Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Indiana Senate: Citizens have the right to resist illegal police entry.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381

    Indiana Senate: Citizens have the right to resist illegal police entry.

    http://www.theindychannel.com/politi...12/detail.html

    A Senate committee voted unanimously Tuesday morning in support of a bill that would allow homeowners to use force to resist an illegal police entry.
    Now if only it would come into law, there might just be less instances of illegal police entry.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    http://www.theindychannel.com/politi...12/detail.html



    Now if only it would come into law, there might just be less instances of illegal police entry.
    Great. I just have one little question. How can one determine at the time of the "illegal police entry" that it was actually an illegal entry? Seems like making an inaccurate determination could place one at significant legal risk!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Great. I just have one little question. How can one determine at the time of the "illegal police entry" that it was actually an illegal entry? Seems like making an inaccurate determination could place one at significant legal risk!
    The bill specifies under what circumstances police could enter a home: with a warrant, in pursuit of a fleeing criminal suspect, to prevent someone from being harmed or at the invitation of a resident.

    Otherwise, a resident could use reasonable force, including a gun if necessary, to prevent entry.
    I.E. if the police barge into your home with a SWAT team, then you can take shots at them. They would only be able to enter your home if they are following a fleeing suspect, if they known and present their warrent prior to entry, to prevent someone inside from being harmed, or at the invitation of the person(s) who live there. Too many stories have made the rounds showcasing a SWAT team or plice team breaking down a door and enter a home, some without even calling out that it is the police, and shooting at the inhabitants without any concrete cause.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    I.E. if the police barge into your home with a SWAT team, then you can take shots at them. They would only be able to enter your home if they are following a fleeing suspect, if they known and present their warrent prior to entry, to prevent someone inside from being harmed, or at the invitation of the person(s) who live there. Too many stories have made the rounds showcasing a SWAT team or plice team breaking down a door and enter a home, some without even calling out that it is the police, and shooting at the inhabitants without any concrete cause.
    My question still stands in the case of a no-knock warrant.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    My question still stands in the case of a no-knock warrant.
    Sounds like, according to the bill and the language presented within, the homeowner would have the right to shoot the police if the police do not enter the home under the bill's definitions of legal ways to enter.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  6. #6
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Wisconsin's new Castle Doctrine requires public safety workers to identify themselves or be at risk. Home invaders are well known to shout POLICE as they break down the door. The home owner should not have to wait until the offense is completed to see the identification of public safety workers. Absent exigent circumstances a warrant should be served in business hours after notice is made.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    My question still stands in the case of a no-knock warrant.
    I am not going to bother trying to look it up, but my guess would be that under Indiana law/jurisprudence a no-knock warrant is not legal. Or perhaps not sanctioned by the State Constitution. Or violates The Common Law and therefore is not permitted (less sure of this given the history of the NWT, but that's why they are not legal/lawful in Virginia.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I am not going to bother trying to look it up, but my guess would be that under Indiana law/jurisprudence a no-knock warrant is not legal. Or perhaps not sanctioned by the State Constitution. Or violates The Common Law and therefore is not permitted (less sure of this given the history of the NWT, but that's why they are not legal/lawful in Virginia.)

    stay safe.
    My query was limited to the earlierly linked proposed state legislation.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Looks like it is a bill written in order to counteract the following: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/88027.html


    May 13, 2011
    Indiana Supreme Court Upholds the 'Rapist Doctrine': Don't Resist -- You'll Just Make It Worse
    Posted by William Grigg on May 13, 2011 10:40 AM
    The Indiana State Supreme Court has just nullified the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of that state’s constitution, in addition to "a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215," notes a wire service report. In a 3–2 decision, the court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

    “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,” wrote Justice Steven David. “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.”
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Not sure about any other state....

    RSMo 544.200

    It seems like a no-knock is illegal in Missouri.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I am pretty sure this is in response to that Indiana Supreme Court ruling also. It is a good proposed law. The proper procedure is to know where you are, knock, wait, present your credentials (ie the warrent) and then enter.

    The whole stupid "war on drugs" where the mentality as become "get the conviction at any cost" "what rights, they are criminals, they have no rights". Proper presentation of the warrent is safer for everyone, LEO, innocent citizen, and criminal.

    The US is no place for jack booted thug tactics.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    My question still stands in the case of a no-knock warrant.
    You may not be able to. But, this may be one of those things where the statute isn't really for the purpose of authorizing it before the fact, as covering your butt after the fact.

    A few bad guys bang on the door, you grab the gun, they come thru the door with guns, you shoot at them and they backpedal. You realize they are police. Being a good citizen, you comply with orders to lay down your gun and submit to arrest. Now it goes to court. The evidence shows their warrant was defective, or maybe they did not follow some proceduce like definitely announcing their presence. You're found not guilty.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    In the case of most of us (assumption) if someone shouts "police" and smashes in my front door, my first thought is not "Oh ****, they found out", it will be "Burglars" as I am not doing anything that would justify a legal warrant. The results will likely be gunfire and a cleaning bill. Your mileage and response may vary.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    In the case of most of us (assumption) if someone shouts "police" and smashes in my front door, my first thought is not "Oh ****, they found out", it will be "Burglars" as I am not doing anything that would justify a legal warrant. The results will likely be gunfire and a cleaning bill. Your mileage and response may vary.
    See sig.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Wisconsin's new Castle Doctrine requires public safety workers to identify themselves or be at risk. Home invaders are well known to shout POLICE as they break down the door. The home owner should not have to wait until the offense is completed to see the identification of public safety workers. Absent exigent circumstances a warrant should be served in business hours after notice is made.
    I disagree, unless the cops have to save a life or prevent a violent felony, there is no circumstance that justifies a bunch of cops to breakdown any doors. Attempting to prevent the occupants from flushing a baggie of weed down the toilet does not rise to a level where a full tactical assault is deemed necessary. If it is about drugs, the occupants will get more drugs and then you can get them, later.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You may not be able to. But, this may be one of those things where the statute isn't really for the purpose of authorizing it before the fact, as covering your butt after the fact.

    A few bad guys bang on the door, you grab the gun, they come thru the door with guns, you shoot at them and they backpedal. You realize they are police. Being a good citizen, you comply with orders to lay down your gun and submit to arrest. Now it goes to court. The evidence shows their warrant was defective, or maybe they did not follow some proceduce like definitely announcing their presence. You're found not guilty.
    I really suspect in this case there would ZERO back pedaling and I would actually found dead in my home after the bullets stopped flying in this HYPOTHETICAL and the officers found to have not violated any of their processes or procedures after the review!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    I really suspect in this case there would ZERO back pedaling and I would actually found dead in my home after the bullets stopped flying in this HYPOTHETICAL and the officers found to have not violated any of their processes or procedures after the review!
    There was a recent case where the cops had the wrong house, busted in the door, and it ended with an Iraqi vet killing one and injuring six before he was injured and the shooting stopped (I don't know if they arrested him or not). If this were to have happened in Indiana then the proposed law would either be a defense in court or it could flat out prevent the case from going to court (depends on how the law is written).

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    31
    I have a hard time with this.

    As a citizen, who has the same constitutional rights as any other, I insist that police officers adhere to the restrictions placed on them not only with regard to search warrants, but also to arrests and investigatory detentions. These rules were set by the founding fathers, and based on subsequent jurisprudence, not because they thought they were just good ideas, but due to the long history of suffering from the abuses of an oppressive government.

    However as a former LEO at both the Federal and State levels, I caution those who read such laws and court decisions and assume that with the law or court decision on their side, that they will prevail in such a situation. Police officers come to a search warrant with sufficient man power and fire power to meet any anticipated resistance they will encounter. They also have the ability to rapidly summon other officers who will enter the fray with less than a total understanding of the situation other than they are being summoned by one of their own, a brother officer, who is in need of assistance.

    I give you the following scenario as an example of how out of hand things can get. Bill is a law abiding and god fearing man who has never broken a law in his life other than a couple of speeding thickets. Bill has a son, Bob who is a POS. Bob got in with a wrong crowd and has started dealing drugs. Bob recently sold drugs to an undercover officer, and said officer has reason to believe Bob keep his drugs in Bills house, where he lives with his parents. The police officers obtain a warrant and because Bob is also known to carry a gun, they ask for a no knock warrant. Bill is at home drinking his morning coffee when the police kick in his front door, Bill thinks he is being robbed. Bill picks up his 38 revolver and starts throwing lead, the officers return fire, Bill is shot dead. A subsequent search turns up no drugs in the residence, and a subsequent investigation reveals that the undercover officer lied about knowing that Bob stored his drugs in the home where he lived.

    In this scenario, the fact that the officer lied about knowing drugs were in the house made the warrant to search the home unlawful. The officers actions in searching the house were unlawful. Under this doctrine, Bill was entitled to defend his home,,,,,,,,,but Bill is just as dead.

    A law or court decision that gives you the right to resist an unlawful arrest or search of your abode, will be of little comfort to you, or you family, at your funeral.

    Both as a citizen who believes in the Constitutional restrictions placed on LEO's, and as a former LEO, if you know that an officers actions are illegal, the place to present that is in a court, not at the point of gun in a contest of wills where the odds are distinctly stacked against you.

    If you think the officers are wrong, shut the hell up, demand your attorney, seek judicial sanctions, file officer conduct complaints, and then sue their collective butts off.

  19. #19
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by Potent Dagger View Post
    I have a hard time with this.

    As a citizen, who has the same constitutional rights as any other, I insist that police officers adhere to the restrictions placed on them not only with regard to search warrants, but also to arrests and investigatory detentions. These rules were set by the founding fathers, and based on subsequent jurisprudence, not because they thought they were just good ideas, but due to the long history of suffering from the abuses of an oppressive government.

    However as a former LEO at both the Federal and State levels, I caution those who read such laws and court decisions and assume that with the law or court decision on their side, that they will prevail in such a situation. Police officers come to a search warrant with sufficient man power and fire power to meet any anticipated resistance they will encounter. They also have the ability to rapidly summon other officers who will enter the fray with less than a total understanding of the situation other than they are being summoned by one of their own, a brother officer, who is in need of assistance.

    I give you the following scenario as an example of how out of hand things can get. Bill is a law abiding and god fearing man who has never broken a law in his life other than a couple of speeding thickets. Bill has a son, Bob who is a POS. Bob got in with a wrong crowd and has started dealing drugs. Bob recently sold drugs to an undercover officer, and said officer has reason to believe Bob keep his drugs in Bills house, where he lives with his parents. The police officers obtain a warrant and because Bob is also known to carry a gun, they ask for a no knock warrant. Bill is at home drinking his morning coffee when the police kick in his front door, Bill thinks he is being robbed. Bill picks up his 38 revolver and starts throwing lead, the officers return fire, Bill is shot dead. A subsequent search turns up no drugs in the residence, and a subsequent investigation reveals that the undercover officer lied about knowing that Bob stored his drugs in the home where he lived.

    In this scenario, the fact that the officer lied about knowing drugs were in the house made the warrant to search the home unlawful. The officers actions in searching the house were unlawful. Under this doctrine, Bill was entitled to defend his home,,,,,,,,,but Bill is just as dead.

    A law or court decision that gives you the right to resist an unlawful arrest or search of your abode, will be of little comfort to you, or you family, at your funeral.

    Both as a citizen who believes in the Constitutional restrictions placed on LEO's, and as a former LEO, if you know that an officers actions are illegal, the place to present that is in a court, not at the point of gun in a contest of wills where the odds are distinctly stacked against you.

    If you think the officers are wrong, shut the hell up, demand your attorney, seek judicial sanctions, file officer conduct complaints, and then sue their collective butts off.
    And yet another innocent victim of law enforcement's war on drugs. This is another reason to do away with these damn no-knock warrants for this failed war on drugs. While we are at it, let's reexamine our laws where drugs are concerned.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Actually, the execution of the bogus warrant would not be considered unlawful, unless, maybe, the undercover officer were part of the execution of the bogus no-knock warrant, because the officers executing the bogus warrant have no reasonable belief that the bogus warrant was issued under false pretenses. All of this information would be, as you state correctly, discovered after Bill is gunned down in his home by officers defending themselves from a armed and dangerous criminal, using deadly force to resist arrest. It does not matter that it is the LAC Bill, the officers think it is his POS son Bob.

    I think that this statute RSMo 575.150 may apply in the scenario that you have given.

    In any event, the officers executing the warrant would likely not be found liable RSMo 563.046. The undercover officer at worst would face several misdemeanor charges for false statements/reports, even though Bill is now dead for defending himself and his home RSMo 563.031 and RSMo 563.041.

    The issue remains, a citizen lawfully acting in defense of their person or their property, discovered after the fact of course, always has the burden to prove that their actions were lawful and that LEs actions were unlawful, if they survive. To simply state that the citizen is responsible for correcting wrongs committed by LE, whether those wrongs were intentional or unintentional, for the sole purpose of not causing physical harm, advocates that LE should never bear the burden of acting within the law beforehand.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Potent Dagger View Post
    I have a hard time with this.

    As a citizen, who has the same constitutional rights as any other, I insist that police officers adhere to the restrictions placed on them not only with regard to search warrants, but also to arrests and investigatory detentions. These rules were set by the founding fathers, and based on subsequent jurisprudence, not because they thought they were just good ideas, but due to the long history of suffering from the abuses of an oppressive government.

    However as a former LEO at both the Federal and State levels, I caution those who read such laws and court decisions and assume that with the law or court decision on their side, that they will prevail in such a situation. Police officers come to a search warrant with sufficient man power and fire power to meet any anticipated resistance they will encounter. They also have the ability to rapidly summon other officers who will enter the fray with less than a total understanding of the situation other than they are being summoned by one of their own, a brother officer, who is in need of assistance.

    I give you the following scenario as an example of how out of hand things can get. Bill is a law abiding and god fearing man who has never broken a law in his life other than a couple of speeding thickets. Bill has a son, Bob who is a POS. Bob got in with a wrong crowd and has started dealing drugs. Bob recently sold drugs to an undercover officer, and said officer has reason to believe Bob keep his drugs in Bills house, where he lives with his parents. The police officers obtain a warrant and because Bob is also known to carry a gun, they ask for a no knock warrant. Bill is at home drinking his morning coffee when the police kick in his front door, Bill thinks he is being robbed. Bill picks up his 38 revolver and starts throwing lead, the officers return fire, Bill is shot dead. A subsequent search turns up no drugs in the residence, and a subsequent investigation reveals that the undercover officer lied about knowing that Bob stored his drugs in the home where he lived.

    In this scenario, the fact that the officer lied about knowing drugs were in the house made the warrant to search the home unlawful. The officers actions in searching the house were unlawful. Under this doctrine, Bill was entitled to defend his home,,,,,,,,,but Bill is just as dead.

    A law or court decision that gives you the right to resist an unlawful arrest or search of your abode, will be of little comfort to you, or you family, at your funeral.

    Both as a citizen who believes in the Constitutional restrictions placed on LEO's, and as a former LEO, if you know that an officers actions are illegal, the place to present that is in a court, not at the point of gun in a contest of wills where the odds are distinctly stacked against you.

    If you think the officers are wrong, shut the hell up, demand your attorney, seek judicial sanctions, file officer conduct complaints, and then sue their collective butts off.
    Someone's already addressed the issue of the validity of no knock raids for drugs, so I'll that to others.

    The counter-issue to what you posit is the very real fact that criminals are now disguising themselves as cops and invading homes under the pretense of a no-knock raid. If the cops can no longer do no-knock raids, then it's pretty clear that anyone doing one is a criminal and should be shot as needed during any home invasion.

    The cops need to keep their arrest/convictions rates up (and let's face it, that's all it is absent active chase of a felon or a hostage situation) do not supersede my rights to be free from criminal home invasions under pretense of law officers.
    Last edited by FTG-05; 01-20-2012 at 11:39 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    It is easier to beg forgiveness than it is to get permission.

    I believe that a properly executed search warrant, and I emphasize properly, should dictate that LE go far above and beyond to ensure that no injury or loss of life, citizen and LEO, would occur. There are too many options available to LE to arrest Bob. The term 'exigent circumstances' should be removed from the statutes. Bob will always be a BG and as such he will drop his guard and make his arrest simple and non-violent away from the home of Bill. Bill's house will not be going anywhere and any evidence will likely still be there after LE arrests Bob.

    A simple knock on the door of Bill's home, by a few officers, waiting for Bill to answer then presenting the search warrant for execution would prevent the outcome that you postulate in your scenario. Because, Bill is a LAC, and as such will likely be very cooperative with LE. Heck, even call Bill down to the station and then escort Bill back to his home, where officers would be waiting to execute the warrant. If i can think of these options without the benefit of a LE background, I am sure LE could, and I emphasize could, employ these options. Now, if only LE would employ these options.

    I wonder if Bill's assertion that he had no knowledge of Bob's activities will be believed by LE?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus
    if someone shouts "police" and smashes in my front door, my first thought is ... "Burglars" as I am not doing anything that would justify a legal warrant.
    Exactly.

    Unless I see uniforms & marked cars, I'm not believing they're real.
    And even if I believe they're real, unless I see a warrant they're not legal to enter my home.

    IF I believe they're real, & they force their way in anyway, they're not likely to be shot at but they will have to deal with my lawyer(s).
    (BTDT, the suit is in progress.)
    B&E is B&E if the entry is illegal.
    It's even worse if the perps are sworn to uphold the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  24. #24
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Potent Dagger View Post
    I have a hard time with this.

    As a citizen, who has the same constitutional rights as any other, I insist that police officers adhere to the restrictions placed on them not only with regard to search warrants, but also to arrests and investigatory detentions. These rules were set by the founding fathers, and based on subsequent jurisprudence, not because they thought they were just good ideas, but due to the long history of suffering from the abuses of an oppressive government.

    However as a former LEO at both the Federal and State levels, I caution those who read such laws and court decisions and assume that with the law or court decision on their side, that they will prevail in such a situation. Police officers come to a search warrant with sufficient man power and fire power to meet any anticipated resistance they will encounter. They also have the ability to rapidly summon other officers who will enter the fray with less than a total understanding of the situation other than they are being summoned by one of their own, a brother officer, who is in need of assistance.

    I give you the following scenario as an example of how out of hand things can get. Bill is a law abiding and god fearing man who has never broken a law in his life other than a couple of speeding thickets. Bill has a son, Bob who is a POS. Bob got in with a wrong crowd and has started dealing drugs. Bob recently sold drugs to an undercover officer, and said officer has reason to believe Bob keep his drugs in Bills house, where he lives with his parents. The police officers obtain a warrant and because Bob is also known to carry a gun, they ask for a no knock warrant. Bill is at home drinking his morning coffee when the police kick in his front door, Bill thinks he is being robbed. Bill picks up his 38 revolver and starts throwing lead, the officers return fire, Bill is shot dead. A subsequent search turns up no drugs in the residence, and a subsequent investigation reveals that the undercover officer lied about knowing that Bob stored his drugs in the home where he lived.

    In this scenario, the fact that the officer lied about knowing drugs were in the house made the warrant to search the home unlawful. The officers actions in searching the house were unlawful. Under this doctrine, Bill was entitled to defend his home,,,,,,,,,but Bill is just as dead.

    A law or court decision that gives you the right to resist an unlawful arrest or search of your abode, will be of little comfort to you, or you family, at your funeral.

    Both as a citizen who believes in the Constitutional restrictions placed on LEO's, and as a former LEO, if you know that an officers actions are illegal, the place to present that is in a court, not at the point of gun in a contest of wills where the odds are distinctly stacked against you.

    If you think the officers are wrong, shut the hell up, demand your attorney, seek judicial sanctions, file officer conduct complaints, and then sue their collective butts off.
    Your forgetting one thing, after Bills family renames the city to BILLS CITY (which they now own due to the settlement) they can fire all the cops, sue all the cops that murdered Bill for everything they and their children will ever have.

    It will only take one innocent person defending their home before the public puts an end to the thug cop way of thinking.

    Why a NO Knock warrent over some drugs. Survey the situation, take the perp down in a isolated location away from his home turf, and then search the home with a proper warrent after the perp is in custody.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Sadly, that is not the case. Many citizens believe, wrongly, that you must be a BG or the cops would never go to your house.

    When it is discovered that the cops were wrong. How could that happen!?!? The cover-up by LE begins, numerous lawyers for the cops get tossed at the problem (at tax payer expense), the cop unions go into full CYA mode for the LEO(s), the downplaying by the media begins, or else, and the end result is a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement.

    The the citizenry gets back to the latest episode of their favorite reality TV show, and all is right with the world....again.

    Only us bitter-clingers will remember.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

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
  •