No right to resist illegal entry of your home in Indiana

[Quantum Windbag]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

 

[R.D.]

Just damn - he didn't even bother to sugar coat it.

 

[TheBrain]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

This is a technically incorrect ruling, but as we talked about the other day; people have brought it on themselves. How many stories have we read, or hear about people who have killed police officers who were in noway doing their jobs incorrectly by people who mistakenly think they can do whatever the hell they want on their own property, or by people who just hate the police and will use any excuse to act violently towards them?

So, technically incorrect; but necessary to protect cops from being killed; and from keeping suspects from being killed to .

 

[Two Thumbs]

So cops can enter a home whenever they want?

That's the most blatant "we don't give a fuck about the stoopid paper people died for" ruling I have ever heard.

Anyone who approves this should be investigated.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think it's a bad rulling and set a bad precident.

"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.

Furthermore:

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

This is a technically incorrect ruling, but as we talked about the other day; people have brought it on themselves. How many stories have we read, or hear about people who have killed police officers who were in noway doing their jobs incorrectly by people who mistakenly think they can do whatever the hell they want on their own property, or by people who just hate the police and will use any excuse to act violently towards them?

So, technically incorrect; but necessary to protect cops from being killed; and from keeping suspects from being killed to .

Fuck protecting cops if they break the law. The way to protect cops is to eliminate no-knock warrants and the mentality that they have the power to search people and/or property without a warrant. If they had to go to court, and announce themselves, every single time they searched or entered a building they would be a lot safer than they are breaking into homes in the middle of the night unannounced. They deserve to get shot doing that.

 

[signelect]

What a stupid ruling and the reason for it was just as inane. Down here in Texas if I wake up in the night and find you in my house and I am scared as I should be I may not have presence of mind to ask what your profession is. I will learn that after you are on the ground and I turn the lights on. Any policeman entering a house without knocking is stupid and should be fired. I respect the police and the job they do but breaking into a house unless you have a hostage situation or the person is resisting their entry then they better find another way.

 

[TheBrain]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

This is a technically incorrect ruling, but as we talked about the other day; people have brought it on themselves. How many stories have we read, or hear about people who have killed police officers who were in noway doing their jobs incorrectly by people who mistakenly think they can do whatever the hell they want on their own property, or by people who just hate the police and will use any excuse to act violently towards them?

So, technically incorrect; but necessary to protect cops from being killed; and from keeping suspects from being killed to .

Fuck protecting cops if they break the law. The way to protect cops is to eliminate no-knock warrants and the mentality that they have the power to search people and/or property without a warrant. If they had to go to court, and announce themselves, every single time they searched or entered a building they would be a lot safer than they are breaking into homes in the middle of the night unannounced. They deserve to get shot doing that.

There are a myriad of reasons for no knock warrants. Not all of them include the safety of the officers involved. I will concede that they are used to often in some jurisdictions, but to say there are NEVER necessary is ignorant.

To say that the cops serving the warrants deserve what they get is even dumber. The cops serving the warrant aren't the ones making the decisions to use them. They're just doing hat they're told.

 

[TheBrain]

What a stupid ruling and the reason for it was just as inane. Down here in Texas if I wake up in the night and find you in my house and I am scared as I should be I may not have presence of mind to ask what your profession is. I will learn that after you are on the ground and I turn the lights on. Any policeman entering a house without knocking is stupid and should be fired. I respect the police and the job they do but breaking into a house unless you have a hostage situation or the person is resisting their entry then they better find another way.

A professional no knock team would have you cuffed before you even wiped the sleepy out of your eye.

 

[JBeukema]

Should we just link to PrisonPlanet on this on>?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a technically incorrect ruling, but as we talked about the other day; people have brought it on themselves. How many stories have we read, or hear about people who have killed police officers who were in noway doing their jobs incorrectly by people who mistakenly think they can do whatever the hell they want on their own property, or by people who just hate the police and will use any excuse to act violently towards them?

So, technically incorrect; but necessary to protect cops from being killed; and from keeping suspects from being killed to .

Fuck protecting cops if they break the law. The way to protect cops is to eliminate no-knock warrants and the mentality that they have the power to search people and/or property without a warrant. If they had to go to court, and announce themselves, every single time they searched or entered a building they would be a lot safer than they are breaking into homes in the middle of the night unannounced. They deserve to get shot doing that.

There are a myriad of reasons for no knock warrants. Not all of them include the safety of the officers involved. I will concede that they are used to often in some jurisdictions, but to say there are NEVER necessary is ignorant.

To say that the cops serving the warrants deserve what they get is even dumber. The cops serving the warrant aren't the ones making the decisions to use them. They're just doing hat they're told.

No knock warrants were justified by the argument that officers were in danger if they knocked on some doors, or it gives a suspect time and opportunity to destroy evidence. If they are in danger of they knock then they are are in even more danger if they try to break down the door. The evidence factor means squat as far as I am concerned. That makes no knock warrants completely unjustified. If someone wants to present another argument in an attempt to justify them we can debate it on its merits, not on the abstract that they might be justified in some totally unknown and unforeseen circumstances.

I never said police serving warrants deserve what they get, I said that they would be safer if they did not break doors in the middle of the night. If you want to debate that point feel free to do so, do not set up strawmen and expect me to get discombobulated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a stupid ruling and the reason for it was just as inane. Down here in Texas if I wake up in the night and find you in my house and I am scared as I should be I may not have presence of mind to ask what your profession is. I will learn that after you are on the ground and I turn the lights on. Any policeman entering a house without knocking is stupid and should be fired. I respect the police and the job they do but breaking into a house unless you have a hostage situation or the person is resisting their entry then they better find another way.

A professional no knock team would have you cuffed before you even wiped the sleepy out of your eye.

Why do police get killed doing things like that then? The way I see it you just made another argument against serving no knock warrants, the police are obviously not trained in implementing them.

 

[TheBrain]

What a stupid ruling and the reason for it was just as inane. Down here in Texas if I wake up in the night and find you in my house and I am scared as I should be I may not have presence of mind to ask what your profession is. I will learn that after you are on the ground and I turn the lights on. Any policeman entering a house without knocking is stupid and should be fired. I respect the police and the job they do but breaking into a house unless you have a hostage situation or the person is resisting their entry then they better find another way.

A professional no knock team would have you cuffed before you even wiped the sleepy out of your eye.

Why do police get killed doing things like that then? The way I see it you just made another argument against serving no knock warrants, the police are obviously not trained in implementing them.

We are in 100% agreement there, which is exactly why I said no knock warrants should be used sparingly and ONLY by professionally trained teams.

Oh, and the primary reason for using no knock warrants is to increase the likelihood of bringing especially bad criminals in without having to resort to killing them in a firefight. Of course it also lessens the chance of any police being killed serving a warrant, but that's just secondary to the primary reason.

 

[George Costanza]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Calm down, everyone. I don't think this decision says quite what you think it does. Read the link again. Look at the facts that generated this decision. Husband and wife are arguing outside of their house. Police are called. 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.

The officer was not entering the aparmtnet for "no reason." Just because hubby says the police are no longer needed following an argument with the wife that was serious enough to have the police called in the first place, does not mean that the police are no longer needed. The police will be the judge of that - not hubby. Obviously, the cops on this one wanted to make SURE the argument was over and the wife was no longer in any danger. That gives them the right to enter the apartment just the same as if they had heard the wife screaming inside the apartment when they first arrived.

This decision is what we call fact specific, and clearly is limited to the facts of this particular case.

If a police officer in Indiana entered someone's house "for no reason at all," found contraband inside and then made an arrest, if the Indiana Supreme Court sustained the entry and upheld the conviction (which I seriously doubt they would do), you can bet your bippy that the U.S. Supremes would strike it down in a second.

Little thing called the 4th Amendment.

 

[Zona]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

what the fuck does this have to do with Obama...? Seriously..

 

[Moving to USA]

You think thats bad?
In Maryland if a crack head breaks into your home, you are not allowed to defend against him as long as you have another way to leave the home and avoid him.
You can only protect yourself and your family if you are cornered and have no alternative.

Of course here the crack head has greater rights than the police so it might not be applicable in this case.

 

[TheBrain]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Calm down, everyone. I don't think this decision says quite what you think it does. Read the link again. Look at the facts that generated this decision. Husband and wife are arguing outside of their house. Police are called. 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.

The officer was not entering the aparmtnet for "no reason." Just because hubby says the police are no longer needed following an argument with the wife that was serious enough to have the police called in the first place, does not mean that the police are no longer needed. The police will be the judge of that - not hubby. Obviously, the cops on this one wanted to make SURE the argument was over and the wife was no longer in any danger. That gives them the right to enter the apartment just the same as if they had heard the wife screaming inside the apartment when they first arrived.

This decision is what we call fact specific, and clearly is limited to the facts of this particular case.

If a police officer in Indiana entered someone's house "for no reason at all," found contraband inside and then made an arrest, if the Indiana Supreme Court sustained the entry and upheld the conviction (which I seriously doubt they would do), you can bet your bippy that the U.S. Supremes would strike it down in a second.

Little thing called the 4th Amendment.

Exactly my point George. Yes it probably was technically the wrong decision. But the FACT is that people are idiots and have no idea what they are and are not entitled to do, so I can easily see the courts just saying in essence "fuck you morons, just don't fight ANY cops"

People in general just don't even understand the legal system in this country at all.

 

[TheBrain]

You think thats bad?
In Maryland if a crack head breaks into your home, you are not allowed to defend against him as long as you have another way to leave the home and avoid him.
You can only protect yourself and your family if you are cornered and have no alternative.

Of course here the crack head has greater rights than the police so it might not be applicable in this case.

Incorrect, although Maryland has no "castle law" on the books, they do have a current precedent that allows an exception to the duty to retreat laws. No DA is going to attempt to get the precedent reversed.

Right of self-defense in Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ANOTHER example of people who bitch without understanding the fucking law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WTF?

Do these idiots not understand the law at all? No wonder Obama is confused about the Constitutional limits to his power if this is an example of what law schools turn out.

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."

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Calm down, everyone. I don't think this decision says quite what you think it does. Read the link again. Look at the facts that generated this decision. Husband and wife are arguing outside of their house. Police are called. 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.

The officer was not entering the aparmtnet for "no reason." Just because hubby says the police are no longer needed following an argument with the wife that was serious enough to have the police called in the first place, does not mean that the police are no longer needed. The police will be the judge of that - not hubby. Obviously, the cops on this one wanted to make SURE the argument was over and the wife was no longer in any danger. That gives them the right to enter the apartment just the same as if they had heard the wife screaming inside the apartment when they first arrived.

This decision is what we call fact specific, and clearly is limited to the facts of this particular case.

If a police officer in Indiana entered someone's house "for no reason at all," found contraband inside and then made an arrest, if the Indiana Supreme Court sustained the entry and upheld the conviction (which I seriously doubt they would do), you can bet your bippy that the U.S. Supremes would strike it down in a second.

Little thing called the 4th Amendment.

Why does the dissent specifically disagree with you then? The court took the opportunity to not only let police enter without a warrant when exigent circumstances exist, they specifically said that the need to protect the safety of police outweighs the common law right to resist an illegal arrest.

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police
action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following
modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest
situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ‗measured‘ response may fast become excessive.&#8214. Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent
circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖ Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (―Possible
imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.&#8214. Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good
faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

The dissenting judges were correct about the broad brush.

 

[Douger]

This is a technically incorrect ruling, but as we talked about the other day; people have brought it on themselves. How many stories have we read, or hear about people who have killed police officers who were in noway doing their jobs incorrectly by people who mistakenly think they can do whatever the hell they want on their own property, or by people who just hate the police and will use any excuse to act violently towards them?

So, technically incorrect; but necessary to protect cops from being killed; and from keeping suspects from being killed to .

Fuck protecting cops if they break the law. The way to protect cops is to eliminate no-knock warrants and the mentality that they have the power to search people and/or property without a warrant. If they had to go to court, and announce themselves, every single time they searched or entered a building they would be a lot safer than they are breaking into homes in the middle of the night unannounced. They deserve to get shot doing that.

There are a myriad of reasons for no knock warrants. Not all of them include the safety of the officers involved. I will concede that they are used to often in some jurisdictions, but to say there are NEVER necessary is ignorant.

To say that the cops serving the warrants deserve what they get is even dumber. The cops serving the warrant aren't the ones making the decisions to use them. They're just doing hat they're told.

That's because cops, like military meatheads, aren't capable of thinking. They're brainwashed morons who would kill their granny if ordered to.
If they come in unannounced do the world a favor and kill the motherfuckers.