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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
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) ||
05/13/2011 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#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?"
#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.
#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...
#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 ||
05/14/2011 0:01 Comments ||
Top||
The residents of the Chiricahua-Peloncillo drug and human smuggling corridor that runs from the Mexican border north through eastern Arizona and western New Mexico are circulating a petition to send to the White House in response to President Obama's recent immigration speech.
"It is with great wonderment and sadness that we listened to your May 10 speech on immigration issues. All of the joking about moats and alligators cut residents of Portal, AZ, to the core as we sheltered with friends or at a Red Cross evacuation site, to survive a terrible fire that still threatens our lives and property, as well as our ecotourism-based economy," the letter reads.
On Sunday, a massive fire broke out in Horseshoe Canyon, about 50 miles north of the Mexican border, which residents and law enforcement say they believe was started by criminal illegal aliens. Last year, a fire in the same location caused more than $10 million in damages.
"During its first 24-hrs, the fire consumed a greater area than did last year's fire over a 6-week period. Local residents were roused after midnight, and some slept fitfully in cars after fleeing with family photos and any valuables that could be quickly assembled. Elderly retirees left with medical supplies, including oxygen tanks on which some depend," the letter reads.
#1
"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we've done," the president said.
"But even though we've answered these concerns, I've got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time. You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they're going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they'll want a higher fence. Maybe they'll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They'll never be satisfied," he continued.
Mr. President, the last time I heard, the President was answerable to the people of the country--not the Republican Party. They don't seem to want to do much about the border either.
If the border is not under control (which it is not), you have not done your job as required by our Constitution.
Maybe you should put more effort into controlling the borders instead of making snide jokes about moats and alligators. After all this is a national security problem.
Instead what you have done is to turn this into an amnesty issue thinly disguised as immigration reform.
At best you are disingenuous. At worst, you are a narcissistic demagogue more interested in votes, re-election and power than country.
#2
Conclusion of a KRGV-TV article on no security for US airstrips along the southern border: "Our people in Washington should go and do their job instead of playing this political tango," said Juan Escobar, Kleberg County [TX] Judge.
Escobar says smugglers penetrate the area easily.
"I will tell you it's a threat. It's a problem to us and our nation," said Escobar.
His county airport is unmanned at night. There is no gate to keep people out.
"The security of our community at our airport could be a potential threat in a sense that smuggling could take place at times no one is there," said Escobar.
Escobar says it has been a problem for years. The county judge tells us a limited number of officers is forcing the priorities elsewhere.
#3
an amnesty issue thinly disguised as immigration reform Anyone who uses the term 'immigration reform' without irony is engaged in lies & distortion.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
