no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timeframe

New member
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.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
 
I'm sure it's based on the idea it is better to resolve the matter in a court than to authorize physical force to stop a police officer who may be entering a house in a good faith, but unlawful manner. For example, (1) wrong address on a search warrant, (2) hearing screams from inside (it's the TV), (3) thinking someone answering the door might be going for a gun when, with 20-20 hindsight, they are not, (4) chasing a drug suspect in hot pursuit who enters one of two apartments in a breezeway and the officer picks the one where he smells marijuana burning (wrong choice). All of these are illegal entries but we don't want to declare open season on police officers. BTW, the last two examples are real.
 
This is soooo wrong,,,

I do not care what the decision is based on,,,
Dissolving a constitutional right for the sake of expediency is wrong,,,
Now the citizens of Indiana are living in a state where their police will say.

Screw the constitution, I'm going in,,,
Let him try and sue me for it.

This is a police state ruling.

Whatever happened to the concept of a police officer doing his job properly,,,
Or not at all?

I hope the ensuing lawsuits bankrupt the state!

aarond
 
Let's not forget this little tidbit:
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.

USCA CONST Amend. IV
Click to expand...

I find the decision disturbing on several levels, but since the article doesn't provide the actual decision, it's hard to say if it will stand up to federal constitutional scrutiny.

Edited to add: Drat! There is a link to download the decision & I just overlooked it!
 
aarondgraham said:
I do not care what the decision is based on,,,
Dissolving a constitutional right for the sake of expediency is wrong,,,
Now the citizens of Indiana are living in a state where their police will say.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Do y'all realize that the RiGHT to resist unlawful police action dates to the Magna Carta? That's right -- to the year 1215. This court has decided to toss just shy of 800 years of legal precedent into the ash can.

Magna Carta said:
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Click to expand...
In other words, beginning in 1215 the "authorities" were not allowed to enter the home of any free man without a warrant. The U.S. Bill of Rights merely repeats this ancient injunction against warrantless (that is, illegal) search and seizure. I suspect the court's ruling will be appealed, I HOPE it will be appealed, and I hope it will be reversed -- because this ruling is in direct opposition to the Constitution and concept of allowing police freedom to ignore Constitutional constraints is truly frightening.
 
It's a State court. State courts do stupid things all the time. Federal court will whack this out of the park.

This'll be one of those rare times when the ACLU AND the NRA will be sharing a table in the courtroom.
 
The 4th amendment is mostly moribund. The American people either sat placidly or cheered its demise. We traded a little bit of freedom for the promise of greater security.
 
Just as my usual caution - this is an interesting L and CR issue. Don't cop bash with insults so that we have to close it. Anybody want to place bets?

As far as the case itself - it wasn't mistaken identity but the husband said there was no need to enter after the couple went inside after a domestic argument outside the apartment. Given what we know about domestic violence, did the law not act to protect a wife that might be intimidated?

I throw that out as a rationale for the police action. I'd like to see more of the argument for the entry. You don't need a warrant for an on-going incident.

Sorry to be a contrarian but I don't like to make judgments on a news report alone.

The question of resisting a clearly mistaken break-in seems different. Without searching, the police have gotten in deep trouble for those, paid damages and had charges against them. The resisting homeowner got off in a case?
 
After skimming over the actual decision (there's a PDF link in the article) I, like Glenn, am hesitant to start wringing my hands over this. The Indiana Supreme Court did not give officers the right to enter without a warrant or probable cause and doing so will still result in inadmissibility of evidence and possible repercussions for both the offending officer and his department. What this decision states is, basically, that an individual cannot use the belief of an illegal entry as a defense for assaulting an LEO.

Honestly, resisting law enforcement, whether you believe their entry is legal or not, seems like a rather foolhardy exercise to me anyway. If I thought I were the victim of an illegal entry, I would verbally protest it (i.e. make it crystal clear that the officers did not have permission to enter my home) but I would not attempt to physically resist because that seems like a good way to get tackled, tased, pepper sprayed, or shot to me. All I can tell that the Indiana Supreme Court is saying is to let the court system vindicate you in case of an illegal entry and I can't say that I entirely disagree with that.
 
The court's reasoning is the legal system now provides redress in these cases that it once did not. Hence, one no longer needs the right to fend off illegal seizure by the police.

That is similar to the argument made by those opposed to gun possession by The People. The modern day police are readily available, consequently the means and the ability for self defense are unnecessary. The cops will have it all under control in a jiffy.

That anti-gun argument has already failed in Heller, and lawnboy is correct, SCOTUS will reverse this POS state court decision.

Good rundown at this legal blog:
http://volokh.com/2011/05/13/no-rig...ance-is-unlawful-indiana-supreme-court-holds/
 
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.
Click to expand...

Those were the days.
 
Webleymkv said:
What this decision states is, basically, that an individual cannot use the belief of an illegal entry as a defense for assaulting an LEO.
Click to expand...
IF the decision were limited in scope to following a couple who were actively engaged in a domestic dispute from outdoors to indoors, I could possibly even go along with it. But this is a blanket ruling. As written, it covers not only the domestic dispute case that triggered the decision, but also cases like a SWAT team smashing down the door at an incorrect address at oh-dark-thirty.

And that's a VERY different situation. If I am NOT a law breaker, NOT a terrorist, and I go to bed secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing wrong, why would I have ANY reason whatsoever to believe that people smashing down my front door and yelling "Police!" are really police? Whether they have a warrant for a different address, or a warrant for a different person who used to live at my address months or even years ago, or a warrant obtained through falsification of evidence -- their entry into my home is unlawful. Bad enough -- but what if they AREN'T police? If I am not allowed to resist an unlawful entry because the entrants may be police -- that can get me killed.

From a police perspective that might be justified in the holy name of "officer safety" but, from my perspective, that would be a very bad thing. IMHO, if police officers don't wish to get shot while breaking down doors, they should refrain from breaking down doors.
 
In the article the judge is quoted as saying "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" and that the police are entitled to enter for "no reason at all".

I thought part of the logic for deciding whether a law was unconstitutional or not was the intent of the original writers. I think the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights is pretty clear of why they did what they did and put it in the Constitution.

I can understand the logic of the judge not wanting anybody to get hurt.

What I cant understand is the why the judge wants to set up folks for any abuse which will happen if he says the police officer does not need any reason to enter a persons home.

If the judge had ruled that the officer had a reasonable belief that the wife was in danger and he decided to enter the apartment I wouldn't argue with that and try to second guess the officer.

This judicial logic just seems to be a bad thing waiting to happen. It is a very small group of people that cause problems. I have faith and trust in the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

However, stuff like the ATF Debacle and other incidents have proved that it is good to have standards that you have to meet. In my opinion the judges just threw out the bath water with the baby in it.
 
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
If I am NOT a law breaker, NOT a terrorist, and I go to bed secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing wrong, why would I have ANY reason whatsoever to believe that people smashing down my front door and yelling "Police!" are really police? Whether they have a warrant for a different address, or a warrant for a different person who used to live at my address months or even years ago, or a warrant obtained through falsification of evidence -- their entry into my home is unlawful. Bad enough -- but what if they AREN'T police? If I am not allowed to resist an unlawful entry because the entrants may be police -- that can get me killed.
Click to expand...

Shooting at a SWAT team, whether they're at the correct address or not, is also a good way to get yourself killed. Look, regardless of what the IN Supreme Court ruled, if you physically assault a cop, regardless of the reason, bad things are probably going to happen. This ruling isn't going to cause or stop cops from kicking in the wrong doors, it happened before and it will probably happen again.

Honestly, I think we both know that the type of situation you are describing is extremely unlikely anyway. Lone cops don't go kicking in doors and I've yet to hear of a street gang that could convincingly impersonate a SWAT team since the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The court cited in its decision that its rationale was that resisting an arrest unnecessarily increases the risk of injury or death to all involved. I think that if you could demonstrate that you had reasonable belief that those attempting to arrest you were not LEO's, you would probably still be able to mount a fairly strong legal defense.

I'm not saying that I completely agree or disagree with the decision yet because, honestly, I haven't entirely made up my mind. All I'm saying here is that I don't think this is the end of the Fourth Amendment that some are making it out to be.

Originally Posted by Eghad
In the article the judge is quoted as saying "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" and that the police are entitled to enter for "no reason at all".
Click to expand...

While I've not thoroughly read the dissenting opinions yet, I found no such assertion in the majority opinion. Specifically, the following was stated:

Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (―Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.‖). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984).
Click to expand...

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/c/82/cdb/c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb-revisions/4dcc5c97c31bf.pdf.pdf

(Note to the Mods, since this document is public record I don't think quoting it should run afoul of copyright. If, however, you feel that it does please edit or delete my post as you deem necessary).
 
Rest assured, quoting ANY public record is not an infringement.

The problem with this opinion is exactly the problem the two dissenting Justices opined upon. It is not narrow, to the case at hand. It is overly broad and gives any and all discretion to the police.

opinion said:
We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.
Click to expand...

Now look at the reasoning:

opinion said:
Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right. Accordingly, the trial court‘s refusal to give Barnes‘s tendered instruction was not error.
Click to expand...

Public policy now determines the contours of your 4th amendment rights? Do you remember what the Heller Court said about that? Something about enumerated rights take certain policy options off the table, wasn't it?

Regardless, this is just one more Court, cutting a slice out of the patient who has been on life-support for many years now. sigh.
 
The groundwork for this ruling is various state-level laws and/or rulings that say you cannot resist a false arrest. All you can do is meekly turn around, cross your wrists and hope the courts get it right.

The main defense against false arrest is hidden cameras, the tech for which is getting better all the time. Right now this is state of the art:

http://looxcie.com

We don't really have the cellular network bandwidth to live-stream the results to a server somewhere. We almost do, and possibly do with the best 4G networks. There's a way to do unattended delayed-stream though right now - in other words, as long as the hardware stays intact, it will keep uploading. You have the Looxcie dump it's data to an Android smartphone, which is uploaded via Dropbox. It can't upload as fast as it can record but it CAN keep uploading from within police evidence bags :). And the phone will keep uploading even once the camera goes off or goes battery-dry. (The camera and smartphone communicate over Bluetooth.)

Now...we've got one state (Illinois) where recording police is specifically banned (and the ban happened after some police misconduct got caught on camera!). We've got a couple other states where law enforcement seems to think this is illegal but it's not, and we've got one recent case where cops beat up a cameraman, took the camera and threw it away, and charged the cameraman with assault on law enforcement...showing the need for covert and streaming cameras. See also:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/orlando-copwatch-member-facing-6-years-in-prison

The guy that runs that site has videotaped police misconduct and been charged with "wiretapping" in Florida, beating a criminal conviction at the appellate level without a lawyer. His site is pretty much the top place to track camera-on-cops issues.

And trust me, that will be an issue for us! Look at what the Looxcie can do now: record up to five hours of video on the internal memory, and then start rolling it over keeping the last continuous five hours. And it has more battery power than that. A camera like that either on-body or possibly on-gun IS going to turn up in a criminal defense case involving a shooting.
 
Although I dont like the logic, I understand the reasonng. The similar law as written in NYS is to protect the citizen. Acting under the assumption that the police have overwhelming firepower, If a Citizen resist an unlawfull arrest he may justify the police use of this firepower. Even if the arrest was mistaken, or unjustified under law, the subsiquent use of police force would be justified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top