Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Indiana CoA upholds Castle Doctrine against illegal entry by cop

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Indiana CoA upholds Castle Doctrine against illegal entry by cop

    Putting this here instead of in the Indiana-specific area because of the implications for seeking to have similar changes to Castle Doctrine interpretation legislated in other states.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...3111501ewn.pdf

    Off-duty constable was "in the performance of his duties" when he unlawfully entered the defendant's dwelling.

    Perhaps Constable Webb missed the memo about how the Indiana legislature changed the law so now Castle Doctrine protection includes unlawful intrusion by a public servant. Would have thought that would have been a major roll-call briefing discussion point for quite some time.

    Additionally, I am very happy that the Court of Appeals holds that the Legislature "said what it meant and meant what it said." Those "findings" clauses sure do help make things clearer as well as hold back activist judicial interpretation.

    It would be nice to find out Mr. Cupello can recover his costs and expenses.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Unlawful search and seizure, unlawful arrest and confinement... oh yes, I smell a hefty payout here.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    You mean its not up to cops to determine reasonable at the moment all by themselves?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    The decision mentions two instances where they entered without a warrant...... once with his foot and secondly with backup upon receiving the door key. The backup officers should be included in the lawsuit for unlawful entry, as the decision noted that no exceptions existed in this scenario that would allow them to enter without taking the time to obtain a warrant.

    They knew who he was, where he was and no alleged felony was comitted... they had plenty of time to get a warrant for his arrest but chose not to.

    I hope this guy doesn't settle out of court... because the judges here laid out his argument for summary judgment in his favor for the lawsuit.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  5. #5
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Thanks to Skid for posting, but I can no longer bring myself to read these things.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You mean its not up to cops to determine reasonable at the moment all by themselves?
    So, does the back-up cop toss foot-in-the-door cop under the bus to avoid getting sued? Likely not. Does a pay-day from the taxpayer, no matter how many zeros it may have, gain satisfaction? All depends on what your definition of satisfaction is I suppose. Does it mitigate future "misunderstandings of the law?" Nope. Remember, a cop only knows that the ex-perp gave him a ouchie on his foot, doing that has got to be a felony...err, I mean, a capital crime...no?

    I wonder what would have happened if the ex-perp had used "more force" to avoid what he would (ultimately) rightfully believe to a unlawful arrest, a uhnlawful restraint, a kidnapping, a false imprisonment? A conspiracy to perpetrate these heinous crimes? I suggest that the ex-perp believes as I believe and believes that breathing is far better than a SWAT stand-off. Those two nitwit cops will get off without so much as a Post-It note in their service record.

    Nope, not a win in my view. Nope, no amount of money will mitigate these crimes in the future. The ex-perp is luck that he did not suffer horrific injuries for exercising his right to defend himself...yessiree bob...dang lucky.

    sudden valley gunner
    You mean its not up to cops to determine reasonable at the moment all by themselves?
    Sorry to tell you this, but that was not the question before the court. So no, it still remains up to the cop(s) on the scene, at that moment, to decide what is, or is not, reasonable. Some folks like this arrangement and desire for it to remain in place. Namely political critters and cops. remember the odds are far more in the state's favor than the citizen's favor. Getting those two nitwit cops fired with hefty misdemeanor criminal records is a very remote possibility.

    ...oh, to have a felony conviction or two on their records.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    So, does the back-up cop toss foot-in-the-door cop under the bus to avoid getting sued? Likely not. Does a pay-day from the taxpayer, no matter how many zeros it may have, gain satisfaction? All depends on what your definition of satisfaction is I suppose. Does it mitigate future "misunderstandings of the law?" Nope. Remember, a cop only knows that the ex-perp gave him a ouchie on his foot, doing that has got to be a felony...err, I mean, a capital crime...no?

    I wonder what would have happened if the ex-perp had used "more force" to avoid what he would (ultimately) rightfully believe to a unlawful arrest, a uhnlawful restraint, a kidnapping, a false imprisonment? A conspiracy to perpetrate these heinous crimes? I suggest that the ex-perp believes as I believe and believes that breathing is far better than a SWAT stand-off. Those two nitwit cops will get off without so much as a Post-It note in their service record.

    Nope, not a win in my view. Nope, no amount of money will mitigate these crimes in the future. The ex-perp is luck that he did not suffer horrific injuries for exercising his right to defend himself...yessiree bob...dang lucky.
    Sorry to tell you this, but that was not the question before the court. So no, it still remains up to the cop(s) on the scene, at that moment, to decide what is, or is not, reasonable. Some folks like this arrangement and desire for it to remain in place. Namely political critters and cops. remember the odds are far more in the state's favor than the citizen's favor. Getting those two nitwit cops fired with hefty misdemeanor criminal records is a very remote possibility.

    ...oh, to have a felony conviction or two on their records.

    I agree not a win.

    Although not the question to the court so no "case law" on it. Judges seem to be just as slick as their politician employers at avoiding good issues. It does show the cop was wrong for deciding what was reasonable at the moment.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I agree not a win.

    Although not the question to the court so no "case law" on it. Judges seem to be just as slick as their politician employers at avoiding good issues. It does show the cop was wrong for deciding what was reasonable at the moment.
    Yepper, small consolation with a equally small compensation. A redress of wrongs will not occur.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •