• 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 CoA upholds Castle Doctrine against illegal entry by cop

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Putting this here instead of in the Indiana-specific area because of the implications for seeking to have similar changes to Castle Doctrine interpretation legislated in other states.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03111501ewn.pdf

Off-duty constable was "in the performance of his duties" when he unlawfully entered the defendant's dwelling.

Perhaps Constable Webb missed the memo about how the Indiana legislature changed the law so now Castle Doctrine protection includes unlawful intrusion by a public servant. Would have thought that would have been a major roll-call briefing discussion point for quite some time.

Additionally, I am very happy that the Court of Appeals holds that the Legislature "said what it meant and meant what it said." Those "findings" clauses sure do help make things clearer as well as hold back activist judicial interpretation.

It would be nice to find out Mr. Cupello can recover his costs and expenses.

stay safe.
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
The decision mentions two instances where they entered without a warrant...... once with his foot and secondly with backup upon receiving the door key. The backup officers should be included in the lawsuit for unlawful entry, as the decision noted that no exceptions existed in this scenario that would allow them to enter without taking the time to obtain a warrant.

They knew who he was, where he was and no alleged felony was comitted... they had plenty of time to get a warrant for his arrest but chose not to.

I hope this guy doesn't settle out of court... because the judges here laid out his argument for summary judgment in his favor for the lawsuit.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You mean its not up to cops to determine reasonable at the moment all by themselves?;)
So, does the back-up cop toss foot-in-the-door cop under the bus to avoid getting sued? Likely not. Does a pay-day from the taxpayer, no matter how many zeros it may have, gain satisfaction? All depends on what your definition of satisfaction is I suppose. Does it mitigate future "misunderstandings of the law?" Nope. Remember, a cop only knows that the ex-perp gave him a ouchie on his foot, doing that has got to be a felony...err, I mean, a capital crime...no?

I wonder what would have happened if the ex-perp had used "more force" to avoid what he would (ultimately) rightfully believe to a unlawful arrest, a uhnlawful restraint, a kidnapping, a false imprisonment? A conspiracy to perpetrate these heinous crimes? I suggest that the ex-perp believes as I believe and believes that breathing is far better than a SWAT stand-off. Those two nitwit cops will get off without so much as a Post-It note in their service record.

Nope, not a win in my view. Nope, no amount of money will mitigate these crimes in the future. The ex-perp is luck that he did not suffer horrific injuries for exercising his right to defend himself...yessiree bob...dang lucky.

sudden valley gunner
You mean its not up to cops to determine reasonable at the moment all by themselves?;)
Sorry to tell you this, but that was not the question before the court. So no, it still remains up to the cop(s) on the scene, at that moment, to decide what is, or is not, reasonable. Some folks like this arrangement and desire for it to remain in place. Namely political critters and cops. remember the odds are far more in the state's favor than the citizen's favor. Getting those two nitwit cops fired with hefty misdemeanor criminal records is a very remote possibility.

...oh, to have a felony conviction or two :monkeyon their records.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So, does the back-up cop toss foot-in-the-door cop under the bus to avoid getting sued? Likely not. Does a pay-day from the taxpayer, no matter how many zeros it may have, gain satisfaction? All depends on what your definition of satisfaction is I suppose. Does it mitigate future "misunderstandings of the law?" Nope. Remember, a cop only knows that the ex-perp gave him a ouchie on his foot, doing that has got to be a felony...err, I mean, a capital crime...no?

I wonder what would have happened if the ex-perp had used "more force" to avoid what he would (ultimately) rightfully believe to a unlawful arrest, a uhnlawful restraint, a kidnapping, a false imprisonment? A conspiracy to perpetrate these heinous crimes? I suggest that the ex-perp believes as I believe and believes that breathing is far better than a SWAT stand-off. Those two nitwit cops will get off without so much as a Post-It note in their service record.

Nope, not a win in my view. Nope, no amount of money will mitigate these crimes in the future. The ex-perp is luck that he did not suffer horrific injuries for exercising his right to defend himself...yessiree bob...dang lucky.
Sorry to tell you this, but that was not the question before the court. So no, it still remains up to the cop(s) on the scene, at that moment, to decide what is, or is not, reasonable. Some folks like this arrangement and desire for it to remain in place. Namely political critters and cops. remember the odds are far more in the state's favor than the citizen's favor. Getting those two nitwit cops fired with hefty misdemeanor criminal records is a very remote possibility.

...oh, to have a felony conviction or two :monkeyon their records.


I agree not a win.

Although not the question to the court so no "case law" on it. Judges seem to be just as slick as their politician employers at avoiding good issues. It does show the cop was wrong for deciding what was reasonable at the moment.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I agree not a win.

Although not the question to the court so no "case law" on it. Judges seem to be just as slick as their politician employers at avoiding good issues. It does show the cop was wrong for deciding what was reasonable at the moment.
Yepper, small consolation with a equally small compensation. A redress of wrongs will not occur.
 
Top