• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.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?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

USAR-VET

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
44
Location
Northern CT
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?? :banghead:
 

Savage206

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Lexington, KY
I was just came here to post about this. I cannot believe it!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:
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...... :cuss:
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
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:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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:

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
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?
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
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:

Felix

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
186
Location
VA
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?
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
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.
 

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
borg2.jpg
 
Last edited:

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Gee, who didn't see this one coming?

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-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-L...ened-after-allowing-warrantless-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
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
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:

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
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.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
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
 

ATF Consumer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
25
Location
Carnesville, GA
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/code/title35/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
 
Top