| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Indiana SC Takes Away Right To Resist Unlawful Police Invasions |
| 2011-05-13 |
| 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." Except that officers are generally immune from such civil suits. 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. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #12 Corporal Guerena didn't shoot because he most likely recognized them as police when they entered. But the Keyston Kops weren't as disciplined and fired 70 shots at him anyway. |
| Posted by: Cleretch Scourge of the Nebraskans3551 2011-05-14 00:01 |
| #11 Here is the actual decision and many more details. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-05-13 18:53 |
| #10 Judges who create laws should be hanged. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-05-13 17:26 |
| #9 So it is illegal to try to stop an officer from just walking into your house and taking you or a family member away in hand cuffs? What if this 'officer' is not a police officer at all but rather some crook dressed up as an officer. Is one to just sit by and let him cuff one's 16 yr old daughetr and walk away with her? It won't take long for the child abductors to figure this one out... |
| Posted by: Chemist 2011-05-13 15:47 |
| #8 The 'beliefs' of the Indiana Supreme Court are imcompatible with the Fourth Amendment, not that this matters one bit to them, they are obviously intent on turning US citizens into subjects, and making up the US Constitution as they go along. Looks like the time has come for all good men to install perimeter alarms, fortify their doorways, put in false partitions, trap doors, maybe trip wires, etc. Oh, and if your back yard is big enough to land a helicopter, install a forest of poles and overhead wires to interfere with that. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-05-13 14:59 |
| #7 Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge) sued, was awarded $ 3m dollars. Wife, son, and dog.... still just as dead. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-05-13 13:54 |
| #6 Cyber Sarge: Things have reached a point where it doesn't matter what a homeowner does, police entry can result in severe injury, death and trauma to family members. In many instances, police are serving misdemeanor bench warrants in SWAT mode. For example, you get a parking ticket on your car, and some dummy takes it, or it blows away. Or they guess that you have drugs in your home. At 3am your door is broken in by a half dozen men, who then shoot your dog if any, drag your wife or daughter naked out of the shower, scream at you and hold guns to your head while putting you face down on the floor, handcuffed, and won't respond to any question or statement. Did you actually do anything wrong? Not exactly. They might have chosen the wrong house, or were told to do this in every house in a radius. And many people say, "Well, I would'a shot them if they did this!" No, if you were able to grab a gun, they would have killed you, maybe other family members, etc." Maybe they will screw up further and kill one of you anyway. After hours of pain and humiliation, they discover they screwed up. The response? "Sue us." No apologies about killing the dog, traumatizing the family, holding everyone and gunpoint and trashing your house. Actual damages? Probably less than $500. Why? "Well, why would the police raid you, unless you had done something wrong?" |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-05-13 13:45 |
| #5 Any chance SCOTUS will overturn this one? Until Ogabe leaves office, we'd all better say a daily prayer for this guy's continued good health. He's a squishy sometimes pseudo-conservative (he was the deciding vote in Kelo v. New London, damn him), but he's far from the doctrinaire hard-leftist that Ogabe would no doubt install in his place. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2011-05-13 12:29 |
| #4 On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. If the officer believed 'imminent' threat to life or safety was at hand, then the rational stands. HOWEVER, in any case not substantiated by such a 'fact', the officer should not be protected by the law and face full criminal prosecution for abuse of authority by an office not subject to association with the jurisdiction that the offense occurred. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-05-13 12:23 |
| #3 Corporal Guerena shot down by Sheriff Dupnik's Pima county SWAT team in his home in front of his family. Check it out at Blackfive or This ain't Hell, a travesty unfolding. |
| Posted by: bman 2011-05-13 12:14 |
| #2 Never had the cops show up at my house so I don't know how that interaction would work. Personally, I can't think of a scenario where I would block the cops from entering my house. In this case, the officers probably wanted to check on the wife and make sure all was well. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2011-05-13 11:50 |
| #1 Any chance SCOTUS will overturn this one? Because you can count on every warrant that is served to be a no-knock warrant. It will be "justified" in every instance now. They are not just moving in baby steps to make us serfs anymore, they are moving in long strides now. |
| Posted by: Alistaire Omeater5691 2011-05-13 10:35 |