Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

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

    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."

    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."
    Are you guys paying attention over there?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Tyrrany advances.

    First, the government creates numerous warrant clause exceptions. Then it figures there are so many exceptions there is no point in continuing the right to resist an illegal entry.

    The VA Supreme Court or Court of Appeals did something like this some years ago. In Christian vs Commonwealth the court said there is no right to physically resist an unlawful detention.

    So, you and I have no right to resist an unlawful detention in VA. But, once we're cuffed--for officer safety, of course--there is no way we could resist a false arrest if the cops decide to carry it further.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48
    Yep, we will soon be where Russia once was.

    Sent from my EVO via Tapatalk pro.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Northern CT
    Posts
    44
    So does this mean you can't shoot anyone such as a burglar either who's breaking in to your home in the great state of Indiana?? I guess what there saying is only some people are above the law, while others most obey it. Am I reading this right??? Are we still in the United States of America??

  5. #5
    Regular Member Savage206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    53
    I was just came here to post about this. I cannot believe it!!!!
    Everyone in Indiana better be planning a trip to the capitol for a protest soon! I will be moving to KY in July so will be close enough to help out!! This is madness!!! I have met a few police officers in my day that I have no doubt would take advantage of this.....I have also met a lot that would not of course but this is a DANGEROUS precedent. Say someone yells police as they are busting in through your front door only to find out that it is NOT the police and someone trying to harm your family. You did not shoot because now you worry about breaking this asinine law......

  6. #6
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Karl Denninger at Market Ticker wrote a nice article....

    "Lacking probable cause to believe a crime had been or was about to be committed the officers had no right to enter upon this man's private property. That should have been the beginning and end of it and in fact law stretching back to 1200 AD, wildly pre-dating the foundation of this nation, has repeatedly recognized that it is."

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186124
    Last edited by riverrat10k; 05-15-2011 at 11:12 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    All across this land governments are making war against the people! This precedent cannot stand!
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    To ALL Fellow Hoosiers:

    The Fourth Amendment CANNOT be Dead...,

    aadvark

    Indiana Constitution Section 11. Search and Seizure
    Section 11. The RIGHT of The People to be Secure in Their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects, against Unreasonable Search or Seizure, shall NOT be Violated; and NO Warrant shall Issue, but upon Probable Cause, Supported by Oath or Affirmation, and Particularly Describing The Place to be Searched, and The Person or Thing to be Seized.
    Last edited by aadvark; 05-16-2011 at 12:23 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850

    You guys have a serious problem...

    I just read the following from the same article:

    "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."

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

    Your court needs a reality check. So, in essense, you cannot resist any unannounced intrusion into your home until you are absolutely certain that the intruder is not carrying a badge. Do you guys have any form of Castle Doctrine?
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    I just read the following from the same article:

    "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."

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

    Your court needs a reality check. So, in essense, you cannot resist any unannounced intrusion into your home until you are absolutely certain that the intruder is not carrying a badge. Do you guys have any form of Castle Doctrine?
    Basically the combination of these rulings means cops can now enter any home they choose, unannounced, no knock, at any time they choose, and if you resist (potentially even verbally) you will be arrested and possibly shot.
    Not only does the burden of proof fall on the innocent citizen , they have to hire their own lawyer to sue and attempt to prove the police entered illegally.

    This turns justice on it's head.
    Last edited by Skeptic; 05-17-2011 at 08:51 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    186
    Some strange rulings over there in the Hoosier state this past week. What's up...I always assumed that (largely) farming state was very personal-rights friendly. Anyone have info on the court's makeup?
    Daily carry: SIG P229 .40 S&W

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    Some strange rulings over there in the Hoosier state this past week. What's up...I always assumed that (largely) farming state was very personal-rights friendly. Anyone have info on the court's makeup?
    Id like to know this as well considering there was a job posting with Cummins someone forwarded to me, and I had been considering it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290
    I was born in Indianapolis at St. Vincent's Hospital in January 1953. Seeing Indiana turn blue on Election Day 2008 was a shock to me, but this item blows that away.

    But it seems to me that after WW II, the people of this country started looking for ways to mitigate the use of force by investing it into the hands of an elite band of folks designated "peace officers". Particularly in Indiana, the idea that "public servants" chosen and authorized by the people should be the sole bearers of deadly force took hold. The people didn't think of this as "surrendering their rights" but rather that "trained professionals" could better decide when, where, and how to administer force than could the common hayseed.

    You need to understand the Indiana mindset. My Dad once told me, when I got my first job, to list "zero deductions" on my W-2 so as to get a "whopping big refund". Now, folks, Dad was an engineer, and he in fact designed the shipboard ATMs used by our sailors and Marines these days. Nonetheless, his tax advice I now recognize as one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

    The "Indiana mindset" says that every two years we choose a Representative, every six, a Senator, and every four, a President; and then (things being settled) we all obey until we have a chance to choose new leaders. But until then we follow "majority rule".

    Well. If You See Kay, (tell her) that.

    See, folks, the people in corn country still believe that government is of, by, and for the people.

    This State Supreme Court ruling should be a huge wake-up call, and one I hope the people of my native State will heed as the Lexington patriots heeded the cries of Paul Revere.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    To ALL Fellow Hoosiers:

    The Fourth Amendment CANNOT be Dead...,

    aadvark

    Indiana Constitution Section 11. Search and Seizure
    Section 11. The RIGHT of The People to be Secure in Their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects, against Unreasonable Search or Seizure, shall NOT be Violated; and NO Warrant shall Issue, but upon Probable Cause, Supported by Oath or Affirmation, and Particularly Describing The Place to be Searched, and The Person or Thing to be Seized.

    Sad thng is I think it stands a very good chance of being upheld, in light of the 8-1 decision released May 16. The police say he had pot and that they smelled pot, and heard noise. That was sufficient for them to kick in his door without a warrant, according to the 8-1 majority.

    The war on drugs , on REEFER MADNESS has now trumped one of our most fundamental individual rights.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

    I feel like I went through a wormhole sometime this week.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Last edited by MR Redenck; 05-18-2011 at 11:49 AM.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Gee, who didn't see this one coming?

    http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Le...s-we-will.html

    According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
    and this one also....

    http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Le...-searches.html

    The Indiana Supreme Court has received numerous threats via telephone and email following a controversial decision handed down last Thursday, May 12th, 2011, that “authorizes” police to search homes randomly according to Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman, Kathryn Dolan. In a 3-2 ruling in BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA, Justice Steven David, appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels wrote that under “modern” (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence, Hoosiers must submit to the violent force of any and all UNLAWFUL searches instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion due to individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law.
    From the Indiana State Constitution:
    Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

    Indiana Constitution
    Ratified 1851

  17. #17
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    These judges need to be removed from office. Even life long appointed judges have a process for removal. These domestic enemies need to go.

    ETA: Oh, and Sheriff Hartman needs to be removed from office as well. All these tyrants are a clear and present danger to liberty.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 05-18-2011 at 08:07 PM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585
    This just continues to bother me to no end, beyond the obvious fiasco it makes of our FUNDAMENTAL INALIENABLE RIGHTS, there are some very practical considerations.

    1) How are citizens supposed to know the difference between an (obviously unexpected) illegal entry by police, and a home invasion by people in police garb?

    2) How can a remedy that places the burden upon the innocent citizen to prove the state wrong , at the citizen's own expense, be a just and equitable decision? The whole point to our rights is that the state has to prove we did wrong, has to document what those charges are and present them to us; not that they can do what they like and if we dont like it we can hire a lawyer if we can afford it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Here is another good article from Karl Denninger on this.....

    "Absent probable cause the act of forcibly entering the defendant's apartment was a crime. Using physical force, including a weapon, was a further crime. Indiana IC-35-42-2-9 appears to apply to a "choke hold" and is a class "D" felony. Battery with a taser is also a crime."

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186593

  20. #20
    Regular Member ATF Consumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    21
    Indiana also has the Castle Doctrine...

    That trumps any stupid ruling by the court over a particular incident, as it is in direct conflict with the Castle Doctrine...

    Source: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html

    IC 35-41-3
    Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability
    IC 35-41-3-1
    Legal authority
    Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
    As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.

    IC 35-41-3-2
    Use of force to protect person or property

    Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
    (b) A person:
    (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
    (c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
    (d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
    (1) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and

    (B) until the aircraft takes off;
    (2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
    (3) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the aircraft lands; and
    (B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
    (e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
    (f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
    (1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
    (2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
    As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
    IC 35-41-3-3
    I'd tell you UDP jokes, but you probably wouldn't get them every time, so I'll only tell TCP jokes, that way you'll always get them!

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
    How are citizens supposed to know the difference between an (obviously unexpected) illegal entry by police, and a home invasion by people in police garb?
    Why, you start shooting, of course.

    If they skedaddle, it was criminals in police garb.

    If they shoot back, don't skedaddle, and keep shooting at you, then retire to black vehicles in front of your house, its still criminals in police garb. (albeit, real police)

    Why make a distinction between common criminals and government criminals? (rhetorical question; I do understand why in this context)

  22. #22
    Regular Member ATF Consumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Why, you start shooting, of course.

    If they skedaddle, it was criminals in police garb.

    If they shoot back, don't skedaddle, and keep shooting at you, then retire to black vehicles in front of your house, its still criminals in police garb. (albeit, real police)

    Why make a distinction between common criminals and government criminals? (rhetorical question; I do understand why in this context)
    Exactly...your home is your castle and you have a right to protect yourself in it.
    I'd tell you UDP jokes, but you probably wouldn't get them every time, so I'll only tell TCP jokes, that way you'll always get them!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    13

    Defending your family and home

    Gee your asleep and hear your front door get kicked in and you don't know who it is and you can't resist. This sounds crazy. I guess i will put a wishing well in my front and back yard as yard decorations. Have the sides set to fall outward to expose my home defense. http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=658
    In the case of HD it's better to have than to save for it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member ATF Consumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by tim46311 View Post
    Gee your asleep and hear your front door get kicked in and you don't know who it is and you can't resist. This sounds crazy. I guess i will put a wishing well in my front and back yard as yard decorations. Have the sides set to fall outward to expose my home defense. http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=658
    That would be some awesome HD right there...
    I'd tell you UDP jokes, but you probably wouldn't get them every time, so I'll only tell TCP jokes, that way you'll always get them!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes, , USA
    Posts
    167
    Since I am outside city limits, maybe I should consider putting some billy goats in the yard around the house? At least they could get a few head butts in on an intruder...even if I supposedly can't. And if they shoot billy, it is just that much more I can sue them for.

    This is nuts. Let's hope this gets turned around soon. What is being done:
    1) Indiana Senate wrote a scathing letter to the court requesting a rehearing and reversal. Easily done inside 30days.
    2) At least two Senators that I know are in talks with Gov Mitch Daniel's office. They are getting an ear, so some pressure through the gov could help.
    3) Second Amendment Partiots are involved in multiple discussions and ask that you write *polite* letters to your Indiana Senators, Reps, Gov and the IN Supreme Court. Being nasty doesn't cut it. Be factual and polite.
    4) Both the House and Senate are considering Legislative alternatives to nullify this.
    5) Various protests are being staged, although I don't think this will get much mileage in getting this changed. Go if you wish and vent, but behave yourself...

    The problem also appears to be a recalcitrant Attorney General Zoeller. He thinks the decision was correct, in spite of the US 4A, IN Article I Section 11 and recently passed Castle Doctrine improvement. A letter to him might be useful? Even if he ignores us, he'll know we are out here and pissed. However, I think time is better spent for IN residents to hammer their Senators, Reps and the Gov.

    Apparently the Evansville attorney representing Barnes has been offered legal help from across the country, so an appeal to Fed Court appears financially possible, but I wouldn't count on good results, especially if it should go past the 7th Circuit and heard by SCOTUS, the outcome is very doubtful given the recent opinions from SCOTUS. Oh well.

    Now is the time to get off the bench and get involved and make your voice heard.
    Last edited by bobcat; 06-01-2011 at 04:12 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •