many of us had a problem with when it went through round one. Even if the officer was acting illegally and was off duty, if he identified himself as a police officer and kicked your door down and you resisted him you were guilty, period.
If you hired a lawyer afterword and proved he did it illegally you were still guilty of resisting him and not pardoned for your actions. Why this was such a big issue was this exact point, no matter what facts come out later, if you resisted you are guilty of a crime and remain guilty.
I believe what the justices are trying to say is "999 out of 1000 times it will be better for all if you let the search occur then take the matter up later with your lawyer in civil court". This very premise is what bothers us so much, let him violate you, submit to it, THEN seek damages when it's over. (at your expense I might add)
>I read your dissertation, and quite frankly I think you have jumped the one winged shark.
So then, under what power can they alter the State’s own Constitution? They cannot, this sort of overreach by an official has a name: malfeasance.
>he Indiana statute specifically makes it a class I misdemeanor to commit a battery on a police officer who is engaged in the execution of the officer’s OFFICIAL DUTIES. There is no Castle Doctrine defense in the statute so if you batter a police officer and the police officer can prove that at the time he was engaged in his OFFICIAL DUTIES, then you are going to be convicted. The common law “Castle Doctrine” does not apply.
That is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand: that the court is either a) amending the State’s Constitution, or b) violating the US Constitution which constrains even State’s judges.
(And even if it WERE at hand, how can ILLEGAL ENTRY be a part of a police officer’s OFFICIAL DUTIES? Or are you going to tell me that “just following orders” is an acceptable legal defense?)
>Now if you could prove that the police officer was not engaged in his OFFICIAL duties, then the castle doctrine would apply and is not affected by this ruling.
See the above.
>The facts of this case are so bad, that there is simply no way the defendant was going to win. To even raise the “Castle Doctrine” on a case with these facts does nothing more than to draw unnecessary attention to the doctrine and thereby risk that the doctrine will be diluted merely by the fact that it forms the basis of this appeal.
Where are you getting this? I NEVER brought Castle Doctrine into play, did I? Furthermore, I explicitly said that THE CASE is not the problem here, the [Supreme Court’s] RULING is.
>There are remedies available to citizens for unlawful entry by police, but battery is not an option where the police officer is engaged in official duties.
That is not what the court said; the court said that EVEN IF IT IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY there is no right for the citizen to defend himself... that is a BIG difference.
>If you want to blame anyone for this ruling, blame the idiot attorney who raised the issue on appeal. Bad facts make bad law. The facts on this case couldn’t have been worse.
Actually that’s not even an option: the attorney’s appeal could have been taken care of if the Supreme Court had simply stated that a) the woman had indeed called the police, and b) was evicting the man (thereby denying him the ability to legitimately refuse). Wham, bam, simple and closed. But that is NOT what the supreme Court did, is it?