Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Indiana Surpreme court says cops don't need permission to enter your house

  1. #1
    Regular Member ayce2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greater Fox cities area
    Posts
    89

    Indiana Surpreme court says cops don't need permission to enter your house

    I know this is Wisconsin, but I just read this and need to scream

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


  2. #2
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    Well that is just fked up!! Something tells me that this could very well end up before the SC.
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Someone attempting to enter my home illegally will face far greater obstacles than just my lack of permission.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    I'm not in Indiana, but this just makes my blood run cold! Whatever happened to the doctrine that a man's home is his castle? A doctrine handed down in English Common Law, upon which much of our law is based, from the days of the Magna Carta.

    I fear that, if this is not overturned by SCOTUS, it will be copied in other states and be a further excuse for trampling our rights.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Actually, Wisconsin was already ahead of Indiana on this issue. In State v. Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), which the Indiana Supreme Court cited in its decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Wisconsin would no longer recognize common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest in the absence of unreasonable force.

    In another thread, I posted:

    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Everywhere...and nowhere
    Posts
    28
    I don't thinik so Indiana!

    This is a blatent attampt to curcumvent our bill of rights. This has SCOTUS writen all over it, as this is a clear volition of our 4th ammenment rights. Only a 2/3 majorty vote in congress (I believe its congress) can change an ammenment, not some gung ho losers in IN,so this "law" is dead on the water imho.

    -Tango

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    To Be Accurate

    ---Indiana Surpreme court says cops don't need permission to enter your house---

    isn't quite the decision. Rather it is that the remedy for unlawful entry is through the legal process vs self-help (possibly violent). I don't know of any cases where force was used to prevent LEO entry. If for no other reason than the homeowner would have to be 100% correct in his assessment of illegality. Compare this to Private Jones' refusal to execute General Bluster's "illegal" order. If Jones is right, he's a hero. If not, he's an inmate at Leavenworth. I would make sure that the entry was through a closed, locked door so the result would be photogenically stunning, videotaped if possible, witnesses, crying children or old people collapsing helps. Depending upon the reason for entry, a LEO may backoff rather than risk unnecessary damage and injury (to anyone). Think of high speed pursuit policies. This policy can only work if there is real and effective compensation for a wronged citizen. I agree, SCOTUS here we come!

  8. #8
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    ... an unlawful arrest in the absence of unreasonable force.
    Is that were 3-4 25O lb armed, armored and tattooed cops gently blow in my ear while administering me a pedicure AND full body message? While one sneaks up behind and coaxes a pair of pink fury cuffs daintily around my wrists so he won't rob me of my impending slumber?
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 05-15-2011 at 01:59 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

  9. #9
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    Someone attempting to enter my home illegally will face far greater obstacles than just my lack of permission.
    Yup!

    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    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.
    Though I appreciate your comments and advice, My personal experience with LEOs, the courts, and lawyers in general does not give me any confidence in allowing my rights to be trampled. Most folks don't get it but there are things that stick in a man's craw lots worse than dying...

    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    Is that were 3-4 25O lb armed, armored and tattooed cops gently blow in my ear while administering me a pedicure AND full body message? While one sneaks up behind and coaxes a pair of pink fury cuffs daintily around my wrists so he won't rob me of my impending slumber?
    Not likely, and I ain't serving tea and crumpets for any trespasser either...
    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.

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest
    court says cops don't need permission to enter your house- yeah, try that, let me know how it works out for you here.

  11. #11
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445
    BANG!!!!, OOOOOPS, MY BAD
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  12. #12
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    Actually, Wisconsin was already ahead of Indiana on this issue.
    I love the fact that in the face of a tyrannical act responsibility falls on the citizen to defuse the situation, eat sh*t, and then pay for the privilege to prove his rights were violated at a date to be named later.

    Call me ignorant of the Law but I'm guessing that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they had those little get togethers over High Tea years ago.


    Violations of our rights can be redressed later in court.
    Still waiting to hear what happens when the victim does not have the wherewithal to retain counsel. Does not have the time to spend three years in pre-trial hearings as the state plays musical chairs with it's P.A.s. Or the money to sit around through the pre or post court appeals.
    "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

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    Someone attempting to enter my home illegally will face far greater obstacles than just my lack of permission.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by hardballer View Post
    Yup!..
    .
    And they will take your weapons from your cold dead hands.....
    Better to live to fight another day.

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    --......it is that the remedy for unlawful entry is through the legal process vs self-help (possibly violent)..... If for no other reason than the homeowner would have to be 100% correct in his assessment of illegality. Compare this to Private Jones' refusal to execute General Bluster's "illegal" order. If Jones is right, he's a hero. If not, he's an inmate at Leavenworth. .....
    This... The homeowner has no way of knowing whether or not the warrant is proper. If you resist an entry and the assault team had a valid warrant even though there may have been an error, you and possibly your family will pay a price for resistance.

  14. #14
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    This is a ruling allowing the "ends to justify the means." Of course, you can fight it, but be prepared to bankrupt pocketbook, your time and your reputation doing so. And just like when companies make rebates mail-in; they are counting on you to just sit down, shut-up and pay your taxes.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    This is a ruling allowing the "ends to justify the means." Of course, you can fight it, but be prepared to bankrupt pocketbook, your time and your reputation doing so. And just like when companies make rebates mail-in; they are counting on you to just sit down, shut-up and pay your taxes.
    It does not legitimize bad entries. It simply says that the homeowner does not have the option to resist it at the time.

  16. #16
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    It does not legitimize bad entries. It simply says that the homeowner does not have the option to resist it at the time.
    Um... IMHO if you can't protect your house from an illegal entry AT THE TIME, then it for sure legitimizes the illegal entry!

    Resistance verbally or physically to illegal search and seizure is imperative to the strength of the 4th Amendment.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    .....Resistance verbally or physically to illegal search and seizure is imperative to the strength of the 4th Amendment.
    At the time of entry, you have no way of knowing if it is "illegal" or not. It can still be 100% legal but mistaken. You do not have the luxury of making that call at the time of entry.
    Verbally is alright but physically is not the way to live to fight another day. A wise man picks his battles. If you resist you will most definitely be over-powered and face additional charges. Instead of simply contesting the original search you may find yourself with multiple felony convictions by the time you are done.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 05-15-2011 at 01:26 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    If you are a law abiding citizen I am pretty sure you would know it and could therefore figure out the dudes with badges should not be kicking your door in.

    It can still be 100% legal but mistaken.
    What on earth does this mean please?
    "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

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    Still waiting to hear what happens when the victim does not have the wherewithal to retain counsel. Does not have the time to spend three years in pre-trial hearings as the state plays musical chairs with it's P.A.s. Or the money to sit around through the pre or post court appeals.
    There are lawyers who will take meitorious Section 1983 cases on contingency (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides attorney's fees to successful civil rights plaintiffs). Admittedly, we're not as plentiful as slip-and-fall lawyers, but we do exist.
    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

  20. #20
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    A 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."
    Still agree there guy?



    Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will


    May 16, 2011 at 1:15 pm
    by: Allison Bricker

    CROWN POINT, Ind. – 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.

    http://smargus.com/indiana-sheriff-i...rches-we-will/
    "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 Wolf1477's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Up Nort' Wi
    Posts
    188
    This is going to be what brings blood to the streets. Some chucklehead LEO is gonna want to do "random" searches (targeted searches without RAS) and some citizen's going to get shot...oh wait...it already has:

    http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...7da6e9e4b.html
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/ma...two-tours-in-i


    Basically a blockwide no-knock warrant. 71 rounds fired by LEO (Marines rifle was still on "Safe"), 60 holes in the Marine with his wife and one of his children still in the house.

  22. #22
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf1477 View Post
    This is going to be what brings blood to the streets. Some chucklehead LEO is gonna want to do "random" searches (targeted searches without RAS) and some citizen's going to get shot...oh wait...it already has:

    http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...7da6e9e4b.html
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/ma...two-tours-in-i


    Basically a blockwide no-knock warrant. 71 rounds fired by LEO (Marines rifle was still on "Safe"), 60 holes in the Marine with his wife and one of his children still in the house.
    Milwaukees own Ed Flynn must love this stuff. Can't help but wonder if he is going to try this as well. Could only wish his is the first home "searched"...

  23. #23
    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.

    Lets take the very recent shooting of the Marine in Arizona and move it to Indiana. Let us say the courts determined the raid was illegal. The SWAT team entered and killed the Marine as he met them with a loaded firearm.

    Since the State says he can not resist illegal entry by the Police that means his widow has no Civil Case? Even though the courts decided the entry was illegal. His death was caused by his own resistance. So the violation of his and his families Constitutional Rights would in fact NOT be redressed later in court?

    "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

  24. #24
    McX
    Guest
    i probably shouldnt say this, but i dont give a damn what the authorities think they can snake past us, entry into my home without a warrant, or invitation will force me into a defensive position.

  25. #25
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    i probably shouldnt say this, but i dont give a damn what the authorities think they can snake past us, entry into my home without a warrant, or invitation will force me into a defensive position.
    Your not alone my friend. This new Indiana "law of the land" is proof that we need to keep an eye open at all times.
    As far as I see it, Indiana is a police state, and the people don't care enough to put a stop to this. I would not even think about any visit to the place.
    If this story is all true, the Indiana Supreme Court should be replaced - TODAY - !

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
  •