Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

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...

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.

HandyHamlet said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Beretta92FSLady said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

WVCDL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

How about the cops not needlessly escalating the violence by not entering the abode illegally?

HandyHamlet said:

How about the cops not needlessly escalating the violence by not entering the abode illegally?

Click to expand...

I am not trying to be argumentative here. The LEO(s) are not escalating violence, but rather, creating a circumstance where violence can occur. The act of entering your home may be unConstitutional, but illegal, not necessarily. LEO's, for the most part, and short of some miracle, are above the Law. LEO's are governed by the Constitution, but when they do not fulfill their Duty to enforce the Law along constitutional lines, they are nearly never held criminally liable.

There is a difference between 'unConstitutional', and 'illegal'. Unconstitutional means that a Law is found to not Constitutional, but is assumed, and treated as Constitutional until found otherwise by SCOTUS - there is no illegality in that. Illegal means that a Law is being broken.

Beretta92FSLady said:

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'.

Click to expand...

Could you show me the court decision that supports that? Don't bother with Terry v. Ohio, at it deals solely with frisking a subject on the street for weapons when you have probable cause for officer safety...

Beretta92FSLady said:

There is a difference between 'unConstitutional', and 'illegal'. Unconstitutional means that a Law is found to not Constitutional, but is assumed, and treated as Constitutional until found otherwise by SCOTUS - there is no illegality in that. Illegal means that a Law is being broken.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your post. Nor am I trying to argue. I would however like to point out that dissenting Judge Robert Rucker specifically says "illegal" according to his quote in the linked story.

Also, last time I checked exercising my Constitutional Rights is not escalating violence. When a person or government agency infringes upon my Rights THEY are escalating the violence against ME and MY country.

Tawnos said:

Could you show me the court decision that supports that? Don't bother with Terry v. Ohio, at it deals solely with frisking a subject on the street for weapons when you have probable cause for officer safety...

Click to expand...

There are four main circumstances in which a warrant is not required for police to search your house:
1. Consent. If the person who is in control of the property consents to the search without being coerced or tricked into doing so, a search without a warrant is valid. Note that police do not have to tell you that you have the right to refuse a search, but you do. Also, note that if you have a roommate, he or she can consent to a search of the common areas of your dwelling (kitchen, living room), but not to your private areas (bedroom, for instance). On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently ruled that one spouse cannot consent to the search of a house on behalf of the other.
2. Plain View. If a police officer already has the right to be on your property and sees contraband or evidence of a crime that is clearly visible, that object may be lawfully seized and used as evidence. For example, if the police are in your house on a domestic violence call and see marijuana plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized as evidence.
3. Search Incident to Arrest. If you are being arrested in your house, police officers may search for weapons or other accomplices to protect their safety (known as a "protective sweep"), or they may otherwise search to prevent the destruction of evidence.
4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.

http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your

Chimel v. California


I will have to look around a bit to find other ruling. But this ruling covers the issue at hand, the question of whether or not an officer can make entry to your home, and the extent of search that can take place without a warrant.

So based on this logic, if I am standing outside and my front door is locked, the police can force entry into my house with "probable cause".

mmdkyoung123 said:

So based on this logic, if I am standing outside and my front door is locked, the police can force entry into my house with "probable cause".

Click to expand...

No. They have to have 'probable cause' to make entry..."articulable" 'reasonable' cause.

So, if the LEO is responding to the scene because there is some man standing on the porch, they have no 'probable cause' to enter the home.

If the LEO is responding to a call where you, and a man/woman are yelling in your home, the LEO shows up, and you are standing out on the porch, the front door is locked, and the officer believes that the individual you are arguing with is in the house, I think they would have 'probably cause' to make entry for investigative purposes. Now, that does not mean they can go rummaging through your 'things'. Only that they can look to see if there is an individual in your house, and that they are in good welfare.

I could be wrong. Some person will correct me if I am.


But let's clear something up here, an LEO can do whatever they want. Whether or not it is Constitutional is for the '(Cc)ourts' to decide.

Beretta92FSLady said:

No. They have to have 'probable cause' to make entry..."articulable" 'reasonable' cause.

So, if the LEO is responding to the scene because there is some man standing on the porch, they have no 'probable cause' to enter the home.

If the LEO is responding to a call where you, and a man/woman are yelling in your home, the LEO shows up, and you are standing out on the porch, the front door is locked, and the officer believes that the individual you are arguing with is in the house, I think they would have 'probably cause' to make entry for investigative purposes. Now, that does not mean they can go rummaging through your 'things'. Only that they can look to see if there is an individual in your house, and that they are in good welfare.

I could be wrong. Some person will correct me if I am.


But let's clear something up here, an LEO can do whatever they want. Whether or not it is Constitutional is for the '(Cc)ourts' to decide.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that this ruling in Indiana completely negates the need for probable cause, consent, plain view, or exigent circumstances. You cannot resist, in any way, a cop entering your home for any reason or no reason at all. Period. That's what this ruling says. It says sure, take them to court afterwards but your only option is civil court. No possibility of criminal court or prosecution even under 18USC242 against the offending officer. You'd have to find a DA or PA to go after the cop and we all know there ain't one out there with any sort of balls when it comes to prosecuting cops. You're left with at most, a monetary award. What price tag do you put on your Constitutional rights?

So if a criminal enters my home illegal I can use lethal force, yet because a man with a badge does the same thing I cant do anything to defend my property. I pray this goes to the US Supreme Court. This ruling is going to get some person killed cop and citizen alike.

zack991 said:

So if a criminal enters my home illegal I can use lethal force, yet because a man with a badge does the same thing I cant do anything to defend my property. I pray this goes to the US Supreme Court. This ruling is going to get some person killed cop and citizen alike.

Click to expand...

It has before. I agree with you. I am armed at home. Esp if someone knocks down my door.

In a free society, all unlawful acts of tyranny must be resistable without consequence. This is axiomatic. This is fundamental to the definition of a free society.

One must realize that, before he resists the state-sanctioned force, he must be certain that the force is unlawful. If the force turns out to be lawful, he should suffer the consequences of that resistance.

Therefore, I disagree vehemently with the court's ruling, but think the defendant should've been found guilty anyway. I hope this case is appealable to the SCOTUS and that they affirm the common law right to resist unlawful use of force, whether it is applied by criminals with nefarious intent or by state agents acting out of mistaken good faith.

We (officers included) are each individually responsible for knowing and abiding by the law and are subject to consequences when we run afoul of it.

Bobarino said:

You don't seem to understand that this ruling in Indiana completely negates the need for probable cause, consent, plain view, or exigent circumstances. You cannot resist, in any way, a cop entering your home for any reason or no reason at all. Period. That's what this ruling says. It says sure, take them to court afterwards but your only option is civil court. No possibility of criminal court or prosecution even under 18USC242 against the offending officer. You'd have to find a DA or PA to go after the cop and we all know there ain't one out there with any sort of balls when it comes to prosecuting cops. You're left with at most, a monetary award. What price tag do you put on your Constitutional rights?

Click to expand...

I am not missing this point. My response was not to the court ruling in the OT. I was responding to what LEO's can generally do.

The Indiana ruling goes much further. Too far, IMO; as if LEO's already had far to much leeway.

Constitutional 'rights' are negotiated every day by Court findings, and court rulings.

Officers are above the law, and generally above the Law.

eye95 said:

In a free society, all unlawful acts of tyranny must be resistable without consequence. This is axiomatic. This is fundamental to the definition of a free society.

One must realize that, before he resists the state-sanctioned force, he must be certain that the force is unlawful. If the force turns out to be lawful, he should suffer the consequences of that resistance.

Therefore, I disagree vehemently with the court's ruling, but think the defendant should've been found guilty anyway. I hope this case is appealable to the SCOTUS and that they affirm the common law right to resist unlawful use of force, whether it is applied by criminals with nefarious intent or by state agents acting out of mistaken good faith.

We (officers included) are each individually responsible for knowing and abiding by the law and are subject to consequences when we run afoul of it.

Click to expand...

I agree %100. This was a horrible ruling. Next thing you know EPA will have dynamic entry teams assaulting homes because the inhabitants failed to sort their recycliables.

beretta92fslady said:

they have to have 'probable cause' to make entry..."articulable" 'reasonable' cause.

Click to expand...

RAS ≠ PC

Just so you know.

marshaul said:

RAS ≠ PC

Just so you know.

Click to expand...

And I didn't state that it does.

I stated:

"they have to have Probable Cause to make entry..."articulable," 'reasonable' Probable Cause."

I stated that they must have Probable Cause that is "articulable," and 'reasonable'.

"Suspicion," and "cause" are not the same 'thing'. But I am sure you already knew that.

Beretta92FSLady said:

And I didn't state that it does.

I stated:

"they have to have Probable Cause to make entry..."articulable," 'reasonable' Probable Cause."

I stated that they must have Probable Cause that is "articulable," and 'reasonable'.

"Suspicion," and "cause" are not the same 'thing'. But I am sure you already knew that.

Click to expand...

OK, but "articulable", "reasonable" and "suspicion" have nothing to do with the standard needed for entry into a home.