Police State America. Court: No Right To Resist Illegal Cop Entry Into Home...

[MikeK]

[...]

The blame goes to those who willingly surrender their liberty for security.

Bravo!

Therein lies the tale.

 

[bucs90]

Libocalypse, I don't like the wording of the decision, that police can enter unlawfully and persons can't resist.

But, as a former cop, I can say that in that case cited the cops didn't enter unlawfully. A domestic disturbance was dispatched. And based on stats and training, those often include a battered woman. If I were the cop to show up, and the male half is standing in front of the door, basically saying "Go away", and having a posture and demeanor of attempting to prevent officers from seeing what is beyond that door, I feel that would justify the exigent circumstance of a possible injured female half inside. Basically weighing the rights: The right to privacy of the male half, vs the right to be saved and given aid for a POSSIBLE injured female half. Now, if the complaint was originally just a loud music call, and the cops show up and the man does the same thing, but agrees to go in and turn the music off, thats different. Nothing about a "loud music" complaint indicates any possible injured person or other crime inside that apartment. But investigating a possible domestic distrubance, and a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of all known persons on scene, is acceptable in my view.

However, don't like the courts general ruling about forcing people to allow unlawful entry. I didn't see what was unlawful about the entry, and thus, the judges should've worded it that way.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Feminists created this situation.

Congratulations! You are STUPID

 

[bucs90]

The few keys here are this:

1- We must hope for and believe that 99% of our cops are men of integrity. Not that they can't be jerks sometimes, or rude, or write petty tickets sometimes, but of integrity. Meaning that even when rude and in a bad mood, they'll still follow the law. And as a former one, I believe at least 95-98% are just that, men of integrity. There is a line they won't cross when it comes to fellow citizens, the organization Oath Keepers is one of them. Unfortunately, the far left wing SPLC listed Oath Keepers as a terrorist organization. Imagine that, cops who swear to uphold their oath are "terrorists" to the left wing?

2- We must not portray our cops as evil. The men writing the laws that they are supposed to enforce may be, but thats why cops have descretion, and can say NO I WON'T ENFORCE THAT LAW BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING STUPID LAW. Most people have no idea just how often cops do in fact say that, or simply live it by ignoring a stupid law that is on the books, even new laws, which they feel are overbearing. Probably because the news doesn't cover the GOOD police stories, only the bad ones.

3- Root out the bad 1-5% of cops. Fellow cops will probably do it for us. But for the ones that slip through, citizen complaints go SO much farther than people realize. Seriously, just keep calling about. PD's are NOT interested in lawsuits, so they are even more vigilant now about rooting out bad apples. The bigger the dept, the deeper the pockets, thus, the bigger lawsuit target, so don't think LAPD or NYPD won't take complaints seriously. That said.....if you spit on a cop, shove a cop, pull a weapon on a cop, run from a cop.....don't complain when you take the ass kicking afterwards.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The few keys here are this:

1- We must hope for and believe that 99% of our cops are men of integrity. Not that they can't be jerks sometimes, or rude, or write petty tickets sometimes, but of integrity. Meaning that even when rude and in a bad mood, they'll still follow the law. And as a former one, I believe at least 95-98% are just that, men of integrity. There is a line they won't cross when it comes to fellow citizens, the organization Oath Keepers is one of them. Unfortunately, the far left wing SPLC listed Oath Keepers as a terrorist organization. Imagine that, cops who swear to uphold their oath are "terrorists" to the left wing?

2- We must not portray our cops as evil. The men writing the laws that they are supposed to enforce may be, but thats why cops have descretion, and can say NO I WON'T ENFORCE THAT LAW BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING STUPID LAW. Most people have no idea just how often cops do in fact say that, or simply live it by ignoring a stupid law that is on the books, even new laws, which they feel are overbearing. Probably because the news doesn't cover the GOOD police stories, only the bad ones.

3- Root out the bad 1-5% of cops. Fellow cops will probably do it for us. But for the ones that slip through, citizen complaints go SO much farther than people realize. Seriously, just keep calling about. PD's are NOT interested in lawsuits, so they are even more vigilant now about rooting out bad apples. The bigger the dept, the deeper the pockets, thus, the bigger lawsuit target, so don't think LAPD or NYPD won't take complaints seriously. That said.....if you spit on a cop, shove a cop, pull a weapon on a cop, run from a cop.....don't complain when you take the ass kicking afterwards.

Good points and i hear ya. But it's crucial that our rights are preserved to protect us from the bad 1-5% of Cops. That's really what our Constitution is all about. We know most Cops are honorable but not all are. Just like not all People & Politicians are good either. The People must be protected from these few bad people. When you start eroding these protections,you start heading down a very dangerous slippery slope. It's best to play it safe on this stuff and ensure that the People are protected all the time. Hey that's just how i see it anyway. Our rights are being assaulted right now. More people need to wake up and then stand up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good points and i hear ya. But it's crucial that our rights are preserved to protect us from the bad 1-5% of Cops. That's really what our Constitution is all about.

Correct and agreed. It’s not the role of agents of the state to decide whether someone’s entitled to his rights or not in an effort to prevent a crime.

The problem is there have been a series of inconsistent rulings over the last 40 years or so – starting with Terry v Ohio – which have caused much confusion for both law enforcement and lower courts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

It sounds like they had PC, would have to read the whole case to be sure. Its not as if they brushed in, kicked their feet up and started making long distance calls. They were called in on a disturbance and it is their job to investigate the well being of all parties involved. Most domestic violence victims don't want to press charges but it sounds like he was trying to prevent access to his wife and that ain't kosher.

They don't know whats going on in there. What if he had just slit her neck and was bleeding her out in the bath tub while playing point counter point in the door way with the cops?

Read the case.

The court ruled that the police have a right to be protected, even if they are entering your house illegally, and you have no right to stop them. If the ruling simply applied to the circumstances of the case you might have a point, but they do not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't believe anyone would argue that in THIS case the police effected an illegal entry into the home. Some of yall need to learn the damn law.

If the ruling applied only to this case I would think it was wrong, but I would also concede it is in line with legal precedents.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One step closer to a Police State i guess. And it looks like that's what many many Americans want. Very scary stuff.

Indeed, when police are called out on a domestic disturbance call I want them to be checking out the source of the call to make sure no one is in danger.

Stop acting like these police were just strolling by a random house and just decided to kick the door in and loot the place.

Or maybe you believe a man should be able to beat his wife in the privacy of his own home and then deny her police and medical aid when they arrive?

They were arguing on the front lawn, the police showed up, and they went inside. There was no reported violence from anyone, including the wife who was right there in full view of the police. They had no probable cause to enter the house.

There, I just used the facts of this case to argue the police were wrong. Arguments are not illegal, and police should not have the power to arrest people just because they feel like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One step closer to a Police State i guess. And it looks like that's what many many Americans want. Very scary stuff.

You keep using that phrase...I don't think it means what you think it means

I think it is appropriate in the way he is using it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Indeed, when police are called out on a domestic disturbance call I want them to be checking out the source of the call to make sure no one is in danger.

Stop acting like these police were just strolling by a random house and just decided to kick the door in and loot the place.

Or maybe you believe a man should be able to beat his wife in the privacy of his own home and then deny her police and medical aid when they arrive?

Never said these Police did any of that. I'm just commenting on losing more of our rights. I'm sure these Police had good intentions but that doesn't mean we should give up our rights and give them more authority. People can make excuses and spin things any way they like but in the end we lost more of our rights. The end-result was not a good thing for the People. It does seem like we are heading for Police State America. Just my observation anyway. You're entitled to yours.

I suggest you re read the opinion. It does NOT give the police the right to illegally enter your home. It does NOT take away your right to defend your home from an illegal entry.

I suggest you reread it, it does that explicitly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libocalypse, I don't like the wording of the decision, that police can enter unlawfully and persons can't resist.

But, as a former cop, I can say that in that case cited the cops didn't enter unlawfully. A domestic disturbance was dispatched. And based on stats and training, those often include a battered woman. If I were the cop to show up, and the male half is standing in front of the door, basically saying "Go away", and having a posture and demeanor of attempting to prevent officers from seeing what is beyond that door, I feel that would justify the exigent circumstance of a possible injured female half inside. Basically weighing the rights: The right to privacy of the male half, vs the right to be saved and given aid for a POSSIBLE injured female half. Now, if the complaint was originally just a loud music call, and the cops show up and the man does the same thing, but agrees to go in and turn the music off, thats different. Nothing about a "loud music" complaint indicates any possible injured person or other crime inside that apartment. But investigating a possible domestic distrubance, and a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of all known persons on scene, is acceptable in my view.

However, don't like the courts general ruling about forcing people to allow unlawful entry. I didn't see what was unlawful about the entry, and thus, the judges should've worded it that way.

Glad someone can read.

 

[NoEconomist]

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.


Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

It sounds like they had PC, would have to read the whole case to be sure. Its not as if they brushed in, kicked their feet up and started making long distance calls. They were called in on a disturbance and it is their job to investigate the well being of all parties involved. Most domestic violence victims don't want to press charges but it sounds like he was trying to prevent access to his wife and that ain't kosher.

They don't know whats going on in there. What if he had just slit her neck and was bleeding her out in the bath tub while playing point counter point in the door way with the cops?

Read the case.

The court ruled that the police have a right to be protected, even if they are entering your house illegally, and you have no right to stop them. If the ruling simply applied to the circumstances of the case you might have a point, but they do not.

Grrrr.....Fine I'll skim the opinions. If you're correct and they are claiming that they had no reasonable PC and the motivating factor was the act of defiance then ya they have no legal grounds to enter. On the other hand Exigent circumstances are tricky. They call for a judgment and that judgment can always be wrong, that doesn't mean it IS always wrong. But sure, if the finding was that the actions of the officers (what ever they may be) must be complied with regardless of legal merit then they are on dangerous ground.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is very sad and disturbing. I guess this is what we have to look forward to for our Nation...



Related Documents
Related: PDF: Supreme Court ruling in Barnes v. State
INDIANAPOLIS | 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."

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.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
George Mason

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It sounds like they had PC, would have to read the whole case to be sure. Its not as if they brushed in, kicked their feet up and started making long distance calls. They were called in on a disturbance and it is their job to investigate the well being of all parties involved. Most domestic violence victims don't want to press charges but it sounds like he was trying to prevent access to his wife and that ain't kosher.

They don't know whats going on in there. What if he had just slit her neck and was bleeding her out in the bath tub while playing point counter point in the door way with the cops?

Read the case.

The court ruled that the police have a right to be protected, even if they are entering your house illegally, and you have no right to stop them. If the ruling simply applied to the circumstances of the case you might have a point, but they do not.

Grrrr.....Fine I'll skim the opinions. If you're correct and they are claiming that they had no reasonable PC and the motivating factor was the act of defiance then ya they have no legal grounds to enter. On the other hand Exigent circumstances are tricky. They call for a judgment and that judgment can always be wrong, that doesn't mean it IS always wrong. But sure, if the finding was that the actions of the officers (what ever they may be) must be complied with regardless of legal merit then they are on dangerous ground.

I am not claiming that here, though I would be willing to argue that in a perfect world.

What I am saying is that the court used this case to give police blanket authority to enter any house without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, because you can always get out on bail and argue your case in court later. Unless, that is, you cannot afford bail, a good lawyer, or the police shoot you.

But who care about poor, dead people anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is very sad and disturbing. I guess this is what we have to look forward to for our Nation...



Related Documents
Related: PDF: Supreme Court ruling in Barnes v. State
INDIANAPOLIS | 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."

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.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
George Mason

After getting accused in another thread of being afraid of your posts because I mocked another poster's habit of throwing around quotes it is nice to see one used in the proper way, to actually make a point and contribute to the conversation.

 

[MikeK]

Libocalypse, I don't like the wording of the decision, that police can enter unlawfully and persons can't resist.

But, as a former cop, I can say that in that case cited the cops didn't enter unlawfully. A domestic disturbance was dispatched. And based on stats and training, those often include a battered woman. If I were the cop to show up, and the male half is standing in front of the door, basically saying "Go away", and having a posture and demeanor of attempting to prevent officers from seeing what is beyond that door, I feel that would justify the exigent circumstance of a possible injured female half inside. Basically weighing the rights: The right to privacy of the male half, vs the right to be saved and given aid for a POSSIBLE injured female half. Now, if the complaint was originally just a loud music call, and the cops show up and the man does the same thing, but agrees to go in and turn the music off, thats different. Nothing about a "loud music" complaint indicates any possible injured person or other crime inside that apartment. But investigating a possible domestic distrubance, and a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of all known persons on scene, is acceptable in my view.

However, don't like the courts general ruling about forcing people to allow unlawful entry. I didn't see what was unlawful about the entry, and thus, the judges should've worded it that way.

Under those circumstances correct procedure would be for the responding PO to demand to speak with the female, then to separate her from the male and question her. Failing that, requesting a supervisor's permission to force entry would be SOP. Taking it upon themselves to force entry might be okay under Illinois law (I don't know) but even if it is those cops could be facing Fourth Amendment issues.

(No. I'm not a police officer. But I am familiar with such issues.)

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Root out the bad 1-5% of cops. Fellow cops will probably do it for us.

That depends on several factors, mainly the quality of supervision. Also, in the case of larger municipalities where a police department is divided into independently supervised precincts, there often is a distinct difference in attitudes and performance standards from one place to another. The fact-based book and movie, Serpico, provides a very accurate portrayal of how the "blue wall of silence" can operate to protect even the most criminally corrupt cops in a poorly supervised precinct.

But for the ones that slip through, citizen complaints go SO much farther than people realize.

Again, that depends on several factors; the nature of the complaint, the source and, mainly, the complaint subject's service record. The most common complaint is "excessive force." In most cases the degree of force used is justifiable and conforms with procedure. But if the subject officer has similar complaints in his folder the incident is examined more closely.

[...]

That said.....if you spit on a cop, shove a cop, pull a weapon on a cop, run from a cop.....don't complain when you take the ass kicking afterwards.

But very often there will be a complaint and exactly the kind of incidents in which cops beat the hell out of somebody for shoving, spitting, running, smart-mouthing, etc., end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation awards every year. While it's natural to expect a beating for spitting in a cop's face the court won't see it that way.