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.
What the hell is wrong with these judges?!? I can't just break into someone's home, why should some guy wearing a badge have that right if not stated on the warrant?
Not cool
IP: Logged
10:12 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I can understand, in the case of imenent danger, a cop being able to come into a home without a warrant. If say a cop went to a domestic violence call and the perpetrator slams the door on the cop saying we don't need you here, then by all means yes the cop should be able to enter for the reason of protecting the other party. However, to come knocking on a door or to just enter a home because they want to doesn't fly with me. The last thing I would want to read is that someone got killed because the cops could not enter a home where danger was suspected, on the same token I don't think a cop shold be able to knock on my door and enter my home because they think I moght have something illegal in my home (that's what warrants are for). So I guess I would draw the line at danger of immediate physical injury caused by a occupant. By immediate physical injury I would say that would be assault related. As in, not because I have a gun in my closet and children in the home, but because there is an occurance of escelated tension with the strong possibility of it increasing to violence between 2 or more individuals in the home.
I guess the question is where do you draw the line and clearly to me this court ruleing draws to broad of a line.
..The constitution has been diminished by the democrats & left wing for many years ,they say it is no longer relevant,so this is what we get. ..Obama & other commie lites ,disparage our founding fathers ,insult them the return of the bust of Winston Churchhill is a great shame ,,HOW FAR DID WE FALL TO ELECT THIS LIAR SLITHERING WEASEL,how much cover up did our media do. The Media has made heros of men who do not like America!! America will never overcome the damage done by the left wing democrats, NEVER. LOOK around you at the world,most here are blind & will never SEE until they are overcome . The Constitution & declaration of independence are the greatest documents of all time ,but in the past 20 years it is assaulted by democrats who see it as OLD & should be changed SHOOT STRAIGHT,,SHOOT OFTEN== sight alignment people,everything else can be wrong,but proper sight alignment hits the bull ""smack"" dead center on target 37
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 05-15-2011).]
I can understand, in the case of imenent danger, a cop being able to come into a home without a warrant. If say a cop went to a domestic violence call and the perpetrator slams the door on the cop saying we don't need you here, then by all means yes the cop should be able to enter for the reason of protecting the other party. However, to come knocking on a door or to just enter a home because they want to doesn't fly with me. The last thing I would want to read is that someone got killed because the cops could not enter a home where danger was suspected, on the same token I don't think a cop shold be able to knock on my door and enter my home because they think I moght have something illegal in my home (that's what warrants are for). So I guess I would draw the line at danger of immediate physical injury caused by a occupant. By immediate physical injury I would say that would be assault related. As in, not because I have a gun in my closet and children in the home, but because there is an occurance of escelated tension with the strong possibility of it increasing to violence between 2 or more individuals in the home.
I guess the question is where do you draw the line and clearly to me this court ruleing draws to broad of a line.
As a rule of thumb, immediate danger, (exigent circumstances) has always allowed an officer to enter without a warrant. This law does nothing but muddy the waters.
IP: Logged
04:50 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Get used to it. In today's America, you only have the rights the government wants you to have and that is subject to change at any time. The Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion, to be tossed aside in the name of public safety, or whatever other reason the government decides to give it.
The government is the master. The People no longer rule. If you think unrest in Lybia, Egypt, et al is bad, just try that here. You will keep your nose clean and do what your told. Any insurrection will be put down quickly and violently.
This is not about Obama. It's not about Bush, or Democrat or Republican.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. "
IP: Logged
06:05 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
There just following the lead of the nations present commander in chief. Whats good for him is good for them. Screw American citizens rights. Get used to it more from me due to a recent incident with me. I have no use for anyone in any law enforcement agency now. You thought I was outspoken before, get ready to neg me.
As a rule of thumb, immediate danger, (exigent circumstances) has always allowed an officer to enter without a warrant. This law does nothing but muddy the waters.
I kinda figured that was already the case. Thank you Nick for confirming my beleif.
IP: Logged
08:50 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Slight injuries? Those two guys look like they had the snot beat out of them.
In that story, I support what the police did. They broke up a party that sounded like it was getting out of hand. I'll bet if the partiers had not thrown things at the police, then things would have gone a lot differently.
The the story originally posted, I think the police were doing the right thing. They need to see the woman involved to be sure she is not beat up. I also agree with the minority opinion that the majority judges ruled too broadly. If they limited the scope of their ruling to domestic violence then it would have made sense. Giving the police carte blanche authority to enter any home, any time for any reason is absurd.
IP: Logged
09:22 PM
Isolde Member
Posts: 2504 From: North Logan, Utah, USA Registered: May 2008
Well in actuality, the party had been going on for hours without much of a problem other than some of the usual underage drinking. Things didnt get out of hand till police told them all to go home, then proceeded to mace them.....then the can throwing started. These block parties pretty much go on every weekend on campus during warm weather and the end of school. They always peter out on their own when everyone just gets bored or pass out drunk.
So how long till a cop gets smoked because he entered a home becasue "he felt like it" . I think this ruling will only increase violence and discontent towards law enforcement officers. Add on to this with what happened in Philly (from another thread here) and you have a police state that will most definantly cause an uprising or revolt of the people. There are more gun toting Americans that believe in the constitution than LEO's. Those judges need to have a refresher course on "America".
So how long till a cop gets smoked because he entered a home becasue "he felt like it" . I think this ruling will only increase violence and discontent towards law enforcement officers. Add on to this with what happened in Philly (from another thread here) and you have a police state that will most definantly cause an uprising or revolt of the people. There are more gun toting Americans that believe in the constitution than LEO's. Those judges need to have a refresher course on "America".
In fact, there was a case years ago when swat entered the wrong home late at night. The owner thought he was being robbed and fire fought with them. He hit two before he was killed.
police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug
raid on the wrong house.
Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door.
The two officers, 25-year-old Kyle Shedran and 24-year-old Greg Day, were placed on administrative leave with pay.
“They need to get rid of those men, boys with toys,” said Adams’ 70-year-old widow, Loraine.
John Adams was watching television when his wife heard pounding on the door. Police claim they identified themselves and wore police jackets. Loraine Adams said she had no indication the men were police.
“I thought it was a home invasion. I said ‘Baby, get your gun!,” she said, sitting amid friends and relatives gathered at her home to cook and prepare for Sunday’s funeral.
Resident Fired First
Police say her husband fired first with a sawed-off shotgun and they responded. He was shot at least three times and died later at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.
Loraine Adams said she was handcuffed and thrown to her knees in another room when the shooting began.
“I said, ‘Y’all have got the wrong person, you’ve got the wrong place. What are you looking for?“‘
“We did the best surveillance we could do, and a mistake was made,” Lebanon Police Chief Billy Weeks said. “It’s a very severe mistake, a costly mistake. It makes us look at our own policies and procedures to make sure this never occurs again.” He said, however, the two policemen were not at fault.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating. NAACP officials said they are monitoring the case. Adams was black. The two policemen are white.
Family members did not consider race a factor and Weeks agreed, but said the shooting will be “a major setback” for police relations with the black community.
“We know that, we hope to do everything we can to heal it,” Weeks said.
Johnny Crudup, a local NAACP official, said the organization wanted to make sure and would investigate on its own.
Weeks said he has turned the search warrant and all other evidence over to the bureau of investigation and District Attorney General Tommy Thompson. A command officer must now review all search warrants.
“We did the best surveillance we could do, and a mistake was made,” Lebanon Police Chief Billy Weeks said. “It’s a very severe mistake, a costly mistake. It makes us look at our own policies and procedures to make sure this never occurs again.” He said, however, the two policemen were not at fault.
In a case like this the Chief should be up on Murder charges.
If their "best surveillance" is on the wrong house, and an innocent man gets killed, that's unacceptable. This makes me sick.
Brad
IP: Logged
03:51 AM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17104 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Just another symptom of the militarization of our 'peace' officers. It only will get worse. The police have to justify the expense of those full auto weapons and body armor and SWAT gear.
This ruling makes my head spin. Yes, it will lead to more violence, as people begin to tire of living in a police state.
The founding fathers would NEVER have stood for this....it was one of the primary reasons there was a revolution in the first place!
I would hope that the SCOTUS would rule the other way (when/if this ruling is appealed), but with some of the comments from some of the new members, I'm not so sure.
There's actual federal precedence that citizens are allowed to resist unlawful arrest to the point of death of the offending officer, and having it deemed self defense. Those judges would be overturned in a federal supreme court.
..The constitution has been diminished by the democrats & left wing for many years ,they say it is no longer relevant,so this is what we get.
Yeaaaaaah, and Republicans have noooooothing to do with it right? Nah they only came up with the Patriot Act, which basically gives the federal government the ability to spy on you as much as they please, and takes away the need for those pesky warrants should they want to "visit" you.. And after their little "visit" they can just throw you and jail and leave you there until they find the time to deal with you..
But your right, its all the Democrats fault.. Keep drinkin the crazy juice Uhla, its really workin for ya.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 05-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:01 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Yeaaaaaah, and Republicans have noooooothing to do with it right? Nah they only came up with the Patriot Act, which basically gives the federal government the ability to spy on you as much as they please, and takes away the need for those pesky warrants should they want to "visit" you.. And after their little "visit" they can just throw you and jail and leave you there until they find the time to deal with you..
But your right, its all the Democrats fault.. Keep drinkin the crazy juice Uhla, its really workin for ya.
Good point. Both Republicans and Democrats support the PATRIOT act. Candidate Obama was against warrantless wiretapping. President Obama is for it. It's amazing how your perspective changes when you sit in the big chair.
IP: Logged
12:11 PM
kyunderdawg Member
Posts: 4373 From: Bowling Green, KY. USA Registered: Aug 2008
Good point. Both Republicans and Democrats support the PATRIOT act. Candidate Obama was against warrantless wiretapping. President Obama is for it. It's amazing how your perspective changes when you sit in the big chair.
to be honest, the whole "warantless wiretapping" is nothing more then a buzz word. You still need a warrant. I actually wrote on this very issue in a my thesis.
"The Patriotic Act has been a topic of great controversy. Many of its critics say that The Patriot is violating our civil rights allowing the government to listen in anyone they see fit. While this may be true to a certain extent, there is much about the patriot act that is simply misunderstood. The Patriotic Act is an extension of an already existing Act from 1978. This Act is known as The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is defined as the following: “prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power” (Fas, 2009). This Allowed the President to take action in obtaining information when National security was at risk. No warrant was necessary for search and seizure, only electronic wire- tapping. The history of this act has been currently neglected by the media, and is widely unknown by the public. The most famous case that sparked debate over this act was the arrest and conviction of Aldrich Ames. Aldrich Ames worked for the CIA. In 1994 Ames was arrested and convicted for selling secrets to the Soviet Union, along with the identities of over twenty Unites States overseas agents, which led to the apprehension and death of most of these individuals. It is said that Aldrich was the single most devastating blow the intelligence community had ever received. The Damage to United States was irreparable. Building up to the Arrest of Aldrich Ames, President Clinton Authorized the search and seizure of Ames home when he was not present. Many critics cried out stating this was a violation of his civil rights, and therefore “illegal”. According to case law, this action on behalf of the president was in fact legal and justified.
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General. It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities. Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power" (York, Byron, 2005).
It is important to remember that domestic criminal law is not the same when dealing with foreign threats. This includes suspected terrorists. After 9/11 the public cried out for tighter security, and pointed the finger at various intelligence agencies for not “connecting the dots” before the attack. The problem was that existing laws and red tape made intelligence gathering extremely difficult, let alone “connecting the dots.” When you have a suspected terror cell, and have to wait for the slow gears to turn in order to obtain a warrant before wiretapping, your information is lost. In the domestic crime world, the police have a safety net which falls under “exigent circumstances”. In situations where police are obtaining a warrant and the evidence is in danger of being lost or destroyed, the police can move in and secure the evidence before the warrant is finalized and presented. With a new type of terror facing the nation, and no safety nets for the intelligence community, reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was needed, thus came the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act has many revisions, but the most widely disputed and misunderstood revision is the “sneak and peak”. Sneak and peak refers to the ability of the authorities to begin listening to suspects before the warrant is finalized. Many claim this is warrantless search. It is not. Much like “extenuating circumstances”, it allows authorities to expedite the process. They can begin securing the evidence while the warrant is being drafted and presented to a magistrate. If the warrant fails approval, then the evidence is void. This is needed because when you have information being passed, you have to act immediately or it will be lost. Since the Patriot Act has been in full effect with The War on Terror, there has not been a major attack on U.S. soil, and many attacks have been thwarted."
Just thought I would share some insight. The Warantless Wiretap" buzz word everyone like to throw around is none-sense. You still need a warrant, its simply an adjustment to the process in which evidence can start to be gathered and collected. Without a judge signing off, its all void and null.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 05-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:20 PM
PFF
System Bot
May 20th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
The the story originally posted, I think the police were doing the right thing. They need to see the woman involved to be sure she is not beat up. I also agree with the minority opinion that the majority judges ruled too broadly. If they limited the scope of their ruling to domestic violence then it would have made sense. Giving the police carte blanche authority to enter any home, any time for any reason is absurd.
I agree
Also would the initial altercation (call from neighbors, police witnessing "argument") be just cause under current law? It would be like a witness stating they saw someone doing something in their car wouldn't it? Or does it matter that they began outside and went inside?
Not that I like it.
IP: Logged
04:10 PM
May 21st, 2011
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
to be honest, the whole "warantless wiretapping" is nothing more then a buzz word. You still need a warrant. I actually wrote on this very issue in a my thesis.
