Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

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

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

    [url]http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html[/url]
    [QUOTE]

    [B]Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home[/B]

    By Dan Carden [email]dan.carden@nwi.com[/email], (317) 637-9078 | Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm |

    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."

    David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

    The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

    When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

    Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

    "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

    Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

    Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

    But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

    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. [/QUOTE]

    Well this is some BS.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029003][url]http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html[/url]


    Well this is some BS.[/QUOTE]

    Riiiiiiiight. They were supposed to sign off on allowing a private citizen to forceably prevent entry of a peace officer into their residence.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,558
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029003][B]Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

    "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."[/B]


    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly; And any illegal search and seizures would also be thrown out at the Mapp hearing if there was no legal basis...this is more about the miscreant knuckleheads who fire guns at cops doing what the miscreants later claim is an "illegal entry" and claiming "self defense".:rolleyes:

    This is not about supporting/enabling knucklehead cops barging their way into homes.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said [B]if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all[/B], a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry. [/QUOTE]

    "We heard loud noises, Let us in."
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 05-16-2011 at 01:31 AM.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029067]"We heard load noises, Let us in."[/QUOTE]

    You watch too much television, lol!

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,558
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029067]"We heard load noises, Let us in."[/QUOTE]

    Load noises.


    :eek:


    Blech pittoooey.
    Last edited by 32green; 05-15-2011 at 08:09 PM.

  7. #7
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think 32green hit it right on the head.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your rights being taken away ever so slowly, one step at a time. Please understand that a Police State is a dictatorship. I don't see how republicans can agree with this and then claim they are small government folks

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4029110]Your rights being taken away ever so slowly, one step at a time. Please understand that a Police State is a dictatorship. I don't see how republicans can agree with this and then claim they are small government folks[/QUOTE]

    Off topic, but have you noticed what Michigan's governor has done? An entire towns elected officials were relieved of their duties. They passed a law saying the governor can appoint an emergency manager to run a town. In Benton Harbor, Michigan this emergency manager has been able to break contracts with police, firemen and companies that provide other services and stripped the mayor and the city commission of their authority. If that's not big government, what is?
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 05-15-2011 at 08:53 PM.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4029110]Your rights being taken away ever so slowly, one step at a time. Please understand that a Police State is a dictatorship. I don't see how republicans can agree with this and then claim they are small government folks[/QUOTE]

    What rights have been taken away?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4029115]What rights have been taken away?[/QUOTE]

    +1

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    [QUOTE]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029067]"We heard load noises, Let us in."[/QUOTE]

    I gotta agree with Tyler here. Let's say some IU students are having a party at their house. Nothing crazy, not a huge amount of cars on the street or drunk kids stumbling in and out of the house, but the old lady next door hears music and, knowing college kids live there, calls the cops. Now they can just walk in without a warrant and start arresting underage kids? I think it's BS.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029125]Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    [/QUOTE]

    ============================================

    My 3rd most favorite amendment.
    I am with Tyler on this.










    [IMG]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obama-action-figure.jpg[/IMG]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]"We believe ... a right to resist an [B]unlawful[/B] 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."[/QUOTE]

    Generally I support a police state, wiretapping without a warrant, search and seizure without probably cause, torture, holding people without trial due process or Habeas Corpus as long as it's done [B]lawfully[/B].

    Even I draw the line at a private citizen not being able to protect his home from an unlawful entry by anyone including a police officer.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4029112]Off topic, but have you noticed what Michigan's governor has done? An entire towns elected officials were relieved of their duties. They passed a law saying the governor can appoint an emergency manager to run a town. In Benton Harbor, Michigan this emergency manager has been able to break contracts with police, firemen and companies that provide other services and stripped the mayor and the city commission of their authority. If that's not big government, what is?[/QUOTE]

    The elite want the beach front property and use the government to grab it from the poor

  17. #17
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,737
    Post Thanks / Like
    It says "no right to resist ILLEGAL cop entry into home." My question is, if the cops enter a home illegally (whether they meet resistance or not), what is the penalty/repercussion to the cops?

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's never the "intent" of rulings such as this that worry/bother me, as a freedom and liberty type.

    It's the rule of unintended consequences, and how such rulings can be used, abused, and/or twisted in some future case to excuse actions and bahavious that cannot be excused.

    But my view on this was, I'm sure, predictable.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4029340]It says "no right to resist ILLEGAL cop entry into home." My question is, if the cops enter a home illegally (whether they meet resistance or not), what is the penalty/repercussion to the cops?[/QUOTE]

    Thats a matter that can be sorted by the courts.

    Question. Police were called for dom violence dispute. Husband and wife run back in house and say the police presence is not required. They can sit outside but thats a waste of law enforcement resources. What if husband kills wife that night or badly injures.

    I trust the majority of police. Some bad apples, of course but they need to be trusted to serve in the best possible capacity. This law allows them to do their job without risk of injury. Any citizen that does not break the law should have no issue here, imo.

  20. #20
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,737
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;4029384]Thats a matter that can be sorted by the courts.

    Question. Police were called for dom violence dispute. Husband and wife run back in house and say the police presence is not required. They can sit outside but thats a waste of law enforcement resources. What if husband kills wife that night or badly injures.

    I trust the majority of police. Some bad apples, of course but they need to be trusted to serve in the best possible capacity. This law allows them to do their job without risk of injury. Any citizen that does not break the law should have no issue here, imo.[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't taking an anti-cop stance -- I am more curious about the way the story was presented. The way it's written, the cops would be breaking the law -- and despite that, the homeowners have no right to resist. The article seems incomplete when presents the cops actions as "illegal" but doesn't talk about what the penalties would be to cops for taking these "illegal" actions.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us