View Full Version : No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Your Home?
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
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.
"..........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......."
Have to agree with Rucker and Dickson.
Beat me to it. The majority expanded government intrusion into the one area of our lives that is universally considered sacrosanct (unless there is good cause).
"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."
Below is a link to the bios for the Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios.html
The Reaper
05-14-2011, 08:31
This is going to get a lot of people hurt, in addition to violating their Constitutional rights.
TR
Bill Harsey
05-14-2011, 08:44
Cool,
Now gangbangers and thugs can dress like cops and just open doors to rob folks and do whatever else they want.
Home invasion just got easier.
I find justices like David very troublesome to our society as a whole. As a justice, is it not his responsibility to uphold the constitution. I think the 4th Amendment is very clearcut and concise. There is no hedging there. And then to further state that its up to the citizen to bring civil action later after being released on bond? So now the individual has an arrest, money out the window on a bond and then has to hire a lawyer to argue his case. I wonder where this guy got his law degree, commie China? I realize that the magna carta was a model for our judicial system, but it shouldn't override our constitution.
I don't know the whole story there but going on what the article states, the police requested entry after answering a domestic call, an argument in public. They had plenty of probable cause, the well being of the "victim", being held against his/her will, etc.
The law is suppose to be simple.
Team Sergeant
05-14-2011, 08:52
Cool,
Now gangbangers and thugs can dress like cops and just open doors to rob folks and do whatever else they want.
Home invasion just got easier.
Already do it here in Arizona. They like SWAT uniforms.....
I've got a sign hanging on my outer door:
"Knock and live"
or
"Make Peace with your Maker Before You Bust Down My Door."
It doesn't sound like the court needed to go that far. From the way the story reads, it was a domestic situation which started outside and the officers followed the couple inside, which is not only perfectly legal, but required on a domestic until officers are satisfied that everyone is ok and no violence will continue. Domestic situations are some of the worst to be involved in, you never know what either party will do.
As far as the warrants, in NC, as long as officers indicate that firearms, a history of violence or resisting against officers, or the likelihood that evidence will be destroyed exists, a no-knock warrant can be issued.
I didn't see a link to the decision, but I don't get why they seemed to go so far.
BingoBango
05-14-2011, 10:18
It doesn't sound like the court needed to go that far. From the way the story reads, it was a domestic situation which started outside and the officers followed the couple inside, which is not only perfectly legal, but required on a domestic until officers are satisfied that everyone is ok and no violence will continue. Domestic situations are some of the worst to be involved in, you never know what either party will do.
As far as the warrants, in NC, as long as officers indicate that firearms, a history of violence or resisting against officers, or the likelihood that evidence will be destroyed exists, a no-knock warrant can be issued.
I didn't see a link to the decision, but I don't get why they seemed to go so far.
Even if a no-knock warrant is denied or not applied for, the "announcing" of Police entry is given just about the time the entry man is on the back swing.
Search warrants are all about articulatory exigent circumstances, and I've never conducted a search warrant that didn't posses a level of the same.
.....As far as the warrants, in NC, as long as officers indicate that firearms, .............
This statement bothers me a little bit. Does NRA membership qualify for no knock warrants?
If a person has a CCW permit does that qualify for a no knock warrant?
Even if a no-knock warrant is denied or not applied for, the "announcing" of Police entry is given just about the time the entry man is on the back swing.
Search warrants are all about articulatory exigent circumstances, and I've never conducted a search warrant that didn't posses a level of the same.
True, but there is a difference between announcing on the first hit and announcing 5 seconds before the first hit preceeded by knocking on the door.
The Reaper
05-14-2011, 10:34
The practical problem (in addition to the Constitutional and "wrong address" ones) is that certain groups of people have figured out that raiding homes for cash, valuables, etc. while disguised or announcing as LEOs allows them to steal with less resistance.
Consequently, when someone crashes an armed citizen's door at 0400, it would not be unexpected to encounter armed resistance, even from law abiding individuals against intruders shouting "Police!"
If you have reason to suspect that an individual is doing something serious requiring his apprehension and a search of his home, would it not be tactically more prudent and safer to pop him while he is out of the house and execute a separate search warrant on the home after he is in custody? Was that not where the Waco raid went wrong (tactically)?
I am with TS on this one. Call me and I will gladly come to the station to talk. Serve me a valid warrant and you can enter and search my home for anything in the warrant. Crash my door in the middle of the night without knocking and announcing and I am not going to be the only one getting hurt.
Not sure about allowing the officers into the home following a third party domestic violence complaint. Lots of potential for abuse there as well. We can talk about it outside, but what should happen when the residents tire of talking and just want to go back inside? I am not sure that the officers should be able to follow, absent any indication of domestic violence or escalation to that extreme.
Not being anti-LE here, I know we all have our jobs. I would just like to see this done in a safe manner that respects the rights of the citizens as well as the needs of the law.
TR
This statement bothers me a little bit. Does NRA membership qualify for no knock warrants?
If a person has a CCW permit does that qualify for a no knock warrant?
Absolutely not. The threat matrix we use to obtain a no-knock warrant has to indicate several factors. I.E., Gang members present + firearms present + violent criminal histories , etc.
Back about the time LBJ was POTUS, I remember my Dad watching the news and saying to nobody in particular, "One of these days the Cops will just bust down your front door like they did in Germany when Hitler was runnin' things."
link to the decision here:
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/c/82/cdb/c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb-revisions/4dcc5c97c31bf.pdf.pdf
This decision sticks in my craw - this is not the direction that we should be moving as a country. The home is traditionally one’s castle. Technology has reinforced the notion that we long ago ceded many of our rights to privacy - both inside and outside the home. This decision simply reinforces bad public policy. YMMV.
EXCERPTS FROM DECISION:
"In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law."
"Barnes does not dispute the evidence establishing that he shoved Reed, who was responding to Mary‘s 911 call, but he argues that his conduct was a lawful response to Reed‘s allegedly unlawful entry into his apartment."
"Because we decline to recognize the right of a homeowner to reasonably resist unlawful entry, Barnes is not entitled to batter Reed, irrespective as to the legality of Reed‘s entry."
"As before, Barnes does not dispute his struggle with the officers but contests that his conduct was a lawful response to the officers‘ allegedly unlawful entry into his apartment. Because Barnes is not entitled to resist the entry of the officers, his battery on Reed was sufficient grounds for his arrest, and the uncontroverted fact that he resisted the arrest was sufficient to sustain his conviction."
craigepo
05-14-2011, 15:43
Having read the decision, I think that this is the law in most jurisdictions.
As you will note when reading the decision, there was a good reason for the common law to allow resisting arrest, as jail conditions at that time were horrible, and getting out of jail on bond was damned near impossible. Those conditions are not relevant to our situation today. Also, if the cops screw up today, there are myriad forms of relief for the aggrieved person. Do cops screw up today? Yes. Will an unlawful arrest cause you to lose your life rotting in jail? Probably not.
One of the most salient points I found in the case was as follows: the 911 call was an alleged domestic disturbance call. Cops show up, husband is acting like a jackass to the cops(general rule: if dude is causing trouble with the cops, he will have no problem slapping his wife around). If the law allows resisting unlawful arrest, who gets to make the decision that the arrest is unlawful at that time? Jackass husband, who has by now followed wife back into the house and barred the door so the cops can't come in.
Here is the text of 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."
As you will note, the 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Question: Is it unreasonable for the cop, arriving at an alleged domestic disturbance call and finding husband acting like a jackass, to arrest husband after husband has followed wife back into house and barred door to prevent police from entering? Does your answer change if the wife happens to be your daughter?
Finally, this guy was convicted by a jury on all three counts. It is hard to get 12 people to do anything the same way (just ask anybody who has been in SF for more than a day).
....One of the most salient points I found in the case was as follows: the 911 call was an alleged domestic disturbance call........
We noted that also. We have no problem with the domestic side of the call but as Dickson and Rucker noted this ruling seems to take the issue beyond a domestic call.
Can a person be "secure" in their home when any old cop can kick in the door and haul them downtown to be sorted out later?
Chip, Chip, Chip the 4th is getting smaller.
Respectfully your honor - had the justices limited this decision to domestic disturbance calls - and not reversed years of precedent - I might be less troubled by this high court decision.
IMO, it is just not good policy to grant the State relatively unfettered access to the one place in this world that citizens consider sacred - without good cause - which domestic disturbance calls seem to qualify as - good cause.
Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant in this specific case was found guilty - he probably deserved some punishment - unfortunately, the precedent erased here is troubling to many - and the language of the decision is not limited and is in fact quite broad.
The State marches on - another sign of the times I guess.
dr. mabuse
05-14-2011, 16:19
*
After reading the opinion, I must say I think the majority went too far. They went beyond what the situation called for as a domestic call. Justice Dickson's dissenting opinion is more along the lines of what should have been done IMO. As stated before, being a domestic situation, the officers had to ensure both parties safety. By the male's demeanor, the officers should have suspected possible violence against the female after they left.
BHO called...."the police acted stupidly."
Oh, wrong case. ;)
Surgicalcric
05-14-2011, 17:34
...getting out of jail on bond was damned near impossible. Those conditions are not relevant to our situation today. Also, if the cops screw up today, there are myriad forms of relief for the aggrieved person. Do cops screw up today? Yes. Will an unlawful arrest cause you to lose your life rotting in jail? Probably not.
Does your answer change if the wife happens to be your daughter?
I believe a person who has spent time in jail unlawfully would argue confinement, regardless of the conditions today is still traumatic, especially in some of the more violent cities where a person runs the risk of being assaulted, raped, and even murdered.
Would you feel different if it were you being arrested, unlawfully?
It is easy to take the high road when you aren't the one walking it.
I feel this is yet an erosion of rights...
Crip
craigepo
05-14-2011, 17:51
The points you (plural) have made are well-taken. However, you might want to look at this issue from a different perspective. Also, for purposes of this, forget that this was a domestic situation.
Let's say that you are now a supreme court judge, and that your job is to write an opinion, which does the following: (1) stays within the confines of the Constitution; (2) articulates a practical ruling which is usable in a courtroom setting; (3) is teachable to policeman, who will have to use the law in the field, in less-than-perfect situations; (4) protects the rights of peaceable citizens (allowing them to be secure in their homes); (5) allows policeman to do their job, without getting the hell beaten out of them by every tough-guy criminal, who will of course maintain in court that he believed his arrest was "unlawful", which allowed him/her come swinging at the cops in order to protect his home/meth lab.
It is tempting to denigrate the court's opinion with majestic generalities. However, the issue and ruling must be narrowed to be usable. In my humble estimation, I would state the issue in the case to be:
"When may a person use force to resist arrest?"
I think that we can all agree that a person should not be allowed to resist a "lawful" arrest (let's define that as either an arrest based upon an arrest warrant issued by a judge, or when the policeman has observed the person committing a crime). The cops have a tough enough job as it is, and we really don't need a law which allows/encourages people to fight the cops.
Next we need to determine when a person can resist an unlawful arrest(stated differently, when can I kick a cop's ass and get away with it). Remember, the common law idea of resisting an unlawful arrest originated at/near the drafting of the Magna Carta (1200's), and the harmful effects of being wrongfully thrown into jail today are much less pronounced than they were then. To make this easier, and maybe more useful, let's break this issue down into two different locations: a public place and a person's home.
As to the public place (let's call it a bar), when should we allow a person to fight the cops to avoid an unlawful arrest? Those of you who don't like the Court's ruling remember one thing: the person being arrested, not the cops, gets to define whether the arrest is unlawful. So you, as a supreme court judge, get to write a rule that works for this situation. (It was interesting reading the dissenting opinions, in that they also complained of setting aside the common-law, but failed to offer a better way to proceed). Personally, I can't think of a time when I walked out of the Madigan Club on Ft. Lewis and should have been allowed to fight the cops to resist arrest. But, the dissenters have to come up with a workable rule.
Next, we need to determine a rule for resisting an unlawful arrest in a person's home. Again, forget the fact scenario from the case at bar(even the dissenting judge stated that domestic assault cases were probably emergency scenarios that didn't work for his reasoning). Let's make it tougher: assume that it is two o'clock in the morning, your front door explodes inward, you grab your gun and head that way. After you put a slug in one officer's leg, and the rest of the cops beat the living crap out of you, you find out the cops should have went to the house next door.
(One more thing to remember: even at common law, the person could only resist an unlawful arrest with REASONABLE force. Example: if the meter maid comes at you with handcuffs, you can't pull out your tommy gun and blow her away.)
Now, this court's opinion was that resisting the arrest was not allowed. If you disagree, your job is to come up with a contrary law, within the confines listed above. You can, of course, continue with the common law rule. However, you must realize that "resisting" is going to range from fists to knives and guns. Because your rule allows folks to so resist, both people and cops will be beaten, tased, and shot. This is opposed to the results from the Court's ruling, which will allow all decisions and repurcussions to be made and felt in a courtroom---in other words, they are "fixable". Moreover, while the person in our scenario lying in bed was not breaking the law, many times a real criminal will utilize this law as a defense to taking a swing/stab/shot at the cops.
As you can see, it is easy to dislike the Court's opinion, but it is pretty hard to come up with a viable alternative. Nonetheless, have at it.
As a retired Police Chief, and a 22 year veteran of LE, I can't understand the Courts ruling... In California you have to have a warrant to enter someone's home!
Surgicalcric
05-14-2011, 18:24
Brother:
This is a difficult situation to say the least and I don't at this present time have a better solution to the issue.
I would ask, is an "unlawful arrest" not an "unreasonable seizure" of a person? And if it is not, can you give me an example or two, within the confines of this scenario, of what an "unlawful seizure" would be.
Thanks.
craigepo
05-14-2011, 18:37
Brother:
This is a difficult situation to say the least and I don't at this present time have a better solution to the issue.
I would ask, is an "unlawful arrest" not an "unreasonable seizure" of a person? And if it is not, can you give me an example or two, within the confines of this scenario, of what an "unlawful seizure" would be.
Thanks.
You are exactly correct, in that an "unlawful arrest" is an "unreasonable seizure". That is part of the rub in this issue, in that this Court's decision is telling citizens that they have to lie down and take, at least initially, a blatant attack on their constitutional rights. Worse, if the arrest is unlawful, they haven't done anything to deserve it.
If my research is correct, thirty-eight states have done away with the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, as well as the southern states still allow resisting. http://www.boalt.org/CCLR/v2/v2hemmensnf.htm#endnote127sym. Feel free to double check me.
This is a very difficult issue. I can understand the arguments for both sides.
The Reaper
05-14-2011, 19:45
"When may a person use force to resist arrest?"
Sir, I take it your belief is never (legally)?
Do you think Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al would agree?
So if my door implodes at 0400, armed intruders break in without knocking, and I use deadly force to defend myself and my family, I am committing a crime?
TR
This is a very difficult issue. I can understand the arguments for both sides.
I agree, though respectfully your honor, is it far fetched to question the trickle down effects of such a ruling, specifically if civilians may perform citizens arrests while the guidlines and legal protections vary by state. Does this ruling enable a criminal greater levity to tresspass on the property of his/her neighbor with the excuse " I was merely a good Samaritan attempting to forestall a breach of the peace or violence?"
It is certainly a tough issue - but 38 other state legislatures have apparently addressed the issue - Indiana's can too - IMO the court should exercise some judicial restraint and limit itself - deferring to the Indiana state legislature to make such a broad and sweeping change.
Moreover, courts themselves are perfectly capable of carving out VERY narrow exceptions when they are of a mind - we see it done quite often.
Second, since I consider the home to be sacred - I would focus my attention on the unique, particular and crucial components of this case - one of which is the home - the personal residence. When may the police enter my home…enter your home? The other critical component which cannot be ignored is the domestic disturbance call - both elements form the crux of this particular case – and formulate the foundation for any reasoned decision.
Generally, absent clear and present danger, exigent circumstances, plain sight, consent, the other rare carve outs…etc., I suggest the police may not enter your home or my home without a warrant.
I respectfully suggest that a decision could be drafted recognizing the general rule and carving out an exception to the general rule - maybe even suggesting within the body of the opinion that it is time for the legislature to act.
In other words, only in special and very limited circumstance may the police enter my home. A man’s home should be and is his castle - the last sanctuary from an ever encroaching state monolith.
In fact, my decision might suggest that the police clearly articulate a request to enter a home due to the nature of the call – “…we are here because of a domestic disturbance call and we must enter the home and attempt to ensure the safety of all involved in this disturbance” - seems easy enough to articulate and to teach.
Finally, absent the specific circumstances involving a personal residence and a domestic disturbance call - all bets are off - I'd decline to legislate from the bench or to opine on the right to resist in any other circumstance.
I submit that a more limited decision could have been drafted - the bad guy would be punished for disturbing the peace – and the authorities would not be allowed to enter anyone’s home absent the limitations set forth herein - and/or legislative action on this matter.
Although I believe the home to be sacred - IMO the legislature - and not the court - should address the wholesale overturning of such a longstanding general rule.
craigepo
05-14-2011, 22:51
Sir, I take it your belief is never (legally)?
Do you think Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al would agree?
So if my door implodes at 0400, armed intruders break in without knocking, and I use deadly force to defend myself and my family, I am committing a crime?
TR
Ok, let's take a look at some other state laws. I have picked three states. I'm going to try to paste only relevant portions of statutes. First, Arkansas:
"5-2-612.Use of physical force in resisting arrest.
Whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, a person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a person who is known or reasonably appears to be a:
(1)Law enforcement officer; or
(2)Private citizen directed by a law enforcement officer to assist in effecting an arrest."
Next, Missouri:
575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:
(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or
(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.
4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.
Third, Texas:
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Now, let's use my hypothetical of lying in bed, door explodes, I grab a gun and charge into the fray. Cops are at the wrong house. Have I committed a crime of unlawfully resisting or battery to an officer?
Arkansas---if the cops are known to be or reasonably appear to be police, then any resisting is a crime. So, if you are charging through the house, and shoot/swing without knowing the cops are cops, you might be ok. However, once you determine they are cops, you have no legal justification to resist.
Missouri---If the persons knows or reasonably should know that police are making or attempting an arrest, then can't resist. Answer-essentially the same as in Arkansas.
Texas---A person can only use force to resist arrest if the police are using greater force than necessary to effect the arrest. Answer---I don't know. I am no Texas attorney, but I would wager that Texas courts might look at both the policemen's method of entry, as well as amount of force used in the actual arresting.
Interestingly, in not one of these states would our Indiana gentleman be allowed to resist. Under both Missouri and Arkansas law, he knew a policeman was making an arrest. Under Texas law, as there was no excessive force, the guy had no right to use force to defend himself.
Now, do I think Jefferson, Adams, and others would approve? Answer---not in their time. Initially, in the Founding period, police work was done by private citizens. Established police forces didn't come into being until at least 50 years later. The common law idea of resisting arrest at that time was a pretty good deterrent to unlawful arrest by a drunken lynch mob.
However, the use of only citizens to make arrests in our society today is just not workable. How many people in L.A. would be able to take the time to build a case against one of the local gangs? Assuming a case was made, who would do the arresting?
While I realize the Founders were men of ideals, they were also pragmatic. I would surmise that if Thomas Jefferson were dropped into East St. Louis today, he would be aghast at the crime there. He would probably agree that a professional police force was necessary, and that certain concessions would have to be made to keep the citizenry safe. That might be one reason why the 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" seizures as discussed above.
As to my personal beliefs as to ever resisting arrests---I think the state laws discussed above probably address the issue in a more clever manner than I could. They do about as well as can be expected, in protecting the line between citizen rights and pragmatism toward law enforcement.
Went too far onto the side of LEOs and against homeowners - or renters.
This ruling went far afield of the case this time.
The court could have simply construed the wife’s comments as consent and it would not have been necessary to overturn years of precedent and further crush the rights of the individual and erode the protections of the 4th Amendment.
There were many ways to resolve this case without using a chain saw to perform surgery.
§39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search -- Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.
(a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.
(b) Except as provided in §39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.
That's the law -- on paper -- in Tennessee. (The citation to §39-11-611 refers to the right to defend against deadly force).
But when the issue actually arose in a criminal case, I had no problem having the judge declaring -- at least for the purpose of that case -- that the law was unconstitutional, being in violation of the Tennessee State Constitution:
Tennessee Constution Article I, §2 (2011)
Sec. 2. Doctrine of nonresistance condemned.
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
1stindoor
05-16-2011, 07:59
Cool,
Now gangbangers and thugs can dress like cops and just open doors to rob folks and do whatever else they want.
Home invasion just got easier.
True...and now cops can kick in doors of gang bangers and stun gun them for no reason as well.
FWIW...I disagree with the ruling...but I can see some cops using it to their advantage. The whole "search warrent" thing just went out the window.
FWIW: generally, absent clear and present danger, exigent circumstances, plain sight, consent, the other carve outs…etc., I suggest the police may not enter your home or my home without a warrant.
Add hot pursuit - and perhaps other exceptions - law enforcement and criminal law lawyers will know the exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant - by heart - to the extent that is possible.
The Reaper
05-16-2011, 09:54
I don't do this kind of law, so if I've got this wrong, I'm hoping to be corrected...Stindoor, I think you're statement is a little "off" -- the reason is, cops don't need a warrant in the first place if there is probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed on the premises.
Sure it has to be pretty strong "probable cause." You can't randomly start kicking in doors because of a whiff of pot smoke. But in the case of following the guy into the house in which violence very likely will ensue against wife ---probable cause.
Obviously these things are very subjective and "case by case."
Okay, the cops get the no-knock warrant, and transpose two digits of your address instead of the meth lab down the street they meant to hit.
At 0400, the heavily armed assault team executes, smashes your front door with a ram, maybe breaks a few windows with a Halligan tool, tosses a few flashbangs into your house, maybe shoots your dogs, drags you and your family out of bed, prones you all out on the floor and flexcuffs you and your kids. They read you your rights, interrogate you, trash your house for an hour or two, seize a bunch of computers and other property, then pack up and leave without so much as an apology.
You have to calm your traumatized kids, clean up the mess, repair the front door, and wonder what the neighbors are thinking. You have to sue the citry to get reimbursed for the damages.
How do you feel about the policy then?
Before you can say that these sort of things don't happen, they do, and far more often than you would suspect. In some cases, they even shoot and kill family members.
This is not how the American judicial system is supposed to work.
TR
But in the case of following the guy into the house in which violence very likely will ensue against wife ---probable cause.
Obviously these things are very subjective and "case by case."
Another observation.
So, I take it that you'd suggest that the police entry might in fact have been lawful - if the entry was in fact lawful - no need for the Indiana Supreme Court to eviscerate hundreds of years of precedent - regarding the right to resist an UNLAWFUL entry. That position, may in fact, have been a reasonable position.
There are many layers to this situation - a narrow decision that punished a jackass and didn't punish the rest of the Indiana citizenry would seem to be the preferred route.
When is UNLAWFUL entry by police ever reasonable in Indiana? Always?
That's pretty much what the Indiana Supreme Court just determined. You can't see potential problems with that?
If the Indiana Supreme Court is going to just go ahead and create new law - there are other directions that they could have gone that would be much easier on the rights of others and the Constitution.
So now UNLAWFUL = reasonable in Indiana.
IMO, that is not acceptable collateral damage.
"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."
I can only speak to this issue from my own personal opinion and experience. As a police officer, I am going to continue doing what I would have already done regardless of this decision. Court decisions are made weekly that don’t necessarily change the way law enforcement as a whole does its business. There have been many instances in the past whereby I was operating within the scope of the law and was able to conduct a search without obtaining a warrant first; however, I always obtained a warrant anyway. This law would not and will not change that for me. Again, I can only speak concerning myself and the people I work with. These types of laws are not going to change the way WE do OUR business.
Like every other profession, there may be those that try to take advantage of the law; however, as one who does several search warrants every year, I (we) are always going to err on the side of caution and obtain a legal search warrant before entering any residence. IMO, this law makes me want to go the extra mile to make sure that my probable cause is even more clearly defined before obtaining my warrant. (Not to make one believe that I already don’t do that.) Just my opinion for what it’s worth.
The Reaper
05-16-2011, 10:58
I understand and have no issues with LEOs lawfully serving an executing a normal search warrant.
The "no-knock" warrant is the specific one I am addressing here.
I cannot agree with the court's decision in this matter.
I understand craigepo's explanation, but I think that you should be able to retreat into your home, and absent probable cause that a crime is occurring or hot pursuit of a suspect, a warrant should be required before entry. I understand that the officers no doubt maintained that they had probable cause in this alleged Domestic Violence case.
The real issue is that when your door implodes at 0400, how do you know in the second or two you have to react that they are real cops, and not a band of brigands conducting a home invasion while disguised as LEOs?
TR
The real issue is that when your door implodes at 0400, how do you know in the second or two you have to react that they are real cops, and not a band of brigands conducting a home invasion while disguised as LEOs?
TR
At my crib, at 0400, it's brigands. Badges or not.
And I have no good answer for that, TR. Especially when you take into consideration that, I believe, in most states if not all you have the right to protect yourself with deadly force while in your own home. So there is nothing to stop you from blazing away. Which is awfully dangerous for the LEOS, if that's what they really are.
In your case, I hope the LEOS in your area are real careful. If it were to happen with the wrong address, there would probably be a couple of deceased LEOs.
In my case, there would be a woman and two kids hog-tied on the floor.
Listen, if you've got a broad and two kids hog-tied and on the floor over at your place, I'm sending the LEO's myself. You know better than that. :D
TR,
I completely agree with you when you said, “The real issue is that when your door implodes at 0400, how do you know in the second or two you have to react that they are real cops, and not a band of brigands conducting a home invasion while disguised as LEOs? The reality of it is that…you don’t. The whole premise behind a “no-knock” warrant makes it a dangerous situation. Regardless of the time of day, when a “no-knock”warrant is authorized, it’s because those specific requirements for it have been met which is usually indicative of either the destruction of evidence, or more importantly, for the safety and welfare of all involved, both officers and subjects.
There are times when warrants are executed in a no-knock fashion whereby only one occupant of the residence may actually be a suspect. There have been instances where one family member was involved in whatever crime was being investigated while the other members were unaware of their activities. As a result of the suspect’s activities, the warrant was obtained for his/her residence. If the warrant was served at high noon while the family was having lunch, it could be construed by them that the service of the warrant was illegal or possibly that the action was that of a home invasion. My point is, they…the innocent family members…could respond with violence as well as you could in your scenario. The truth of the matter is that surprise is the key element of a no-knock and it is always dangerous for all parties involved.
......There are times when warrants are executed in a no-knock fashion whereby only one occupant of the residence may actually be a suspect. .........
Ala WACO. In that case why don't they arrest the suspect when he's out driving or walking around town then walk up and knock on the door of the home, hand the other occupants a search warrant and search the home?
I'm begining to think the increasing number of no knock warrants is an attempt by local PDs to justify the high cost of their SWAT units.
...why don't they arrest the suspect when he's out driving or walking around town then walk up and knock on the door of the home, hand the other occupants a search warrant and search the home?
I agree. That is why I do the majority of mine that way. I was speaking in generalities and maybe shouldn't have. However, with that said, there will be times that the warrant has to be served at the residence for whatever reasons. My point was, that they are still dangerous regardless of the time. The surprise element will always make it dangerous. Personally, I have gone out of my way to follow a suspect for an extended period of time or conducted lengthy surveillances in order to let the subject exit the building in order to have them away from the residence and then serve the warrant on the remainder of the occupants, if any. In the end, I try to do it where the end result is the safest for all parties.
Sheepdog, wouldn't there be a situation where there is probable cause for a warrant, but not for an arrest?
So in the case of TR's meth lab (example of a meth lab) -- you have it from good sources that there is a lab on the premises, but you have to search in order to get the proof before you can arrest.
And if you were to do a knock and announce situation, you run the risk of the persons fleeing, destroying the evidence or violence against the officers?
Absolutely there is. The meth lab scenario is a great example of a search warrant without an arrest. Many times, the search is conducted while the building is vacated; however, there are times when a warrant is obtained based on information received from sources that have been confirmed where the warrant is obtained regardless of obtaining consent from someone with the authority to give it. Subsequently, often times, the main suspects are developed after the search has been conducted.
However, I am assuming you are meaning when the lab is occupied by the suspects. In that case, a no knock would more than likely be sought. I think...I hope I am right... that the question here is in the validity of an officer entering a residence based on his "wanting" to without court approved authority where there is a clear-cut violation of the law. The case being used for this thread dealt with what some deemed exigent circumstances. Those tend to be the ones that usually end up in court for a decision. But yes, IMO, a meth lab that has been confirmed through multiple sources would be a good example of a no knock situation, IMO, however, those are even more dangerous due to the chemical equation that has to be factored into the operation.
craigepo
05-16-2011, 13:24
I'm attaching a copy of a law review article, which argues that we should return to the common law and allow people to resist arrest. I think quite a few of my brethren will enjoy reading the article, especially the historical bases underlying the common law right. Interestingly, the authors discuss a couple of state supreme court cases wherein, generally, a person is not allowed to resist an unlawful arrest, but are allowed to resist an unlawful home entry.
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=29+Sw.+U.+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=ea22d2e43c84e9006cd4b54d6e9c6f1a
One more thing to bend your mind around: many states have now passed "castle doctrine" laws, which hold that a homeowner has no duty to retreat in his own home. What happens with TR's scenario in that jurisdiction?
Ironically, anybody want to guess what type of case was on top of my to-do pile this morning when I arrived at the office? Damned karma.
Tony, the constitution says "unreasonable." Not "illegal."
What's "unreasonable? " IMO, an UNLAWFUL entry into my home or your home is unreasonable.
Take TR's example: The LEOS reasonably believed they were entering the correct home. Turns out later they weren't.
Illegal, but not unreasonable.
550, you concluded for ease of making your argument - that the illegal entry was reasonable - I believe - based on the hypothetical - that remains an open question of material fact subject to reasonable debate - the authorities could be completely unreasonable in their belief - I believe that an[B] illegal entry into my home (or your home) is unreasonable - but maybe that's just me. I want the authorities to measure twice and cut once.
In the Indiana case, having a domestic dispute out on the lawn, then going into the house would have, IMO, made the police officer reasonably suspect that further acts of violence could occur behind closed doors but for his immediate intervention.
I am going to repeat myself - so, I take it that you suggest that the police entry might have been lawful (see your statement immediately above - your statement transforms the situation into a LAWFUL entry). If the entry was in fact lawful - there would be no need for the Indiana Supreme Court to eviscerate hundreds of years of precedent regarding the right of a citizen to resist an UNLAWFUL entry in one's home. If the court's at any level had found that the entry was lawful I would most likely have no problem with the decision.
It's not a great answer, I know that.
Agree.
As a matter of public policy citizens should not resist lawful entry into their homes - if a domestic dispute generated a lawful entry into this home the court should have said so.
incarcerated
05-16-2011, 23:31
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-2nd-home-invasion-in-three-days-20110514,0,2665087.story
2nd home invasion in three days
By DAVE STEPHENS
South Bend Tribune Staff Writer
8:21 p.m. EDT, May 14, 2011
SOUTH BEND - A woman told police she was forced to the floor at gunpoint early Saturday morning, after a gang of masked men broke into her home in what may be a case of mistaken identity.
Police were called to the home in the 1500 block of Webster Street about 1:30 a.m., after the woman reported the robbery.
According to police reports, the 41-year-old woman told police that she heard someone kicking on her door and then saw it break open as a group of men, wearing ski masks and carrying guns, rushed into her home.
The woman said the men yelled “Police” several times as they entered with guns drawn.
The woman said she and another man, who came downstairs after hearing the noise, were forced to lie on the floor and that a blanket was placed over their heads. The woman said the men asked for drugs and money.
The woman said at one point she heard one of the men say they were at the wrong house.
The men then left, taking the woman’s cell phone. She removed the blanket from her head to find her home ransacked.
Police were unable to locate any suspects, who might have left the area in a van.
Saturday morning’s home invasion is similar to an incident reported Thursday morning, when a woman and her three children were held at gunpoint at their home in the 200 block of North Gladstone.
Police said it’s not known if the cases are related, but both remain unsolved.
Officer Friendly & Innocent Civilian
Philly Police harass, threaten to shoot man legally carrying gun
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun
"........Fiorino said he sat handcuffed in a police wagon while the officers made numerous phone calls to supervisors, trying to find out if they could lock him up.
When they learned that they were in the wrong, they let him go.
But only temporarily. Fiorino posted the audio recordings on youtube, and now they are harassing him again:
A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police... He's scheduled for trial in July.
If one listens to the audiotapes, it's hard to imagine how a reasonable person could charge Fiorino (and not the cops) for disorderly conduct..............."
Remember - the police are right - even if they're wrong. So now they charge him with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct?
Edited to add - here is a link to the audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA
dollarbill
05-17-2011, 07:40
http://www.wthr.com/story/14656928/police-investigate-threats-to-indiana-supreme-court
After living in the Indianapolis area for a couple of years, I can say that several times a year the news station(s) broadcast be on the lookout for LE impersonators. This goes from traffic stops to front door visits. Of course instructions have been given to wife and kids on personnel safety. I would never recommend "running" form LE, however, they know not to forget you are responsible for your own saftey. Be respectfull but also be cautious.
Go Devil
05-17-2011, 08:01
Pressure Sensitive Trigger
I did warn you that this is why people hate lawyers!!!:D
I don't think you guys should be so hard on yourselves.
Lawyers are despicable, but necessary-like maggots. :D
olhamada
05-17-2011, 08:18
edited - wrong thread......
Yes, I see your point there. I'm going to re-read the case and get back to you on that one.
NORMAL550GIRL, no need to get back to me. I have read the case. My observation goes to your characterization of the encounter - as opposed to the Indiana Supreme court's characterization and rationale in reaching its decision.
I understand your thinking that way, however, all I can respond is that the law doesn't look at it like that. If the police officers relied on the information they were given, and the source was trustworthy, then their entry of the home was reasonable, whether it was illegal or legal.
There are lawyers who consider ILLEGAL entries into a personal residence as unreasonable - thankfully.
I did warn you that this is why people hate lawyers!!!:D
Not all lawyers - I usually go by the 80/20 rule - most are obnoxious, arrogant, over educated liberal twits with no common sense - then there's the rest ;) as for judges, the old saw was that a judge is just another lawyer who knew a governor/senator, etc., they are not infallible...present company excepted of course.
For me this is a troubling case for a number of reasons - let's just leave it at that.
craigepo
05-17-2011, 09:16
For me this is a troubling case for a number of reasons - let's just leave it at that.
Thank you.
1stindoor
05-17-2011, 10:54
But for TR, Dusty, Tony etc...thought you might be interested to know the majority of comments on the articles I've found are definitely squarely in your court. So to speak:
http://hotair.com
Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that 550 found a site called hot air dot com and relates the comments to the rest of us?
The Reaper
05-17-2011, 12:40
Read 'em and weep.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50932722-76/blair-burnett-officers-police.html.csp
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/may/13/tucson_swat_team_kills_armed_hom
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Home-invaders_pose_as_NYC_police
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=4694491
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326885,00.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/26083024.html?source=error
http://www.vbgov.com/vgn.aspx?vgnextoid=8258282d4a5ed010282d4a5ed010021 a0e0a____&vgnextchannel=dc8e54cf18ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640a RCRD&ct=ne
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
TR
SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/16/scotus-authorizes-warrantless-search-of-apartment-that-smells-of-dope/
"In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants......."
Well, they did find drugs but .................
So if you're on the pot and hear a knock on the door, stand up and flush - you had better have your pants up because the next sound you hear is the cops kicking in your door.
And yes, I know the cops have been able to enter when thinking evidence was being destroyed but the law is being stretched mighty thin.
SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/16/scotus-authorizes-warrantless-search-of-apartment-that-smells-of-dope/
"In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants......."
Well, they did find drugs but .................
So if you're on the pot and hear a knock on the door, stand up and flush - you had better have your pants up because the next sound you hear is the cops kicking in your door.
And yes, I know the cops have been able to enter when thinking evidence was being destroyed but the law is being stretched mighty thin.
Not quite so sure. In my estimation, based on the short article and given the lack of paperwork which might back up pr destroy that case, the circumstances fell under exigent cause. No law stretching applied here, IMO, the bust was legit.
.............You're me (without the pleasant disposition and pre second husband). You are a mom, trying to raise two kids under the age of 10, and you constantly smell pot smoke (strongly) coming from the apartment below you. .............
I would call the police. And then if I was you - MOVE.
Now we get into the probable cause side. I would hope the police start some type of surveillance operation, gather intell and then raid the joint. I would hope they did everything by the book and the perps didn't get out on bail. If they do get out things might get right interesting for you.
And how would you know it's pot smoke? At least I got to sniff it while on duty. Yes folks I did inhale.
See, I still believe in the police - it's just that many of them are making it harder and harder to believe.
But I don't like door-kicking either. ah, well. As Richard says "And so it goes..."
You'll probably like it less when they mistakenly kick in your place - go all halligan on the joint - I recall some conversation about hog-tied or something...traumatized kids - no ventilation just to keep things nice...the authorities say, sorry...reasonable mistake.
After this hypothetical event - how many of your law school classmates are calling you and how soon after a conversation with them do you believe the actions as described may not be so reasonable? You gave them the correct address - three times ! Your attorney suggests that millions may be at stake...at least hundreds of thousands...no restitution was ever made and the family pet was shot and killed...in front of everyone...
That's a rhetorical question - I recall something about student loans and rent in another comment. The defense attorney - for the civil claim that either you or your classmate eventually files because the numbers are just too damn large to ignore - produces your comments on this thread...when you have no dog in the hunt - you consider this smashing of your home and your life - mere collateral damage...
:munchin...
Tony, I'm sort of lost in your comments. You seem to be doing a stream-of-consciousness thing and I'm not following.
Same here. I'm not sure I get your point.
You have to read all of 550's comments on this and some other threads - never mind - it is not important.
I think that 550 got the gist of things.
I'm sometimes cursed with a memory and internet speak sometimes does not do conversations justice.
Having been in the arena of legal conflict I can sometimes play out an entire scenario - before I finish my first cold one ;) Thank goodness I didn't start discussing discovery.
Carry on.
No offense meant, sorry.
I'm new and I haven't tracked all of your posts.
R/Sierra Lima
No offense taken - please accept my apologies for the confusion - I do try to be direct but occasionally succumb to diarrhea of the keyboard - as we all do at one time or another.
Bottom line - many thought provoking observations and comments make this an excellent board to peruse for different perspectives on interesting and topical issues.
Cheers.
wandering_idiot
05-18-2011, 08:27
other types of warrants are also on the rise.
http://www.koat.com/r/27922147/detail.html#ixzz1MdoLic15
No offense taken - please accept my apologies for the confusion - I do try to be direct but occasionally succumb to diarrhea of the keyboard - as we all do at one time or another.
Bottom line - many thought provoking observations and comments make this an excellent board to peruse for different perspectives on interesting and topical issues.
Cheers.
Clarification much appreciated.
I concur with the above statement. Have a good one! :)
I'm stealing that!!
I've noticed that myself lately. One ruling such as the one that started this thread is one thing, IMO --several rulings of the same nature are disturbing.
Indeed, they're confusing. For both LEOs and citizens. Makes your job a lot harder and you find yourself second guessing every decision you make. Looks like it's getting closer and closer to self-micromanaging.
I do not envy those who will have to deal with it. In the military branch at least things are still a little simpler.
I couldn't find any links to verify that this Sheriff made this statement, but it sure has people stirred up.
IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will
By: Allison Bricker
Contributing Editor
CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.
At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.
However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.
Source(s): Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA No. 82S05-1007-CR-343 • Telephone interview for comment with Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., May 16th, 2011
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html
What an incredible asshat.
Public Servants like Sheriff Newton verify the fears of those that worry about the Police State.
Badger52
05-19-2011, 11:48
Anyone who may think they will comply & later rely on the court system for recompense should remember that a court system yielded the decision under discussion; go forth, big boy rules apply. Personally, it was said for me on page 1....
"Knock and live"
or
"Make Peace with your Maker Before You Bust Down My Door."
This topic reminded me of this topic from a year ago.
http://ingunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/84203-welfare_check_leaves_woman_dead.html
That happened right down the road just as they discussed. I was working just East of there when it happened. A fireman friend works just around the corner and all he would say was 'she supposedly had a knife'.
The story was that the PV CERT Team took out a nutty middle aged woman with a knife, after she refused to answer the door......but the story just kind of disappeared from the local news and no one knows what actually happened.
This is an ongoing investigation with facts still to come, however if it turns out this young man was clean, this is a recent example of the nightmare scenario mentioned in this thread.
[May 11, 2011]
SWAT team fired 71 shots in raid
May 11, 2011 (The Arizona Daily Star - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The Pima County Regional SWAT team fired 71 shots in seven seconds at a Tucson man they say pointed a gun at officers serving a search warrant at his home.
Jose Guerena, 26, a former Marine who served in Iraq twice, was holding an AR-15 rifle when he was killed, but he never fired a shot, the Sheriff's Department said Monday after initially saying he had fired on officers during last week's raid.
Six days after Guerena was shot, few details about the investigation that brought the SWAT team to the southwest-side home Guerena shared with his wife and their two young sons are known. Guerena's role in the narcotics investigation is unclear and deputies would not comment on what was seized from his home.
Three other homes within a quarter of a mile from Guerena's house, were served search warrants related to the investigation that morning. The addresses and the names of people who live in the other homes have not been made public.
Vanessa Guerena says she heard noise outside their home about 9 a.m. Thursday and woke her husband who had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at the Asarco Mine, she said. There were no sirens or shouts of "police," she said.
Guerena told his wife and son to hide inside a closet and he grabbed the AR-15 rifle, his wife said.
The department says SWAT members were clear when identifying themselves while entering the home.
"Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them, said O'Connor.
"The suspect said, 'I've got something for you,' when he saw them," O'Connor said. Guerena's wife denied he said that.
Deputies began shooting.
A deputy's bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield. That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot, O'Connor said.
The Sheriff's Department put in a call to Drexel Heights fire at 9:43 a.m. requesting assistance with a shooting. But crews were told to hold off.
Guerena was dead by the time they were allowed in the house, fire officials said.
Vanessa Guerena vividly remembers seeing her wounded husband.
"When I came out the officers dragged me through the kitchen and took me outside, and that's when I saw him laying there gasping for air," Vanessa Guerena said. "I kept begging the officers to call an ambulance that maybe he could make it and that my baby was still inside."The little boy soon after walked out of the closet on his own. SWAT members took him outside to be with his mother.
"I never imagined I would lose him like that, he was badly injured but I never thought he could be killed by police after he served his country," Vanessa Guerena said.
The family's 5-year-old son was at school that morning and deputies say they thought Guerena's wife and his other child would also be gone when they entered the home.
Guerena says there were no drugs in their house.
Deputies said they seized a "large sum of money from another house" that morning. But they refused to say from which of the homes searched that morning they found narcotics, drug ledgers or drug paraphernalia. Court documents showing what was being sought and was found have not been made public. A computer check on Guerena revealed a couple of traffic tickets and no criminal history.
Guerena was a Tucson native and Flowing Wells High School graduate. He joined the U.S. Marines in 2002. He served two tours in Iraq in 2003 and 2005 as part of the Yuma-based MWSS-173 under direct supervision of Master Sgt. Leo Verdugo.
Verdugo was with Guerena's family Tuesday afternoon. He gave them a Marine Corps jacket and gloves to use at Guerena's burial.
"He was an excellent Marine, with a bright future ahead of him," Verdugo said.
"We had just bought a home and he was working graveyard shifts and overtime just to help pay the bills, we were just starting to make this house our home," Vanessa Guerena said.
"I know I can't have him back but I want justice. I want explanations for what happened," she said.
Contact reporter Fernanda Echavarri at fechavarri@azstarnet.com or 573-4224.
unified-communications.tmcnet.com/news/2011/05/11/5504726.htm
Lawmakers Want Court To Rethink Illegal Home Entries
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28003219/detail.html
"..........The Republicans said the court's 3-2 ruling this month may have unintentionally erased hundreds of years of precedent allowing reasonable resistance. They suggested a narrower ruling addressing circumstances such as domestic disturbances................."