Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:22 AM PDT by jaydubya2
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
I bet even the DUmmies are as upset about this as I am...
“This is such an injustice... I am somewhat speechless. So, police can enter your home any old time they want to, shoot your dog, kick your kids, smack your wife and you are suppose to just stand there? The first thing that came to mind is this: what a great way to do a home invasion. Buy some police badges online, smash through a door and do what you want because you know your victims will be afraid to fight back. Extremely disturbing.”
So the police have a search warrant,,,so what? Thugs can get their hands on uniforms and badges. Whats to stop them from getting fake search warrants?
What makes you think a Muzzies house will ever be entered legally or illegally? Holder's Law... They are his people
This ruling will be especially hard on dogs.
Really? Cops break down a door at 3AM without knocking or announcing, won't shooting start?
Good thing it'll prevent violence.
We've lost our way.
From back in the days when police weren’t considered to be above the law:
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“This ruling will be especially hard on dogs.”
Oh, yeah. It`ll be open season on dogs. They will empty their guns into a dog if it so much as yips.
Oh boy! You are like those Stalin victims in the 30s about to get executed declaring, "Comrade Stalin will have your heads for this!"
Hannity, O'Reilly (especially) and the rest of the hive are total cheerleaders for the police state. You'll hear all about what rappers get invited to the White House! But, trivial stuff like the destruction of our Constitution doesn't sell adjustable beds.
>Obviously the court overreached
More than overreach this is almost Law Dictionary definition for “Malfeasance.”
I think the answer is BLUE ICE or maybe too much ECSTASY.
This is all beyond crackbrained Leftwingtard BS. Way beyond!
He appointed the justice who wrote the opinion.
As jumpy as I tend to get in my home you (gestapo styled police) best make sure you have your insurance paid up as I’m just as apt to open fire as I am not. I may die but you won’t like your odds either. I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/todays.html Explains the whole thing. Basically in a state Constitutional Amendment the people were tricked into being disenfranchised when it comes to voting for Supreme Court judges. Now they are voted for by seven people who recommend 3 names to the Governor. Then he votes for the one he likes. Frankly, this can be readily remedied by re-enfranchising all free males, or promiscuous females, or the first 5000 guys in the Naptown phone book. Seven people are insufficient to serve as an electorate in any free society.
“When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter.”
Classic behavior in a domestic violence case.
“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”
How are you going to bring civil action if the bastards have killed you?
I have to tell you that as a former state and federal LEO, I am appalled by this ruling. Almost any officer knows that a clearly unlawful forcible entry into a dwelling should be met with resistance, whether it is the police or a criminal. Unless the police have a warrant, clear exigent circumstances or chasing a feeling felon, a persons home is their castle and they should defend it with whatever force is deemed appropriate.
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
You and these two judges are right. The cops had probable cause, this is a domestic dispute and the officers had a right to be in their unit to guarantee their safety. This case will go to SCOTUS.
Justice Steven David is the only Daniels appointee on the court. He’s been there 8 months.
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.