[raygun]

With the 911 call there's probable cause for at a very minimum a police investigation. Resisting the investigation, even if it means entry onto or into private property will result in at a minimum obstruction of justice charges.

Calling 911 and then hanging up will result in the cops showing up at one's door. They will not be happy if the statement is made "oh, wrong number."

On the other hand the judge's opinion is silly. Of course there's a right to resist 'unlawful police entry'. What good is the 2^nd Ammendment if not? Judge Black stated: "it is a strong moral check against the powers that be", i.e., armed resistance against tyranny.

I fail to see how this rises to the level of tyranny. If the police break and enter private property and look for evidence that residents are Sarah Palin supporters, and hauling them off to concentration camps, that is a different story.

Without the 911 call LEO are required by law to have a warrant. Warrantless searches get thrown out all the time, including all results obtained therefrom, i.e., fruit from the poisonous tree. However, with probable cause, 'knockless warrants' are served all the time.

If LEO are in pursuit of a suspect and suspect runs into one's property, perhaps w/out the property owner's knowledge, probable cause exists to enter and search the premises for the putative suspect. If the property owner interferes with that investigation they're causing themselves trouble they don't need. The key is that this is indeed a putative suspect or other reasonable reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Investigation into facts immediately at hand to establish a reasonable belief that a crime has indeed been commited is within the purvue of law enforcement.

The 911 call was made by somebody, either a neighbor concerned about the commotion, or from inside the house. The cops know who made the call. Even if it was a neighbor, and they show up and see a commotion, i.e., disturbance of the peace, they'll investigate.

Furthermore, cops are authorized to escalate use of force dependent upon the response recieved during an encounter. There are several, I believe about 7, the final one being use of lethal force. Violations of 4^th and 5^th Ammendments are to be handled in court, not the graveyard. Malice Green and Rodney King are two examples of such. When due process and the petions for redress of grievances are no longer the case, then that is tyranny and the 2^nd Ammendment is the answer to that.

I believe the decision was proper, but for wholly incorrect reasons cited.

[SFRigger]

Well stated raygun...thank you for saying it better than I was able. Not all LEOs are the jackbooted thugs we are made out to be. Most of us really do try to protect and serve.

[MindBender26]

Of course there's a right to resist 'unlawful police entry'

You are right, but in what manner, what venue?

If LEOs demand entry, they obviously think they have a legal right to do so. If homeowner refuses entry, he obviously thinks they have no right of entry.

So the question becomes, what is the proper venue to decide this? A shootout or fistfight at 3:00 AM, or in court with suit for damages, exclusion, etc.

Actually, this decision is a homeowners friend, because in such a 3:00 AM altercation, the cops are not going to lose.

[MindBender26]

Of course there's a right to resist 'unlawful police entry'

You are right, but in what manner, what venue?

If LEOs demand entry, they obviously think they have a legal right to do so. If homeowner refuses entry, he obviously thinks they have no right of entry.

So the question becomes, what is the proper venue to decide this? A shootout or fistfight at 3:00 AM, or in court with suit for damages, exclusion, etc.

Actually, this decision is a homeowners friend, because in such a 3:00 AM altercation, the cops are not going to lose.

BTW, this court only reaffirmed what has been law since 1942 under the Model Arrest Act.

[Girlene]

The 911 call was made by the wife. She informed them she had not been harmed at that point. When the police officers arrived, the husband was leaving. After speaking loudly in the parking lot and appearing agitated, etc, the husband reentered the apartment.

Now whether the situation was going to escalate between the husband and wife after the police left or waited to get a warrant, it is not clear. Maybe it would have, I don't know. The problem with this case (IMO) is that the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a new trial because they found error that the trial court did not issue jury instructions that the husband had the right to reasonably resist a warrantless entry based on a right at common law. At that point, it would have been up to a jury to deteremine whether his actions were "reasonable". It was the Indiana Supreme Court that reversed that ruling saying "[in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

That is disturbing to me.

[OneWingedShark]

>Without the 911 call LEO are required by law to have a warrant.

And I’m of the opinion that EVEN WITH a 911 call they should be required to have a warrant; and falsehoods in their oath/affirmation to get the warrant should be prosecuted as perjury.

[OneWingedShark]

>When due process and the petions for redress of grievances are no longer the case, then that is tyranny and the 2nd Ammendment is the answer to that.

So would State Statutes that violate their State Constitution, and are upheld in the courts as law, be an example of such?