No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Your Home?

[Dusty]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.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.

[Pete]

"..........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.

[tonyz]

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]

This is going to get a lot of people hurt, in addition to violating their Constitutional rights.

TR

[Bill Harsey]

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.

[Saoirse]

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]

Originally Posted by Bill Harsey

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."

[rdret1]

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]

Originally Posted by rdret1

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.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by rdret1

.....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?

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by BingoBango

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]

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

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Pete

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.

[Dusty]

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."

[tonyz]

link to the decision here:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...7c31bf.pdf.pdf