>>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.
This is EXACTLY why warrants (or lack thereof) are a big deal; warrants are the official proof that there *IS* a legal right for the officer to enter the property.
Sadly many people, even here, think that police should be allowed to enter wherever they want, whenever they want, and however they want; but such is NOT what the Constitution prescribes: the Constitution prescribes warrants which are issued with a supporting oath/affirmation and SPECIFIC information relating to that entry.
You don't even have to be Mirandized and all that's totally legit. That is, provided the cops never ask you a single question. However, after the arraignment you have the right to legal counsel.
How many times do you think that'll happen, along with the plausible occurances of citizens being beaten to a bloody pulp because they resisted arrest, before the citizens at large get their hackels up?
Cops can enter wherever, whenever, and however, but not without reason. If the information officers have is reliable and reasonable that a crime is in progress or has been comitted, they pretty much have carte blanche.
You're free to resist all you wish, just don't lament all them funerals you will be having.
That is not what this case is all about.
The case, and this thread are about that the way to settle the issue of whether or not the cops had a right to enter is before a judge and jury, not with guns at 3:00 AM.