“Your wife or child calls the cops ~ you shoot them because they didn’t come with a warrant.
I”d suspect that’s not a hypothetical with you.”
Yes, that is a hypothetical, and a stupid one. This is about unlawful entry, not unwarranted enty. All the cops would have to do is prove exigent circumstances. They do so now, ridiculously, by arguing they had to knock down the door so as to stop evidence from being destroyed. Certainly they’d have no compunction about arguing someone’s life was in danger.
Judges would still give them the benefit of the doubt, being fellow members of the government club, just as they do with everything from shootings to traffic tickets. Just as, also, they almost certainly will with every type of potentially unlawful entry to pop up under this law.
The cops were called by the resident. That's how this whole case started. Exigent circumstances necessarily includes the possibility that a citizen asks an officer for help.
We have people here arguing that unless an officer comes with a warrant in all circumstances the new Indiana law allows somebody to shoot the officer.
Are you really arguing on their behalf?
My point is a simple one ~ in any future debate before the Indiana Supreme court, or the federal courts, the history of the legislation is going to be entered as evidence. That legislation starts in response to a court decision that deals with a specific case where a citizen called the cops for help.
You cannot escape that happening once this ever gets brought before the appellate courts.
It is pretty clear that the legislation ALSO reduces the privilege of a citizen to call on the cops for help.