Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 149

Thread: Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

  1. #1
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543

    Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

    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.

    http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

    Apparently they made the decision based on the premise that confrontation can lead to violence and that any illegal entry can be corrected in court. More dilution of our rights compared to the State.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    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.

    http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

    Apparently they made the decision based on the premise that confrontation can lead to violence and that any illegal entry can be corrected in court. More dilution of our rights compared to the State.
    that 'correction in the courts' is totally bogus as will be seen by the numerous good faith exceptions already given to LEOs

  3. #3
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    That is just bone chilling.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    "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. "

    David is wrong. The issue taken through the court would be that the officers 'believed' that the warrant is valid at the time of execution. If the officers 'believed' the warrant to be valid, then they are immune. I could be wrong though, but I believe SCOTUS has ruled on this issue.

    Plus, how is a person able to file a civil claim if they are dead?

    Hopefully this ruling will make its way to SCOTUS.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    I guess the 4th amendment doesn't exist in IN...haha...what a bass ackward state...

  6. #6
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    So do I have a handle on this?

    Basically the Cops can now Rape, Pillage, Plunger, Pilfer, Loot, Vandalize, Murder, Maim and Kidnap anything that moves inside your humble abode.

    Any of these acts may be illegal but not to worry. The Courts will sort it out. The same Courts that just made the 4th Amendment disappear. Assuming you are still alive, have the wherewithal to retain counsel, AND can afford the cost and time to prove your innocence before the Man and your peers.





    Boys, time to break out the tar and feathers.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 05-13-2011 at 04:01 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  7. #7
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Not hard to believe but hard to stomach. This is going no good way...
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    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."
    I'm sorry, I may just be a dumb ol' law abiding and well read citizen, but I could have sworn that courts uphold the LAWS and not "public policy". And what "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" exactly are they referring to?
    Last edited by Bobarino; 05-13-2011 at 06:57 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobarino View Post
    I'm sorry, I may just be a dumb ol' law abiding and well read citizen, but I could have sworn that courts uphold the LAWS and not "public policy". And what "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" exactly are they referring to?

    Law(s) are public policy. Public policy is reflected in the interpretation, and application of Law(s).

    'Jurisprudence' by one definition is a "philosophy of Law(s)," - so, the "modern philosophy (reasoning) of Law(s)." Yes, 'modern philosophy of Law(s)' is different than philosophy of Law(s) as it was in the past. Meaning, the interpretation, then application of Law(s) functions as it is relative, and temporal to the act of interpretation, and application.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-13-2011 at 07:05 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    The court's decision stems from a... 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.
    From the PDF of the decision:
    We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.
    Top of pg. 6:
    The right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.
    I expect this will go to the US Supreme Court.
    This is a major departure from long-standing legal precident.

    Bottom of pg. 10 in the pdf:
    The physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the 4th Amendment is directed.
    Payton v. New York, 445 US 573, 585 (1980)
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet
    That is just bone chilling.
    +1000

  11. #11
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

    The right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.


    Good lord! The very statements are contradictory! Both statements mention the word "UNLAWFUL". So a court rules that UNLAWFUL ACTS ARE LAWFUL. I mean WTF! Does the government not govern at the consent of the governed? Christ on a cruch this very ruling is UNLAWFUL. Three judges should be prosectuted under federal civil rights laws. Gotta look that up. INCREDULOUS, is the best word.
    Last edited by riverrat10k; 05-13-2011 at 09:11 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I think it's time for fair turn around a group of citizens in the Hoosier state need to invade a police officers home and he can fight it in court later.
    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)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Legal or illegal does not equate to correct, right, moral, etc. Many laws are simply idiotic.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  14. #14
    Regular Member mmdkyoung123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Independence, and Kansas City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    164
    So now police don't need a search warrant. They can go house to house and demand to be allowed entry and do what ever it is they want to do. How can ANY one think that is how the 4 th amendment should be read/Interpreted. Just absolutely ridiculous. I can't use language in here strong enough to describe how wrong this is.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by mmdkyoung123 View Post
    So now police don't need a search warrant. They can go house to house and demand to be allowed entry and do what ever it is they want to do. How can ANY one think that is how the 4 th amendment should be read/Interpreted. Just absolutely ridiculous. I can't use language in here strong enough to describe how wrong this is.
    The police never needed a search warrant to enter your house, just 'probable' cause; and 'probable cause' is a pretty broad term. Now, to search the home, yes, they need a search warrant, with the exception of 'clearing' the house for 'officer safety'.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Raise your hand if you think your FREE ? yup..your not free, Totalitarian police states are not free states

    Raise your hands if you think you have rights ? Yup. you have no rights, they have been replaced with privilages

    Raise you hands if you think America is a Police state ? Yup, I agree the BATFE, DHS, FEMA,INTERPOL they all can do what ever they want to you when ever they want to do it...you have no say, no defense, no recourse, NO CHANCE.
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 05-13-2011 at 11:30 PM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock34 View Post
    Raise your hand if you think your FREE ? yup..your not free, Totalitarian police states are not free states

    Raise your hands if you think you have rights ? Yup. you have no rights, they have been replaced with privilages

    Raise you hands if you think America is a Police state ? Yup, I agree the BATFE, DHS, FEMA,INTERPOL they all can do what ever they want to you when ever they want to do it...you have no say, no defense, no recourse, NO CHANCE.
    You assume that 'rights' were at some time 'Rights' in application. '(r)ights' have always been privileges. You can thank the Founding Father for those "affirmations."

    We do live in a quazi-Police State. By the definition, and functioning of a Totalitarian State, America is not a Totalitarian State.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    The Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Barnes v. State is consistent with the law in most other states--and certainly the modern trend. I agree with the court's rationale 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."

    There is NEVER any set of circumstances under which I personally would ever resist an LEO, regardless of how wrong he was. Regardless of whether the law allowed resistance to unlawful police conduct, anyone who physically resists an officer has a death wish.

    Violations of our rights can be redressed later in court. Any person who is the victim of any violation of his or her rights (whether a civil rights violation by the government or a private tort or breach of contract) has a duty to mitigate damages. The Indiana Supreme Court--and most other courts that have already come to similar positions--made the right decision.

    In this vein, I happen to be handling a case--which I will post in the West Virginia forum when I am ready to fully publicize it--in which my client, a fellow attorney, was unlawfully detained for over a half hour for open carrying around noon on a Saturday in a popular restaurant in his city; his driver's license, concealed handgun license, and handgun were unlawfully seized from him; and one of the officers involved made a not-so-subtle threat to shoot my client. My client handled this situation perfectly and, as a result, was able to walk away in the same physical condition as he began this encounter and in possession of all of his property (including openly-carried handgun). He could have resisted (WV happens to be among the states that have not yet expressly disavowed an individual's right to resist a police officer acting unlawfully) at the risk of either the Rodney King treatment or perhaps a few new orifices, but his calm, cool, and collected handling of this incident only helps expose the egregiousness of the violations of his rights that he suffered. His live testimony of what happened is much more valuable than anything the medical examiner could have said had my client chosen a different response and ended up at Forest Lawn.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post

    Violations of our rights can be redressed later in court. Any person who is the victim of any violation of his or her rights (whether a civil rights violation by the government or a private tort or breach of contract) has a duty to mitigate damages. The Indiana Supreme Court--and most other courts that have already come to similar positions--made the right decision.
    That is, if you survive the raid, right? So, not any person, only survivors.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post

    Violations of our rights can be redressed later in court.
    If we have the time and money?


    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."
    What about this please?

    I can defend myself against an illegal entry by a felon. But not by a Cop. Even though by illegally entering my house the cops are engaged in criminal activity?
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 05-14-2011 at 12:57 AM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    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."
    The question is, does 'officer safety' fall under "exigent circumstances?"

    Also, I would like to know what Rucker means by "necessity of a warrant?" Is Rucker referring to an 'act' by the LEO that would Constitutionally require a warrant (?), such as, when the LEO(s) are searching the residence for things other than persons, and weapons (securing the residence).

    LEO's can enter the home legally without a warrant under certain circumstances.

    I would really like a link to the ruling if someone has it.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    I can defend myself against an illegal entry by a felon. But not by a Cop. Even though by illegally entering my house the cops are engaged in criminal activity?
    Typically when an LEO does it, the issue is a Civil issue, and not a Criminal issue. Think of the LEO as not an individual, but rather, and extension of an entity that is the government.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    That is, if you survive the raid, right? So, not any person, only survivors.
    If you want to go down that road, the odds are not in favor of you being among the survivors. That is the exact type of needless escalation of violence the Indiana Supreme Court and the vast majority of other courts seek to prevent.
    Last edited by JimMullinsWVCDL; 05-14-2011 at 01:06 AM.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    If you want to go down that road, the odds are not in favor of you being among the survivors. That is the exact type of needless escalation of violence the Indiana Supreme Court and the vast majority of other courts seek to prevent.
    Go down what road? Responding to an individual or group of individuals breaking in your door with guns drawn, claiming to be LEO, when you know for a fact that you have not committed any crime. If I am sitting in my home, and an individual or group of individuals break into my home, me being of the mind that there is no reason an LEO agency would be invading my home, I would assume that the individuals are posing as LEO's. Does that conclusion seem unreasonable? FWIU, conservatively, 10% of raids are at the wrong address.

    The issue here is that from what I understand, and you can correct me if I am wrong, if the LEO serving the warrant, or entering your home (without warrant) in 'good faith', meaning, they reasonably believed that the entry was valid, will not allow for you to successfully pursue 'civil remedies'. If I am wrong about this, link me up.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    How about the cops not needlessly escalating the violence by not entering the abode illegally?
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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