Ind. court: No right to resist 'unlawful police entry'

[gaijinlaw]

Source: Chicago Tribune

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that people cannot keep police from entering their homes, even if the entry is "unlawful."

In a 3-2 decision, the court held there are valid reasons for police officers to enter homes without a warrant and without knocking , including concerns for an officer's safety or that a suspect may escape or that evidence may be destroyed.

"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," wrote Justice Steven David. "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 can still be released on bail and has other opportunities to protest the entry through the court system.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-ind-court-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry-20110513,0,2225708.story

---

This can't possibly be legally correct can it? As I'm reading this it means any LEO can enter anyone's home at any time for any reason and it's illegal to resist? Sure, they could be punished after the fact, but doesn't this mean any cop with a personal grudge could bust in on you and you would be criminally liable if you try to stop him/her?

EDIT: And yes I know it's the Trib, but its editorial pages notwithstanding its reportage is usually dependable.

[nebenaube]

1. Bullshit!

Social engineering now crossing into treason!

[cstanleytech]

7. No, not really.

The court ruling is common as law enforcement need to be able to enter a home safely or in the words of Justice David
"allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
You or someone else can still sue the police if they violate your rights and or damage your property you just cant resist them coming into your home is all this ruling makes clear.

[ixion]

29. Yes, really.

The Police State thanks you for your support.

[djg21]

43. Nonsense!

The decision is right -- resisting entry could result in unnecessary violence and injury to all involved. If the police violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights, the person's recourse is to seek redress in an civil right action in a state or federal court brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983.

Moreover, an entry is not necessarily unlawful merely because a homeowner thinks it is. If a homeowner obstructs a police investigation because he/she believes entry was unlawful, but it ultimately proves lawful, the homeowner may face criminal culpability.

Self-help remedies are almost always foolish.

[ixion]

44. LOL... like an average citizen has any chance of redress

You must be joking.

The police have NO RIGHT to enter without a warrant. Period.

[cstanleytech]

47. "like an average citizen has any chance of redress" They do and they have.

For example Rodney King was an "average citizen" and he won his civil lawsuit and was compensated and the police involved were punished as well.

[ixion]

52. Uh, that was a massively high profile case

and while he might have been average prior to the beating, he was a household name after the tape went viral.

Also, compared to the number of people who've lost everything and who's attempt at redress failed, cases like King's are exceptions to the rule.

[cstanleytech]

59. "lost everything"?

You do realize this thread is about the court ruling that citizens arent entitled to use violence against the police right? So how exactly can they have "lost everything"?
As for redress the court did not......repeat did not remove the ability for people to seek that.

[beevul]

72. Is it your position...

Is it your position, that there is no situation or circumstance where violence is justified against police?

[LanternWaste]

51. About the same chance to resist...

"like an average citizen has any chance of redress..."

About the same chance to resist the police entering your home if they are determined to...

[ixion]

53. Not if we don't allow crap like this law to stand, but otherwise

yeah, you're correct.

[beevul]

64. Why is it...

"resisting entry could result in unnecessary violence and injury to all involved"

instead of

"attempting unlawful entry could result in unnecessary violence and injury to all involved"



The amendments were intended to prevent governmental actions in certain areas, rather than to simply penalize them after the fact.


Call me crazy, but if police attempt entry into ones home illegally, maybe a taste of violence is what they need - it seems to be the only language they understand. It would benefit society if they were AFRAID to do so.

Civil suits just pass the cost on to taxpayers.

Lawbreaking police get "administrative duty" for a time, more often than not.

Their LEO buddies cover for them almost without exception.

We see lots of police brutality cases both in video and in media, yet we almost never see cases where another LEO turns in the bad apple.

Not a good day for the 4th amendment.

[gaijinlaw]

84. Exactly

Why is it...
Posted by beevul


"resisting entry could result in unnecessary violence and injury to all involved"

instead of

"attempting unlawful entry could result in unnecessary violence and injury to all involved"

      ^^^THIS!^^^

[cstanleytech]

48. As djg21 said "Nonsense"

You may still address any violations of your rights by the police as the court did "NOT" remove any of those rights, all they have done was in essence rule that citizens must remain peaceful and not attempt to use force as means of resisting the police at entering a building.
Its pure common sense because if you use force then you risk injury to to yourself, the police and any innocents nearby, surely you see that?

[beevul]

65. That line of reasoning...

That line of reasoning completely ignores the fact that the 4th amendment was put in place to prevent - forbid - certain actions by government.


Not simply to punish government after the fact.

[cstanleytech]

66. You might want to read the amendment you quoted then.

It does not grant you, repeat "does not" grant you or anyone else the right to use force against police officers who are trying to do their duty either rightly or wrongly.
If you have a problem with the police we have the courts and in some cases federal agencies whos job that is, its not your job.

[beevul]

68. I never claimed it did.

Of course, you and I appear to have a fundamental differnece in our view of how rights work.

My view, is ALL rights belong to the people - and that is in fact reality. No right is "granted", because rights can not by definition BE granted.

They can only be protected, and in specific cases, curtailed through due process of law. Even due process of law only makes those decisions legally binding. It dosn't make a decision right.

Protecting MY home from invasion of the illegal variety should such a thing arise, IS my job. Not yours, not governments, and not that of police. Police in fact are under no legal duty to protect ANY individual, unless that individual is in protective custody. If you'd like court precedent I'd be happy to provide it.

Well see where this goes.

Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. Such is the nature of power. And in that taking of a mile, police will surely be killed.

And of course, no blame will be assigned to the wrongheaded thinking that led to it.

[cstanleytech]

69. You were the one who brought it up when it doesnt apply in this type of case.

As for the rest of your post if we were speaking of some random person who broke in the middle of the night and did not identify themselves I agree with you that you have the right to defend yourself but this is not about that its a case where police clearly identified themselves and the person sought to use violence to stop them, that was just plain dumb for many reasons.

[beevul]

71. The problem...

"As for the rest of your post if we were speaking of some random person who broke in the middle of the night and did not identify themselves I agree with you that you have the right to defend yourself but this is not about that its a case where police clearly identified themselves and the person sought to use violence to stop them, that was just plain dumb for many reasons."


The problem, is this sets precedent FAR outside those parameters.

Just because a cop identifies himself does not make everything he does afterward lawful.


I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Until police are DEATHLY afraid of the consequences for crossing the line, cross the line they will - not all of them, but far more than too many. Decisions like this, embolden and encourage JUST such behavior, rather than discouraging it as should be happening.

The GREATER good, is for having those who are charged with upholding the law being equally interested in obeying it as they expect everyone else to be.

This decision does not meet that interest - instead, it is contrary to than interest.

And theres simply no geting around that simple fact.


And before "cop hater" gets thrown my direction - I have family in law enforcement.

[cstanleytech]

73. Deathly afraid of the consequences?

Last time I checked police here in the US face the risk of violence being committed on them already, in fact a simple google search just turned up some sites

http://www.aphf.org/lodstats.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2010/12/29/police-fatalities-line-of-duty-deaths-increase-37-percent-in-2010/

[beevul]

77. Reading is fundamental...

Reading is fundamental, I'll underline the part you seem to have missed:


Until police are DEATHLY afraid of the consequences for crossing the line, cross the line they will - not all of them, but far more than too many.


By crossing the line, I mean violating peoples rights, breaking laws they take an oath to uphold.


Eliminating bad cops and corruption amongst the ranks, is FOR THE GREATER GOOD of society.


Do you disagree?

[cstanleytech]

79. If the police violate your rights

they can be punished in varies ways such as a civil lawsuit not to mention potential federal charges for rights violations.
Its not your job or anyone else to start using force against the police though because you "believe" your rights were violated or might be violated which is what this ruling makes clear.
Again, it does 'not' remove your civil rights, it doesnt make it legal for them to beat you or break into your home whenever they feel like it, they still operate under the same laws and restrictions as before this just makes it clear that people cant use force like say a gun and start shooting at the cops because the cops just came into their home.

[gaijinlaw]

83. I'm curious

Is there any circumstance under which you believe it is permissible for a citizen to protect him/herself from abuse by a LEO?

[cstanleytech]

88. I can imagine some reasons in theory

but this isnt a storyline from a movie where an evil cop on the take is killing people but rather reality which is often different and filled with far less explosions.

[CBGLuthier]

2. criminalizing the 4th amendment

It is kind of hard to be secure in "our" persons, houses, papers, and effects when the government can step in for any fucking reason they want to because, if nothing else, "destroying evidence" can always be argued as a reason.

And if we avail ourselves of our rights to be secure we go to jail.

Destroyed from Within. More prophetic words were never spoken.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Exigent circumstances have been allowed in the past

How this fits in with that is hard to tell from the cited article. It certainly does not sound good.

[msanthrope]

11. It sounds like a overbroad ruling --same court also allowed 'no-knock'

warrants to be determined by the cops, not a court in a decision about a week ago.

I expect both rulings to eventually be challenged in the federal courts. And struck.

[Tafiti]

15. Yep.

Sounds like an extension of the knock-and-announce rule to no-warrant situations.

It's hard to imagine this will stand up on appeal, but the 7th Cir. is pretty conservative (not sure how they are on crim pro issues though).

[ieoeja]

4. "modern Fourth Amendment"

Nice of them to implicitly admit this violates the original Fourth Amendment.

[Roland99]

17. wait...an *activist* judge???

[thanks_imjustlurking]

75. My first thought exactly. nt

[plumbob]

5. Not even surprised.

At all.

[Downwinder]

6. Activist liberal courts. In case of rape you can't say NO

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[izquierdista]

8. Land of the free

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Making it easier for corrupt cops to clean up resistance.

[mountainlion55]

10. The brown shirts

are taking over. The asshat authorities are all a bunch of control freaks that live in a universe of fear and loathing! Oh but how could the Nazi's have ever come to power? With quasi legal court rulings like this one!:mad: :mad: Zeig Heil!

[left on green only]

86. This contributor speaks the truth!

It causes me to puke and to barf whenever I think of all of the men and women who gave their lives during World War II in hopes of preventing exactly what has now come about in our society of today. The right wing in our country differ in no way from their right wing counterparts in the Germany of yesterday. And while the Jews and the Gypsies are no longer being decimated, it has now become the poor and the disenfranchised who are the intended victims of the right wing. But have no fear, I do not think that they will move to gas us, when it is far easier and more financially rewarding for them to just starve us to death. Perhaps we should all wonder then, who will become their next Adolph Hitler? Is this person in Washington DC right now, or are they at faux news?

[daggahead]

12. Wow ... they just took a big crap on the 4th Amendment. n/t

[bluestateguy]

13. That's you small government conservatives for you

But I guess only corporations and the Koch brothers get small government. Everybody else gets Big Brother.

[happyslug]

14. Here is the Actual Opinion, Please note this is a CRIMINAL Case.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

Here is the "Facts" of the case this decision hinges upon:

Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was "very agitated and was yelling." Barnes "continued to yell, loudly"; and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, "if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you‘re going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell." Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes‘s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed‘s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, "don‘t do this" and "just let them in." Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital

[gaijinlaw]

18. Confu?ed by your subject line.

Here is the Actual Opinion, Please not this is a CRIMINAL Case

This should read "Please note this is CRIMINAL Case," correct? I read it several times thinking you meant the case was not criminal.

[happyslug]

19. Sorry, I correct not to Note, AND added the paragraph from the court Opinion

I have since read the opinion and the dissents, the dispute in the Supreme Court of Indiana was NOT that the Police did wrong in this case, both the majority and dissent agree to that point i.e. what the police did was RIGHT under the circumstances of the underlying facts of this case, but that the Majority decision was to broad given the facts of this case, for a narrowing ruling would have come to the same results.

What the Dissent disagreed with the Majority is the complete abolishment of the Common Law Right to resist UNLAWFUL arrest and entrance into one's home. When the Common law right first appeared, what we call Police and District Attorneys were centuries away from being invented (Police and District attorneys are inventions of the early to mid 1800s, and what we call State Police is a product of post 1900, prior to 1900 only urban centers had police). Prior to the introduction of Police in urban areas if someone did a crime against you or your family, the VICTIM had to make the arrest AND prosecute the case (Now if the Victim was the King, the King's Attorney General would represent the King, but in normal cases of murder, theft etc, the victim had to pay for an attorney to bring the criminal charge).

Under the system of pre-1800 Common Law, what we call police, which generally are more neutral between the parties, then the family of the Criminal and the Family of the Victim did not exist, so more often then not it was the family of the Victim that was doing the arrest, and given the nature of the dispute, sometime resistance was the best way to avoid further harm.

The Courts have since the 1920s and the widespread introduction of Police, have come to look down on the right to resist arrest, given arrest is almost always done by Police Officers since the 1920s. The dissent thus had no objection to the outcome of the Majority decision, i.e. the police had more then enough justification to make the arrest and charge the home owner and were willing to agree to a narrow exception to the Common Law Rule, but thought the broad abolishment of the common law rule was NOT justified in this case, a narrower exception would have done as well.

[gaijinlaw]

46. Summon the shire reeve! Wake the beadle!!

:-D

[Fuddnik]

16. The fourth amendment is a myth.

There is only one amendment. The second.

And did you know that if you allow a cop inside your door, even as a courtesy such as getting out of the rain, you have given them permission to search your house? Never allow a cop in your house without a warrant.

[gaijinlaw]

20. Pretty sure it isn't

I've seen it in the Bill of Rights right between the third and the fifth. We giving up on it as a dead letter? I'm not sure I get your point.

[Fuddnik]

27. The courts have made so many exceptions to it, it's meaningless.

Read the specific language of the amendment. Look at the modifications and interpretations. It's now an urban legend.

Speaking as a person who took a fourth amendment case to the SC between 1985-87. They declined to hear it.

[happyslug]

23. Read the case, the Court decision is correct, given the facts of the case

You can NOT yell at officers, threaten someone you are living with in front of those officers, follow the person you threatened with bodily injury back into the house in a threatening manner, AND not expect the Police to follow to make sure no violence occurs. Sorry, the officers had more then enough justification to enter the house BEFORE the Defendant tried to use force to block their entrance and as such that block was illegal.

[gaijinlaw]

31. I'm less concerned with the facts of this particular case

What I am concerned about and somewhat confused by is the decision of the Indiana Supremes that:

"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.

They could have affirmed that this entry was legal, but from what I'm reading they went beyond that and against precedent to criminalize resistance to illegal arrest.

[happyslug]

32. You agreed with the dissent, that the decision is to broad

And as to that I would agree, but I can live without the right to resist an "unlawful" arrest by a Police Officer or Sheriff deputy (I can sue them later if any harm occurs to me while in their care). This broad abolishment could technically cover even arrests by the family of the Victim (In many state that right has never been technically abolished, through so many restriction apply that it no longer exists for all practical purposes).

[gaijinlaw]

33. Clarify please.

"arrests by the family of the Victim" - I don't get your meaning.

(And BTW, I would almost always prefer the ability to prevent a particular harm in the first place than the possibility of having it redressed at some future point.)

[happyslug]

42. The dispute is, should the common law right to resist arrest be abolished or just modified

Thew Majority decision is for a full abolishment of the right to resist arrest if one is in your home and the arrest is UNLAWFUL. The dissent wants to make a narrow exception to that common law right, i.e. if the Police can show there had good cause for entering the residence (Which is this case seems to be the case) then the right to resist unlawful arrest would be abolished only is such cases. i.e you retain the right to resist unlawful arrest, but if the police can show good cause for the unlawful arrest (i.e. to prevent harm to themselves or others) then you have NO right to resist arrest.

This is more a dispute that almost sounds like the dissent "wants to cut hairs" i.e. 39 hairs instead of 40 hairs. The majority would cut ALL the hairs, the Dissent would keep a couple (i.e. the right to resist UNLAWFUL arrest except if violence is threatened). The problem with the dissent's position is any police action into a home brings with it the threat of violence and the common law rule only permitted the minimum amount of force to prevent the entrance (i.e. lock and block the door) NOT use your fists to keep the Police out (And clearly not the use of firearms or other weapons).

Now, as to the phase "Arrested by the Family of the Victim" was made in reference to the Common Law practice (i.e. PRE-1800) when if you wanted someone arrested you had to do it yourself. There was NO police to do that function. The Sheriff could serve papers but you had to have a Judge's order to get the Sheriff to do anything, thus if someone murdered a family member and then proceeded to walk away, either the family members made the arrest or no one did. It was during that time period, when arrests were made by victim and/or their family, that the right to resist unlawful arrest developed. Pre-1800 American and Britain lawful (as while as unlawful) arrest by family and friends of the victim was the norm, not the exception (It is the exception today, and the chief reason the Courts ruled as it did). Thus my use of the term "Family of the Victim" in the case of Murder it is impossible for the Victim to make the arrest (he was dead) thus his family and friends had to make the arrest.

[frylock]

39. just like vampyres

[sharesunited]

21. How could you possibly expect a court to rule otherwise?

What would be "proper" resistance to law enforcement duly identifying as such?

[gaijinlaw]

28. The Fourth Amendment and legal precedent

"Article the sixth ...... 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."

Bill of Rights, Ratified in 1791 (Article the first was never ratified and article the Second was not ratified until 1992.)



"If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest."

JOHN BAD ELK V. UNITED STATES, 177 U. S. 529 (1900)

[sharesunited]

34. That decision is 111 years old.

"Incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

Of course, direct appeal to SCOTUS remains available. (If SCOTUS grants cert.)

[gaijinlaw]

35. Two things:

1. It was reaffirmed in UNITED STATES V. DI RE, 332 U. S. 581 (1948)

2. So goddamn what? The Fourth Amendment is 220 years old. Has it also passed its expiry date?

[sharesunited]

36. They get pruned, trimmed, tailored to fit an evolving society.

The 2A needs a lot more of that.

[ret5hd]

45. How come rights always seem to get "pruned" or "trimmed" but never fertilized?

[sharesunited]

49. Because the lowest common denominator among us can do a lot of harm.

[MicaelS]

57. You really are an Authoritarian

You worry entirely too much about the actions of "the lowest common denominator among us", and want to put society into a padded room to protect against their actions. You are willing to take most people's freedoms away because of "the lowest common denominator among us".

You remind me of the evil Union Redleg officer from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" who said "Doin' good ain't got no end."

And as Robert Heinlein said: It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak."

[sharesunited]

60. Hey, I didn't make the world. I just explain it.

Every day, victims have all of their rights terminated with extreme prejudice by guns and ammo.

Entirely within the sole discretion and upon the caprice of whomever decides to shoot.

Is it authoritarian to say that that's got to stop?

Or is it just obvious, sensible, humane and progressive?

[mountainlion55]

74. Disagree 100%

The cops will lie cheat and steal once THEY think your guilty. Anyone who has been involved with cops knows this. Because our legal system believes everyone except the cops and rich folk are guilty until proven innocent! This is my personnel experience with cops. Just look at how dependent law enforcement is on informants of dubious character. Plea deals because they do not want to give ordinary citizens the benefit of a trial. The rich get a trial. The cops get a trial but the common folk get fucked.If the police talk to you say NOTHING! If they ask to search say NO. But if they really want you, kiss your ass goodbye because god and baby jeebus ain't going to save your ass! :smoke:

[guitar man]

87. And I'm sure you'd like nothing better

Than for that "sole discretion" to lie with authoritarian government/law enforcement while leaving the citizens powerless to resist. Maybe someplace like North Korea would be a better fit for you, you don't seem to grasp the concept of America .

[cstanleytech]

50. BS

There have been many rights granted since the constitution was first written that didnt exist such as women being granted the right to vote, slavery abolished and voting granted to anyone regardless of their race or religion to name 3 big ones.
Is our society perfect yet? Hell no, we still have a way to go so the fact is we need the police and we need them to have the power and ability to do their job in as safe a manner for them and for us and resisting the police by using force increases the risk of injury to us, the police and to innocents that may be near us such as what happened for example with Davis Koresh in Waco.

[L0oniX]

22. Someone is going to get shot.

[iamthebandfanman]

24. that what its going to take..

i guess.

[happyslug]

25. That is what the Police were trying to prevent when they entered the house

Read the Court's actual opinion, the officers while OUTSIDE the house saw and heard the Defendant act in a way that it was clear bodily injury of the Defendant's girlfriend was probable. When the Officer followed the couple into the home to make sure NO SUCH INJURY OCCURRED, the Defendant used force to prevent them from entering the home. Sorry, that is illegal, the Police have a duty to prevent violence and that is what they were doing when they entered this home.

[GOTV]

26. This doesn't seem surprising or unusual to me ....

... my understanding is you are always legally compelled to cooperate with police. You don't have the legal right to make judgements on the legality of their actions. You will have your day in court afterwards in which your constitutional rights may be brought to bear but in any situation in progress the police are in charge.

[ixion]

30. And the Police State marches on

how very sucky.

[Evoman]

37. As one of the biggest cop haters and anti-authoritarians on DU, this bothers me little.

A cop can come in my house without a warrant and without my permission, and I won't raise a hand. As long as any "evidence" collected is inadmissable, and I have the ability to sue/lay charges/etc, I'll let it pass. I don't think this means a cop gets to do whatever he want, it just means that we can't fight them, which is a dumb thing to do anyways.

[RantinRavin]

38. You are exactly correct

The court even pointed that out. Nothing prevents you from taking civil action against the police in court, and any evidence would be inadmissable under the "poison-pill" rulings.

[ret5hd]

40. You are correct. Nothing prevents you from spending tens of thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer...

who may or may not be competent and fight teams of government lawyers with nearly unlimited resources and time, and present your case before a judge that is prejudiced for police testimony and against citizen testimony, all while being unemployed because you got fired for missing work because you were in jail.

The system rocks!

[makhno]

78. Exactly

That is if you're not tasered to death while "resisting arrest."

[Heywood J]

70. Except for the fact that now they know what they're looking for ,

they'll find some sort of loophole like "inevitable discovery" to let in the illegal evidence. If it isn't that one, it'll be another. I had faith in the courts a decade ago - I don't now.

[gratuitous]

41. Except I think there have been recent rulings on evidence

If memory serves (always a dicey thing at my age), I believe the Supremes have had a couple of recent rulings that "inadmissible" evidence has been allowed to convict people if the cops had a good faith belief that they were acting legally or some such argument that isn't really grounded in any constitutional language, much like the opinion at hand appears to be with its dependence on "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

While the tort system can be an effective method for redressing civil wrongs, it's notably cumbersome and time-consuming. I would greatly prefer a system where the cops are disinclined to commit a tort in the first place, rather than wait months or years before a monetary payout (which doesn't affect the offending cops) is proffered to say, "Let's forget the whole thing."

[sofa king]

63. Which means "I heard a toilet flush" will be cause for entry.

We can't let an un-tried and un-warranted suspect destroy evidence we don't know he has.

[JoeyTrib]

80. +1

.

[fascisthunter]

54. that's way out of line.... no way

people should fight this.

[tclambert]

55. What constitutes "resistance?" Refusing to unlock the door?

Yelling, "I'm not home!" (People have done that.)

Asking the alleged police officers to show ID? (Maybe you're stalling so a partner can destroy evidence.)

If you say, "I'll open the door when you show me a warrant," would that qualify as "resistance?"

And in the "no-knock" busting in the door case, how are you not allowed to open fire in self-defense?

[24601]

56. Next stop - federal courts and we'll see, if just perhaps, the U.S.

Constitution gives you the right to resist such illegal incursions.

[Duer 157099]

58. OK, so the new thing for criminals will be to say they are police, right?

Someone is breaking into your house, you try to stop them, and all they have to do is claim they are the police to get you to leave them alone, right?

Yeah, I can't see this being a problem.

[cstanleytech]

62. Criminals have been pretending to be the good guys

in order to commit a crime for a longgggggg time but thats not what this court case was about so if you are using it or trying to use that as a strawman it just doest cut it, sorry.

[Odin2005]

61. BULLSHIT! The Pigs can kiss my ass!

[unkachuck]

67. we have....

....a Fourth Amendment that gives an expectation against unreasonable searches and seizures, but during the execution of an unreasonable search or seizure it's impotent....

....we have a Second Amendment that allows you to bear arms in self-defense unless you're defending yourself against our police-state....

....to my untrained laymans' eye, it seems our old tired Constitution is in practice becoming obsolete....

[guitar man]

76. Fuck that noise

This is my goddamned house and if I've done nothing wrong and they don't have a warrant they've no reason to expect to be able to kick in my door without me resisting. How much jack-booted thuggery are we supposed to tolerate? :grr:

fortunately, in this part of Creek County OK the cops have a bit more respect for property boundaries , and with good reason.

[JoeyTrib]

81. I agree with the dissenting opinion on this.

"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.

The decision was far too broad considering the situation. For one out of control domestic violence situation to be the basis for everyone's civil rights is an appalling overreaction.

[guitar man]

85. I agree

I wouldn't say there aren't times when the police need to take immediate action, but it should be up to them to prove it on a case by case basis. I'm not n favor of granting them carte blanche authority to operate with impunity any time they like. That's a road I don't want to see us go down.

[TheKentuckian]

82. If the police want to come in they need to get a warrant. If they want to search you or your

possessions then they need a warrant.

If they want to stop you they need a reason. The Constitution is crystal clear and the "modern 4th Amendment" is a fairy tale. There is no "modern fourth Amendment" but rather the EXACT same one is operative but has been functionally overturned and widely distorted by subsequent fascist judges, traitorous politicians trying to appear "tough on crime", and sniveling cowards in the population that bow to authority and then point to the system as a means of regress, the same system that allows for such violations in the first place.

All of this is solved by returning to observing our natural rights and before you ask, no I don't give a fuck what "terry stops" and "probable cause"save. There are costs and risks that come with being a free people.

If you are so concerned about violence then you should support keeping your bit of authoritarian nonsense but the cop losses his badge or even his freedom if he is wrong but it probably isn't about harm reduction but setting up conditions that are conducive to the police state for most folks that can stomach such nonsense.

On the heels of decisions like this, we are obligated to work to defund the police, reduce incentives and benefits for officers, and make it as difficult as possible to recruit and maintain numbers.

If the law is a mockery then shrink the pigs and drown them in the bathtub is sound reasoning. The power of the purse always wins.