No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Your Home?

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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]

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.lexisn...d4b54d6e9c6f1a

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.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Tony, the constitution says "unreasonable." Not "illegal."

[B]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 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]

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news...,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.

[Pete]

Officer Friendly & Innocent Civilian

Philly Police harass, threaten to shoot man legally carrying gun

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...y-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]

http://www.wthr.com/story/14656928/p...-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]

Pressure Sensitive Trigger

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I did warn you that this is why people hate lawyers!!!

I don't think you guys should be so hard on yourselves.

Lawyers are despicable, but necessary-like maggots.

[olhamada]

edited - wrong thread......

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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!!!

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]

Originally Posted by tonyz

For me this is a troubling case for a number of reasons - let's just leave it at that.

Thank you.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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]

Read 'em and weep.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...olice.html.csp

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...ills_armed_hom

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Home-inv..._as_NYC_police

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ent&id=4694491

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326885,00.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/min...l?source=error

http://www.vbgov.com/vgn.aspx?vgnext...640aRCRD&ct=ne

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

TR

[Pete]

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/16/...mells-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.

Originally Posted by Pete

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/16/...mells-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.