What's new

this is worrisome

hdroadglide

BoM x 2, BoY 2011
Rating - 100%
514   0   0
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
10,486
Location
south of KCMO
i wanted to put this in the general forum so that more people could see it and voice opinions. on the surface, i was amazed at this ruling.

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.
 

Jwrussell

April '05 BoM
Rating - 100%
105   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
9,828
Location
Tampa, FL
Hmmm. I'm torn on this one. I agree with partly with the following (hence the partial quote):

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry ...they would have supported the ruling.
Then again, that sounds as if you are saying, "you can enter illegally here, here and here" which basically changes the status of the entry to legal which seems wrong to me as well.

The decision seems overly broad. That being the case, it doesn't really surprise me. In general, you never really have the right to physically assault a Police Officer, which is what the type of resistance described in the article amounts to. That being the case, I have trouble getting worked up about this...
 

JNT

The Bull
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
1,498
Location
Georgetown, ON (Toronto)
I agree with the ruling. The street isn't the place to sort out what's legal, and what's not. Im sure the Branch Davidians believed the entry into their premise was illegal in their own view. You go the other way, and tell the Home owner(probably armed) they have the right to attack the police (armed) because in the home owners opinion the entry is unlawful, people will get killed.

Let the courts sort it out after. The courts have remedied illegal entry with the exclusion of evidence resulting in charges dropped, and/or monetary compensation. In this day and age of media coverage, the lefties can't wait to pounce on an illegal entry or police trouncing of rights, so it would be out there for scrutiny.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
674
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, the police were responding to a DV call...

the husband shoved the officer against a wall.
Okay, dumb idea, no matter WHAT argument you may have had with your wife.

A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
I fail to see excessive force here...you push a cop against a wall, that pretty much defines malicious intent if you ask me.

The Police didn't just "show up unannounced" - they were called by someone reporting the "argument".

Ask anyone working Law Enforcement - They will tell you the horrors of DV calls.

...We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence...
Agree 100%
 
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
600
Location
Prairieville, LA
I really hate things like this. Because this only sets a standard that other states could follow and then we will no longer have any privacy. I have know of a few corrupt cops in my day and I would not want them to have the ability to just come in my house if they please without talking to a judge and getting a warrant to do so.
 

PLUSH

Some random brother
Rating - 100%
231   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,436
Location
T E X A S
I really hate things like this. I have know of a few corrupt cops in my day and I would not want them to have the ability to just come in my house if they please without talking to a judge and getting a warrant to do so.

IF they are corrupt already, why would they go through the process of a judge. I can see not creating an environment where actions can get out of hand as in this situation. It seems these officers were trying to get the argument done and make sure both parties were safe. So, because at the time they don't have some warrant the guy can be an ass and say he was acting under his Constitutional rights. How about the rights of the police who may think a person is in danger. In the end take it up in court, nt in your house with two cops who you think may be in their illegally and you are set on defending 'your' rights.
 
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,064
Location
Augusta Maine
I really hate things like this. Because this only sets a standard that other states could follow and then we will no longer have any privacy. I have know of a few corrupt cops in my day and I would not want them to have the ability to just come in my house if they please without talking to a judge and getting a warrant to do so.
+1

Let the courts sort it out after. The courts have remedied illegal entry with the exclusion of evidence resulting in charges dropped, and/or monetary compensation. In this day and age of media coverage, the lefties can't wait to pounce on an illegal entry or police trouncing of rights, so it would be out there for scrutiny.
I think that opens the door to a whole mess of things I wouldn't want to have to deal with. Probably will open myself up to "what do you have to hide" comments but truth is nothing. I just don't like the idea of someone coming into my house without securing the proper info on me first. If you get the solid info you'll get yourself a warrant if that's the case come on in.
 

Jwrussell

April '05 BoM
Rating - 100%
105   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
9,828
Location
Tampa, FL
I really hate things like this. Because this only sets a standard that other states could follow and then we will no longer have any privacy. I have know of a few corrupt cops in my day and I would not want them to have the ability to just come in my house if they please without talking to a judge and getting a warrant to do so.
Koujo, this ruling doesn't change that. They could do that now. The only thing this ruling changes is that if you attempt to block them from entering, you can get arrested for it. The ruling doesn't give them leave to enter your house illegally, it just says you don't have the right to block them from doing so.

I get that this ruling doesn't sound great and it makes me cringe to some degree, but really, at what point has anyone ever thought it would be a good idea, and NOT get them in trouble to draw down on, or in any other way physically assault a police officer trying to enter your house? If they ask, you say no. If they insist without a warrant or PC, you can be quite comfortable knowing that anything that results of their illegal search will be null. That's when you start calling the local lawyers to find out who wants to ruin said PD's day.

I only see one major exception to this and that is the no-knock warrant. I get their use and necessity, but they should be strictly controlled and leaving it up to the officer on the scene to decide whether or not they should knock is probably opening things up for all kinds of problems.
 
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
600
Location
Prairieville, LA
+1



I think that opens the door to a whole mess of things I wouldn't want to have to deal with. Probably will open myself up to "what do you have to hide" comments but truth is nothing. I just don't like the idea of someone coming into my house without securing the proper info on me first. If you get the solid info you'll get yourself a warrant if that's the case come on in.
Just talking about the incident I feel that if the woman felt safe enough to walk back into the house with her husband then the cops should have left it at that and been on their way. It is not their business to go inside when bother adults went back in the house of their own free will. Now if the woman was forced back in the house by the man that is a different story. I don't feel that I would ever have to worry about a cop coming into my house because I do the right thing and stay out of trouble but if you open the door for these kind of things where will it stop?
 

Jwrussell

April '05 BoM
Rating - 100%
105   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
9,828
Location
Tampa, FL
I think that opens the door to a whole mess of things I wouldn't want to have to deal with. Probably will open myself up to "what do you have to hide" comments but truth is nothing. I just don't like the idea of someone coming into my house without securing the proper info on me first. If you get the solid info you'll get yourself a warrant if that's the case come on in.
Not from me, I hate that friggin' argument. But again, you can really conceive of a situation where you would attempt to physically block/remove a police officer from entering your home?
 

Jwrussell

April '05 BoM
Rating - 100%
105   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
9,828
Location
Tampa, FL
Just talking about the incident I feel that if the woman felt safe enough to walk back into the house with her husband then the cops should have left it at that and been on their way. It is not their business to go inside when bother adults went back in the house of their own free will. Now if the woman was forced back in the house by the man that is a different story. I don't feel that I would ever have to worry about a cop coming into my house because I do the right thing and stay out of trouble but if you open the door for these kind of things where will it stop?
There are many types of "force" when it comes to domestic abuse.

I'd have to see more information, but I would be surprised if the situation presented wasn't covered under probable cause. In fact, nothing about the article actually tells us if the entry WAS illegal. Of course, I expect it must have been to have generated the case, but we really don't have enough information.
 
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
803
Koujo, this ruling doesn't change that. They could do that now. The only thing this ruling changes is that if you attempt to block them from entering, you can get arrested for it. The ruling doesn't give them leave to enter your house illegally, it just says you don't have the right to block them from doing so.

I get that this ruling doesn't sound great and it makes me cringe to some degree, but really, at what point has anyone ever thought it would be a good idea, and NOT get them in trouble to draw down on, or in any other way physically assault a police officer trying to enter your house? If they ask, you say no. If they insist without a warrant or PC, you can be quite comfortable knowing that anything that results of their illegal search will be null. That's when you start calling the local lawyers to find out who wants to ruin said PD's day.

I only see one major exception to this and that is the no-knock warrant. I get their use and necessity, but they should be strictly controlled and leaving it up to the officer on the scene to decide whether or not they should knock is probably opening things up for all kinds of problems.
I agree
 

Herfin' Harg

BoM March 2012
Rating - 100%
142   0   0
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
1,511
Location
Austin, TX
As an atty myself, I've gotta say that articles like this almost always misrepresent the court's actions in one way or another. The only way you're get at what's actually going on is to sit down and read the panel's opinions.


My thoughts:

As for overturning centuries of common law, I feel as though that is hyperbole, if not completely false, and serves only to tip the author's hand to his/her opinion reported as fact. Regardless the jurisdiction (and I should say that IN is not my own), I will guarantee you that police have the ability to enter your home without a warrant if they have probable cause to do so. The tricky part is that a scenario that may give rise to PC is always going to evaluated after the fact.

I sincerely doubt that the court's ruling would expand police powers as the article seems to report, and even if it did, you'd be sure to see a constitutional challenge to it in short order.

-HH
 
Rating - 100%
62   0   0
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
52,922
Location
DC
i wanted to put this in the general forum so that more people could see it and voice opinions. on the surface, i was amazed at this ruling.

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.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause"]Probable cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
The courts ruling will be overturned based on the officer going into a home with "no reason at all". There too much precedent for this sorry interpretation of the 4th amendment to be upheld. It's obvious that Justice Steven David failed his constitutional law class.
The 4th amendment
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.
 
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
1,373
Location
Dallas, TX
further supports those that believe we are a police state

that being said, it's hard to support or deny this issue because it really depends on the instance. I'm about as sure of this as I am on dashboard cams. a Dashboard cam seems counter-productive to me because it seems (and i've been told) that it discourages officers because they know they will be scrutinized and the public is quick to screw the Police. On the other hand, it cuts out some bull shit.

this issue offers alot of gray area, however, sometimes gray area is exactly what you need. The police are here to protect, I've find those that go out of their way to act above the law are in the minority. Officers should be held accountable I agree, however, sometimes Officers get screwed for justified actions on technicality.
 

CAJoe

King Dude
Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
2,377
Location
Olivehurst, CA
Police should not have any right to enter private property unless they have a warrant or strong probable cause. If they do enter without any of these then the homeowner has a right to defend himself against someone illegally tresspassing. In this case the judge pretty much says that if someone broke into your home let them do what they want and sort it out in the courts later...
 

Fox

BoM May '07
Rating - 100%
70   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
1,827
Location
Northwest
Not from me, I hate that friggin' argument. But again, you can really conceive of a situation where you would attempt to physically block/remove a police officer from entering your home?
No, but I can conceive of one where the cop(s) gets killed; e.g. -- executing a no-knock without sufficient identification. . .Happens all the time and it is only a matter of time until several cops bite it instead of the homeowner and his dog, then this crap will really hit the fan. . .Unrelated to the current discussion, I know, but your comment really made me think about the whole issue.

JNT - while I understand where you are coming from, I must respectfully disagree. Sorting it out later is always a losing proposition for the arrested party. Using the example above about no-knocks, again, that is one that happens all the time and people spend tons of money to get things straightened out due to a corrupt tipster, and to my knowledge, almost always without remuneration due to the immunity argument, typically given to public agencies in all but the most egregious examples.

Personally, I think the legal environment and cops themselves with the attitude of "the street is not the place to sort this out", are creating a situation where people are going to start reacting and that will be ugly.
 

njstone

BoM January 2010
Rating - 100%
167   0   0
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
8,108
Location
St. Paul, MN
This is a bad precident. Period.

You should have the right to bar illegal entry ... but you do NOT have the right to attack an officer of the law, whether the entry was illegal or not. I don't even know why this rulling was necessary!
 
Top