no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

[armoredman]

but I rather doubt that there are very many street gangs sporting Level III body armor, MP5's,

Hmm, seem to remember more than one instance in Phoenix by itself, exactly that, usually these Zeta thugs doing their own versions of drug raids.

 

[Al Norris]

Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or

"Interferes," is defined by the Courts. Not by you or me.

So what do the Courts in Indiana say is interference?

1) Putting an arm across the doorway?
2) Standing in the doorway so as to block or partially block entrance?
3) Forcefully telling the LEO that they may not enter?
4) Standing aside and simply saying, "I do not consent,"

As of now, in Indiana, all but option 4, are interference. Maybe. Since this is new law, the jury hasn't returned to opine on option 4.

 

[bigbaby]

Can you imagine a small County Sherrif, entering a house without good cause? Now, can you imagine a big County police force entering a house without good cause? The Sherrif probably knows, your friends, your family. He wants to avoid arrest when ever possible. He wants to be reelected, he wants to live in the community, ect. The big County Police generally have arrest quotas(that is the urban legend, if it is wrong please let us know LEO) even if it is not correct that the big County police have arrest quotas; they certainly are not beholden to the community the way an elected Sherrif's department is. If we had more of these and less big Police departments there would be less concern about such rulings. I guess in such a big Country, it is just not realistic, but we can dream LOL

 

[Musketeer]

I agree that the decision was too broad and I think that the best course of action would have been to uphold the convictions on the grounds that entry, in this particular circumstance, was not illegal because the criteria for "exigent circumstances" had been met.

I am a little late to the party but the above seems to be what would have been best. The ruling made is so broad that it is very likely to be overturned in my opinion.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

The only time I have witnessed a "no knock" warrant is when imminent destruction of evidence, or a valid threat to LE is known. They don't happen every day, and they very rarely go bad, despite the opinions to the contrary.

I can see the part of the argument that you fight it in court. Not on the street, and not with force. If you shot a cop by mistake, or got yourself or a family member shot by mistake, is it worth it? Not to me.

 

[bigbaby]

The Trooper does make a good point. I would want to resist, but I wouldn't, you can't win. There is no good answer; but even in big Counties if Police Chiefs were elected, rather then appointed, it could only be a good thing.

 

[Eghad]

The Justices on that case in Indiana just redefined Indiana law with that ruling which sets a new precedent and standard for the police. So any law that was the law in Indiana will be redefined with that standard when you try to take the police to court in Indiana for an unreasonable search. You can bet your bottom dollar the DA in any case involving unreasonable searches in Indiana is going to whip that case out as precedent.

 

[Erik]

"What this decision states is, basically, that an individual cannot use the belief of an illegal entry as a defense for assaulting an LEO."

Agreed. It is the home version of the logic often applied to roadside interactions.

 

[Spats McGee]

I agree that the decision was too broad and I think that the best course of action would have been to uphold the convictions on the grounds that entry, in this particular circumstance, was not illegal because the criteria for "exigent circumstances" had been met.

I am a little late to the party but the above seems to be what would have been best. The ruling made is so broad that it is very likely to be overturned in my opinion.

I agree with Musketeer on this. Based on what I read ((1) that there was a domestic disturbance going on; and (2) that the girlfriend/wife was telling the boyfriend/husband to let officers in), I could get behind a ruling that exigent circumstances existed for the entry. But when they threw A4 out there, calling the old doctrine "incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," the Indiana Supreme Court painted with an awfully broad brush.

 

[zukiphile]

What this decision states is, basically, that an individual cannot use the belief of an illegal entry as a defense for assaulting an LEO.

That's the core problem with this doctrine for me.

The practical application is that a prosecutor can use the potential conviction for resisting the unlawful entry as leverage for the defendant to drop the matter of the unlawful entry. Is it a stretch to imagine that a PO would reasonably use knowledge of this leverage when considering whether to obtain a warrant?

The suggestion (in the doctine, but not the facts of this case) that you have one set of rights if your assailant is in street clothes and another set if he is dressed in a uniform and badge seems problemmatic.

Public safety is not a cogent rationale for this doctrine. If it were, we would also prohibit resistance to violent crime on the basis that it endangers public safety.

 

[BlueTrain]

One problem here is the assumption that all parties involved in a situation have perfect knowledge of both the law and of everything that is happening at the moment. The rub comes in when the parties themselves make the assumption about what they think they know.

Me, I don't know nothing; I didn't see nothing; I wasn't even there.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I asked the main question of our local Sheriff's department Captain. His long response was, essentially, we must let them in and not resist at all. The question of lawful/unlawful entry would eventually be settled in court.
That is what he said. Of course, I don't agree. But who am I?

 

[Al Norris]

Well, it appears things are simmering in Indiana.

There have been numerous threats against a certain Indiana Supreme Court Justice, for his ruling.

Then an Indiana Sheriff states that he can conduct random House to House searches, if he decides it's prudent in order to capture a criminal.

Then there is a Facebook page calling for the removal of this Sheriff and the Justice.

Is it just this one decision that has gotten so many people in an uproar? No. This is only the icing on the cake, it seems.

Two days before this decision, another decision was rendered in an unrelated case:

police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

The above from http://www.examiner.com/libertarian...ollowing-controversial-decision#ixzz1MpRkesWA. This was a opinion filed on May 10, 2011: Damion J. Wilkins v. State of Indiana

This was actually a case about suppressing evidence. Nothing new on the federal level. Here the ISC shifts the focus to the State level. it simply regurgitates what Scalia said in Hudson v. Michigan:

In sum, the social costs of applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations are considerable; the incentive to such violations is minimal to begin with, and the extant deterrences against them are substantial . . . . Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified.

The ISC however went a step further in that they said the police can decide on the spur of the moment to "upgrade" the warrant to no-knock status.

The two cases combined may be a perfect firestorm in Indiana.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And for many years I thought Indiana was one of the fifty United States of America.

 

[csmsss]

Amazing. Just amazing. Can't wait for this to hit the federal courts.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

New case: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_a978c23a-a40f-5d0a-a203-76b88ac67e86.html?mode=story

Need more information. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another example of why no knocks and dynamic entry warrants should not be allowed. In this case, the "civilian" is dead, so we have the word of his widow against the word of five police officers who have had two weeks to get their story straight.

It stinks. These types of warrants have no place in our society. The premise of a warrant is that it's supposed to be "served." Too often today a search warrant is nothing more than a license for the police to commit assault.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

I would say that if you know somebody has weapons, and may use them, you don't bang on the door and announce, then stand there until they get the gun and shoot you through the wall. Or flush dope down the drain. Are "no knocks" to be used in every situation? No. But they have a place in police work.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I certainly believe that no-knock warrants have their place in police work. I think they're an absolute necessity is certain cases. However, the system should seek to ensure that their use is limited to absolute necessity, as described by Conn Trooper. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for EVER entering the wrong location. The police have maps, they do stake outs, they can draw pictures, take pictures. There's no excuse. If it's a no-knock, you HAVE TO BE right.

 

[Al Norris]

OK. I just had a piece of "crow pie." [cough, cough]

Update: The Indiana sheriff has made a statement contradicting the original story:

On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station. Her question concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random warrantless searches. I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she then asked how the Sheriff’s Office conducted searches of residences. I informed her that searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot pursuit. When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch. This reporter then asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights. This State Supreme Court ruling in my opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will be revisited.

When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee. I advised her that if people were aware of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission.

This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search without due cause. Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.

I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.

 

[armoredman]

Is he backpedalling or setting the record straight, I wonder? Hopefully correcting a misapprehension.