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/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.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.

JamesCanby said:

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/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.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.

Click to expand...

that 'correction in the courts' is totally bogus as will be seen by the numerous good faith exceptions already given to LEOs

That is just bone chilling.

"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 guess the 4th amendment doesn't exist in IN...haha...what a bass ackward state...

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.


:question:


Boys, time to break out the tar and feathers.

Not hard to believe but hard to stomach. This is going no good way...

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."

Click to expand...

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?

Bobarino said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

From the PDF of the decision:

We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

Click to expand...

Top of pg. 6:

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

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

HandyHamlet said:

That is just bone chilling.

Click to expand...

+1000

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.

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. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Legal or illegal does not equate to correct, right, moral, etc. Many laws are simply idiotic.

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.

mmdkyoung123 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

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.

Glock34 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

WVCDL said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is, if you survive the raid, right? So, not any person, only survivors.

WVCDL said:

Violations of our rights can be redressed later in court.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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?