"Court: No right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry Into Home"

[Xicano]

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."



http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta"

How many times has that happened in the last decade?

How can we be this fucking stupid/evil?

[RagAss]

2. Sorry Hoosiers.

[randr]

3. Is there any question about the republican stand on privacy?

or their idea of a police state?

[uppityperson]

4. What. The. Bloody. Hell? Has he READ the 4th amendment recently? Here...

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.

" a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home" is "incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"? Allowing resistance without having a valid warrant is...bad?

[JDPriestly]

16. Indiana is now officially the Fascist capitol of the United States.

Shameful!

[Trekologer]

5. This is both easy and hard to disagree with

In the particular case, the police were apparently called by a third party due to a domestic dispute between a husband and wife. The husband's refusal to let the police in may have given the police officers suspicion that the there was something going on and that the wife needed their intervention/protection.

On the other hand, the ruling seems to be rather broad and not limited to just similar cases of possible domestic violence.

[uppityperson]

7. DV has special rules and this ruling is too broad. eom

[elleng]

8. 'public policy'

Given the facts you mention I can understand, and yes, both easy and hard to disagree with.

[notesdev]

9. Were that true there would be probable cause

making the entry legal

If this was an illegal entry then there was by definition no probable cause.

If this ruling stands we are basically all just inmates in Prisonmerica.

[Xicano]

12. Exactly....

This case isn't in any way shape or form about whether a cop can enter into a home where he has probable cause in good faith to believe there may have been domestic violence.

Reading the language of this, its obvious that the court is USING this case to say you have no right to resist a cop who decides to enter your home for "No Reason At All".

[WingDinger]

11. That is the excuse they use to barge in. Did it to me.

I lived alone. Had been sleeping since 8, they busted in at midnite. They said they heard her crying. Crooked cops getting revenge for busting their cop and a judge. I used their insistance to gain blanket immunity. They started spewing right wing and talking about how I would get in trouble. It ended with me smiling broadly for their camera, and chasing their crooked asses out my door and talking about the ghost they must have heard. They kept begging me to be quiet.

[LiberalFighter]

17. You might want to elaborate just a tad more.

Blanket immunity?

What caused them to beg you to be quiet?

[notesdev]

6. "allowing resistance"

It's an inherent part of the nature and essence of a human being to defend his home. It is not within the Court's power to allow or forbid.

[Curmudgeoness]

10. Where do they get the judges who are sitting on some of these courts?

It baffles the mind some of the things that courts have been coming up with lately.

In PA, and I don't know about other states, we have a lot of judge seats in the primary. I hope people remember this when looking at the candidates.

[niyad]

13. this particular genius was appointed by mitch daniels

those supporting this heinous ruling should be along any minute

[Dawson Leery]

14. A Republican appointee most likely.

[niyad]

15. as I said, a mitch daniels appt

[naaman fletcher]

19. Check this out, you won't believe it:

On the judge:

As a military officer, he has made significant contributions to military rules, protocols, and investigative reports and held multiple legal posts, including that of Chief Defense Counsel for detainees subject to the Military Commission’s proceedings at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/bios/david.html

[happyslug]

18. Duplicate Subject different post same subject

Source was an article from the Chicago Tribune, but same subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4849867

The decision is correct for reasons I posted at the above thread.

[GeorgeGist]

20. "Modern" Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?

Eric Blair must be :rofl: