Indiana Supreme Court rules no right to block illegal police entry into home

[aldiboronti]

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

On the face of it this seems rather worrying. I don't live in Indiana but it would concern me if this is really the way that the constitutional law wind is blowing.

So is this a reasonable decision given the imperatives of preventing domestic violence or a maverick one that rides roughshod over the Fourth Amendment? I'm leaning towards the latter but I'm willing to reserve judgment until I hear all the arguments.

[Euphonious Polemic]

The decision seems to be saying:

The public has no right to resist an illegal activity, because (in part), the resistance would cause the perpetrators of the illegal act to become more violent.

This seems somehow.... bizarre.

[Simplicio]

Makes sense. I mean, I imagine cops don't show up at your door saying that they're going to illegally search your home, presumably these things come up when the Cops claim its legal and the homeowner says it isn't. Sometimes the homeowner may very well be correct, but the place to settle that is a court, not with both sides trying to bludgeon eachother at the doorway.

If I get wrongly accused of shoplifting and the Cop shows up to arrest me, the fact that I'm innocent doesn't mean I can legally hit the cop over the head and run away. I still have to allow him to arrest me and then defend my innocence in court. Being innocent doesn't allow me to resist arrest.

[Czarcasm]

If a cop shows up at the door without a warrant, and says that he doesn't need a warrant, I have to let him in?
If someone claims to be a cop, but refuses to show a warrant or an i.d., I have to let him in?

This is going to make home invasions a whole lot easier.

[Broomstick]

As an Indiana resident I find this decision troubling and hope it gets overturned by the SCotUS.

I do understand the concerns here - Indiana has some of the most liberal laws in regards to residents arming themselves, and police do have legitimate concerns don't only about getting shoved around but also possibly shot at, given the prevalence of gun ownership.

On the flip side, this would be far too easy to abuse.

[Simplicio]

If a cop shows up at the door without a warrant, and says that he doesn't need a warrant, I have to let him in?

Cops don't necessarily require a warrant to legally gain entry to your home.

As to the fake cop thing, you can use the same reasoning to say it should be legal to resist arrest (after all, it might be a fake cop there to kidnap you) or try and outrun a cop trying to pull you over (it might be a fake cop trying to carjack you), etc.

[Cheesesteak]

I think it's a sensible decision. The homeowner is not in a position to know when entries are lawful and when they are not. If you had a *right* to resist an unlawful entry, I can easily see many lawful entries being resisted because the homeowner did not know what information the police were operating on, or what constitutes a lawful entry.

It potentially increases the level of violence in all entries, legal or otherwise.

I assume illegal entries are still subject to lawsuits and criminal liability on the part of the police officers, as well as prohibiting the use of any evidence gained from the illegal act.

[Simplicio]

On the flip side, this would be far too easy to abuse.

How exactly? Its not making it legal for cops to illegally enter your home. Its just saying that if they do, you need to go after them in court rather then trying to initiate a fire-fight with them. As a practical matter, this is probably what happens in most cases anyways. I doubt most people try and resist entries into their home, and amongst the ones that do, I doubt very many of them are successful.

[Jas09]

I think I generally side with the dissenters here in that the ruling was probably correct for the case in question, but that the opinion was overly broad. I'd rather see it more narrowly focused on the facts of this case.

One question about the facts of the case that was not clear from that article - was the search already deemed unlawful by a lower court?

It does seem clear that the remedy for unlawful search and seizure is civil action and the exclusionary rule, not violent resistance.

[gonzomax]

Not all police are in uniform.
The idea that your home is your castle is gone. They can barge through your front door and you are not allowed to do anything? This is horrible.

[Jas09]

Not all police are in uniform.
The idea that your home is your castle is gone. They can barge through your front door and you are not allowed to do anything? This is horrible.The "home is your castle" comment makes me wonder - how does this square with so-called "Castle Doctrine" laws that allow you to shoot a home intruder?

[The Second Stone]

Looks to me like the Indiana Court is legislating what they think might be good ideas. Used to be I could shoot an unlawful intruder even if he/she turned out to be a cop. So much for 800 years of jurisprudence.

[Captain Amazing]

The poorest man in his cottage, may bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement-William Pitt

I'm bothered by the decision.

[Giles]

Presumably, in the case decided, the Indiana Supreme Court was saying that the police officer's entry into the house was unlawful, since, if it was lawful, the ruling is just obiter dicta. Since it was unlawful, can the householder get damages from the police officer concerned and/or his police department?

[Cheesesteak]

Used to be I could shoot an unlawful intruder even if he/she turned out to be a cop. Can you shoot a cop who is lawfully entering your home?

Can you tell the difference in the amount of time it takes you to pull a trigger?

[John Mace]

Makes sense. I mean, I imagine cops don't show up at your door saying that they're going to illegally search your home, presumably these things come up when the Cops claim its legal and the homeowner says it isn't. Sometimes the homeowner may very well be correct, but the place to settle that is a court, not with both sides trying to bludgeon eachother at the doorway.

If I get wrongly accused of shoplifting and the Cop shows up to arrest me, the fact that I'm innocent doesn't mean I can legally hit the cop over the head and run away. I still have to allow him to arrest me and then defend my innocence in court. Being innocent doesn't allow me to resist arrest.

That was my reaction. I'd like to see a cite that this overturns a precedent going back to the Magna Carta.

[Farmer Jane]

If a cop shows up at the door without a warrant, and says that he doesn't need a warrant, I have to let him in?
If someone claims to be a cop, but refuses to show a warrant or an i.d., I have to let him in?

This is going to make home invasions a whole lot easier.

No - they're talking about forcibly resisting. It's the same rule that applies in any other state. If a cop enters my home with a search warrant, I can't body bock him.

well, i can, but i'd get arrested.

[Giles]

No - they're talking about forcibly resisting. It's the same rule that applies in any other state. If a cop enters my home with a search warrant, I can't body bock him.

well, i can, but i'd get arrested.
In this case, there was no search warrant. A couple had been arguing outside their home, then went inside. The police officer tried to follow them without a warrant, presumably to help settle the domestic disturbance.

And presumably the court is saying that he could not do so lawfully without the householder's permission.

[Tom Tildrum]

Presumably, in the case decided, the Indiana Supreme Court was saying that the police officer's entry into the house was unlawful, since, if it was lawful, the ruling is just obiter dicta. Since it was unlawful, can the householder get damages from the police officer concerned and/or his police department?

In its opinion, the court says that it did not need to rule upon the legality of the officer's entry, since its overall finding meant that the defendant's resistance was unjustified either way.

[Lumpy]

Not all police are in uniform.
The idea that your home is your castle is gone. They can barge through your front door and you are not allowed to do anything? This is horrible.Shut up and do what you're told, you goddamn peasant. And if the cops decide to take your wife with them as a comfort woman, your only lawful recourse is to sue.
:mad:

[Kearsen]

The "home is your castle" comment makes me wonder - how does this square with so-called "Castle Doctrine" laws that allow you to shoot a home intruder?

Don't open the door, and when they bust through, you bust a cap in dat ass

[Broomstick]

How exactly? Its not making it legal for cops to illegally enter your home. Its just saying that if they do, you need to go after them in court rather then trying to initiate a fire-fight with them. As a practical matter, this is probably what happens in most cases anyways. I doubt most people try and resist entries into their home, and amongst the ones that do, I doubt very many of them are successful.
Apparently you missed the part where Indiana is liberal with gun ownership. Yes, people around here do resist forcible entries into their homes. If the cops can enter any time, without knocking, it's going to look/sound like an attack on the home and Mr. Gun-toting Homeowner may or may not get a good look at the intruders prior to opening fire.

Is that how it should happen? Of course not. But in the real world it's going to happen sooner or later.

There are also bad cops who might see this as a license to kick down a door, trash the place looking for "evidence", and confiscate valuable objects like computers. Or maybe just rape the women. I know bad cops are rare, but why do anything to make their lives easier? There have been incidents in my area involving rotten cops raping women in the back of squad cars or stealing from people.

If there's a need to enter a residence without knocking they can explain that to a judge beforehand. If there's someone screaming for help inside, sure, the cops should enter, but for a lot of things there's time and reason for a search warrant.

[Cheesesteak]

If the cops can enter any time, without knocking, it's going to look/sound like an attack on the home and Mr. Gun-toting Homeowner may or may not get a good look at the intruders prior to opening fire.The cops can already enter without knocking.If there's a need to enter a residence without knocking they can explain that to a judge beforehand. If there's someone screaming for help inside, sure, the cops should enterThe problem is that, at no time before bursting in, nobody informs the homeowner that the police are legally entering the home. A legal entry and an illegal entry are likely going to look identical from the point of view of the homeowner. It's not the sort of thing you can sort out in 5 seconds.

It's already bad enough that the police have to enter the home of someone who may be hostile towards them, you amp it up ten fold when the homeowner can assert a poorly understood right to resist unlawful search.

[Broomstick]

It has been my experience that normally the police DO knock. Normally they ask politely for entry/cooperation. Maybe because that usually works?

This business of entering without knocking sounds to me like they suspect something's up. Why doesn't "probable cause" cover that? I mean, if they can hear screaming it's reasonable to assume an emergency and they've always been able to enter without warrant under those circumstances. If it's not an emergency I don't see why they can't talk to a judge and get a warrant.

Oh, maybe they haven't got proof? Sorry, I don't like the idea the police can now legally go fishing for evidence.

[Jas09]

It's already bad enough that the police have to enter the home of someone who may be hostile towards them, you amp it up ten fold when the homeowner can assert a poorly understood right to resist unlawful search.I don't necessarily disagree with this.

However, it's also bad enough that the police have the ability to enter a home without getting the warrant demanded by the fourth amendment. You make it even worse when a homeowner can't even defend this right against a search that he knows or highly suspects is unlawful.

Sadly, I think the majority opinion is correct when it says that the "modern" interpretation of the fourth pretty much requires this result.

[Cheesesteak]

Sorry, I don't like the idea the police can now legally go fishing for evidence.This ruling doesn't change that, all it says is that a homeowner cannot physically block entry.

My point is that the homeowner is not in a position to determine if a particular entry is legal or illegal.

[Tom Tildrum]

Or maybe just rape the women.

My point is that the homeowner is not in a position to determine if a particular entry is legal or illegal.

OK, I'm going to hell for that.

More seriously, your concern is entirely valid, but I'll point out that the court's opinion conversely contends that its decision potentially offers greater protection to public safety, not less:

The officers cannot properly assess the complaint and the dangers to those threatened without some limited access to the involved parties. It is unrealistic to expect officers to wait for threats to escalate and for violence to become imminent before intervening.

[Chronos]

Cheesesteak, if the homeowners can't tell the difference between a legal police entry and an illegal one, that's a sign that the cops are already doing something wrong. If the occupants can't tell the difference between legal police entry and illegal police entry, then they also can't tell the difference between police activity (of any sort) and non-police. The way things should work is the police knock first, and if they show a badge and a warrant, the occupants let them in. And if the police don't have a badge and a warrant, then they shouldn't be seeking entry to the house to begin with, and so the residents would be justified in keeping them out.

[Ravenman]

Used to be I could shoot an unlawful intruder even if he/she turned out to be a cop. So much for 800 years of jurisprudence.
Is this really the case? Do you have cites for people shooting a cop who was illegally breaking into a house, and not facing any legal consequences?

[Tom Tildrum]

Cheesesteak, if the homeowners can't tell the difference between a legal police entry and an illegal one, that's a sign that the cops are already doing something wrong. If the occupants can't tell the difference between legal police entry and illegal police entry, then they also can't tell the difference between police activity (of any sort) and non-police. The way things should work is the police knock first, and if they show a badge and a warrant, the occupants let them in. And if the police don't have a badge and a warrant, then they shouldn't be seeking entry to the house to begin with, and so the residents would be justified in keeping them out.

Homeowner's sitting in his living room. Front door flies open and a guy runs in, then runs off to another part of the house. A uniformed police officer is chasing that guy and running close behind. Can the police officer legally follow the fleeing man into the home without the homeowner's consent?

Under the law, there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement that might permit the officer to do so. Assessing the applicability of those exceptions in any particular situation can be difficult, though, and might depend upon facts not know to the homeowner at that time.

[Sateryn76]

Cheesesteak, if the homeowners can't tell the difference between a legal police entry and an illegal one, that's a sign that the cops are already doing something wrong. If the occupants can't tell the difference between legal police entry and illegal police entry, then they also can't tell the difference between police activity (of any sort) and non-police. The way things should work is the police knock first, and if they show a badge and a warrant, the occupants let them in. And if the police don't have a badge and a warrant, then they shouldn't be seeking entry to the house to begin with, and so the residents would be justified in keeping them out.

But what about a lawful entry, based on a warrant, that has to be executed quickly and with no warning? Let's say someone is suspected of harboring a murderer, and the cops get a warrant. Do they have to knock and announce themselves and wait to serve the warrant - all while the fugitive is running out the back door?

Or in this case - do the cops leave, get a warrant, and then come back hours later to find the wife beaten and possibly killed? Most judges aren't available at night to instantly sign a warrant.

I agree it's rather broad, but I also think that the correct place to fight about it is in Court, not at the front door during a domestic dispute.

[Chronos]

Let's say someone is suspected of harboring a murderer, and the cops get a warrant. Do they have to knock and announce themselves and wait to serve the warrant - all while the fugitive is running out the back door? If they're worried about that, then they should station an officer at the back door, too. If there's a back door, and it's not guarded, then the suspected murderer is going to be able to run out it even if the cops do break down the door without knocking.

[Sateryn76]

If they're worried about that, then they should station an officer at the back door, too. If there's a back door, and it's not guarded, then the suspected murderer is going to be able to run out it even if the cops do break down the door without knocking.

What about the subject case?

[John Mace]

Still waiting for a cite that this is "Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta".

BTW, is there another Magna Carta besides the English one? Reminds of those movies that will show a scene of Paris, including the Eiffel Tower, and the caption will read: "Paris, France".

[Martin Hyde]

This is one of those things where I can see the outrage on paper but I'm not sure that it actually changes much of anything, both from a practical and legal stand point.

Let us examine the possible problems this decision could cause:

1. Home Invaders typically do not knock to announce their presence. Police when executing an arrest or search warrant will typically knock and announce themselves, and will only use force to gain entry if the residents are uncooperative after that point. If police just start barging into houses without knocking, then home owners will not be able to distinguish them from home invaders.

Police already enter houses to execute warrants without knocking, and they already are sometimes allegedly confused for home invaders and shot. A problem? Yes. Problem as a result of this ruling? No. No Knock Warrants are essentially an enshrined part of our legal system at this point.

Some defendants who have shot police officers executing warrants on their home have argued as a defense that they confused the police officer for a home invader. This ruling does not remove that as a valid defense, because that legal argument is not based on the lawfulness of the police entry but instead is attempting to portray the defendant's actions as not being criminally culpable due to a misunderstanding.

2. In cases where the police lack no-knock warrants but still enter the house sans legally sufficient cause, the residents of the house will not be able to lawfully use physical force to stop the police officer.

I have to genuinely question how much of our society this part will change. At what point would it be decided whether or not a law enforcement officer entering a home sans warrant was not legally acceptable? Our common law system does have precedent for police entering homes without a warrant under certain criteria, in the heat of the moment it has always been the case that it is up to individual LEOs to determine how the situation should be handled and it is up to the training of the LEO as to whether their actions are correct and they only enter houses sans warrant during a situation in which such action is legally permissible, or the LEO makes a mistake and they enter the house sans warrant when such action is not legally permissible.

The answer to the above question is that the legality of the entry would really only come into play in a court of law after the fact. Either when you were defending yourself against a criminal charge based on evidence acquired as part of the illegal entry or in which you were filing suit against the government for committing a tort against you. In regards to those two situations this ruling has changed nothing.

It does not mean that you no longer have legal protections from unlawful entry by law enforcement. Absolutely not. If a LEO enters your home in Indiana and it is not a permissible entry, nothing they gain in the way of evidence against you can be used against you in a court of law, it is inadmissible. Additionally the police department/municipality is instantly exposed to civil suit in which the LEO's unlawful entry will definitely work to your favor.

As a quick aside, this is true regardless of whether or not there is a warrant. A warrant does not guarantee the entry is lawful. A judge can err in issuing a warrant, and in such a case the properly executed warrant to search your home would not erase your fourth amendment rights. If your lawyer demonstrated that the judge erred in issuing the warrant, anything obtained during the search again, would be inadmissible against you in court. In that case I imagine the civil liability would change since the police department's job is not to determine the legality of warrants and they could probably argue they should be off the hook if it is the judge's faulty legal reasoning versus that of an individual LEO.

So then I think we can confirm that the important legal protections of the 4th Amendment are not at risk here. Namely that the government cannot just storm into your house without cause, find evidence of crimes, and use that evidence to convict and imprison you.

However the 4th Amendment is not just about criminal cases and courts of law, it is about citizens being able to enjoy the quiet privacy of their homes without government intrusion. Regardless of the results of the unlawful entry, the entry itself is of course a violation of 4th Amendment rights. That is true even if the officer simply enters unlawfully, does not collect any evidence or effect an arrest, and simply leaves. Just the simple entry is a violation of one's rights.

However, that has always been the case. The moment a police officer illegally enters your home, your fourth amendment rights are violated. That is true regardless of whether or not you are then allowed to use force to drive him from your home. The Fourth Amendment is about protecting you from that entry in the first place, and once that unlawful entry has happened the rights you enjoy under the fourth are violated. At that point it is supposed to be up to our legal system to provide redress for that violation of your rights. Under what portion of our modern legal system does anyone else argue that it is instead the role of the citizen to immediately use physical violence to gain redress for violated rights?

If a police officer improperly detains me, is it my right to shoot him dead? If a police officer destroys my printing press or TV camera to prevent me from exercising my first amendment rights, is it my right to shoot him dead? If a police officer improperly confiscates my property, is it my right to shoot him dead? If a police officer attempts to prevent me from voting is it my right to shoot him dead? If a police officer attempts to enter my home unlawfully is it my right to shoot him dead?

To that last question (and all prior) I would say: no. Is there any exception to that? I would say yes, and that is when the police officer is not entering my home as an agent of the government.

This may be the heart of the concern some people have had. The concern perhaps is not police officers improperly interpreting when they are allowed to invoke exigent circumstances and enter a home, but instead when a police officer in uniform is deliberately entering a home to commit crime or harm to the residents.

I would argue that this ruling in Indiana does not materially change such a situation. If a police officer is entering your home to rape you wife, kill your kids, eat your dog, and otherwise do evil things you would obviously still have an innate right to defend yourself and your family. If you shot and killed a police officer entering your home to do those things, you would not be defending yourself in the ensuing criminal trial with a defense of "I shot him due to my right to defend my house from illegal entry" but instead that you shot him in defense of life & limb and that of your family.

Of course, the fact of the situation is this new ruling does not change the fact that in any such legal defense you will be arguing that a respected police officer was intent on doing you harm in a criminal action. That would not be easy to convince a jury, but I do think there are certain elements of the action that would help you in court. Firstly, if a police officer was entering a house to murder you, I doubt he would be out responding to a call. So right away the court will ask, "Why was Officer Smith at this residence? No call was placed dispatching him there?" That will immediately help your defense immensely. And what if he simply "decides" to commit a crime while out on call to your house for some other reason, and you defend yourself? Well, in that case you're probably fucked and screwed over, but maybe if there are witnesses and you are convincing and the police officer is very unconvincing, you might get off.

However, this court ruling doesn't fundamentally change anything in that last scenario, you are always going to be in a very bad way if that second scenario happens to you.

Ah, but is it not true that since a police officer intent on murdering you is probably not going to announce those intentions, that if you wait until it is obvious he will do you harm it will be too late? Under the current regime, in Indiana at least (and certainly not in States with a "duty to flee", mind Castle Doctrine is not universal in the U.S.) it would be illegal to use physical force to expel an officer who is merely entering unlawfully, and since you probably would not be able to distinguish between an officer who is entering unlawfully as part of a good-faith mistake from one who is entering unlawfully to do you harm, this court decision has removed your right to respond to all unlawful entries as though the trespasser was intending to do you harm.

Well then yes, it has removed a supposed right to respond to all unlawful entries with force. But it certainly has not removed your right to respond to a home invasion with force, and it has not removed your right to respond to a nefarious LEO with force (it has made that right much more difficult to execute, because now the onus is on the homeowner to decide if the LEO is making a simple mistake or entering to do harm.)

However I think it is far more likely for a homeowner to mistakenly believe that a LEO is entering illegal than for a homeowner to be correct in that belief. For that reason we probably do not want homeowners holding court in their foyers and executing death sentences or causing grievous harm based on their personal interpretation of what is going on.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I am confused so just asking here what exactly this means. Martin Hyde made a good stab at it (no pun intended) but still confused.

1) Are they saying a police officer can come to your door, knock and then demand entry and you are not allowed to stop them even if they have no warrant?

1b) If they have no warrant and you cannot stop them does that mean absolutely any evidence they find is worthless in court? The court just wants to avoid a hassle at the door to protect the officer? If so what is the point?

2) If the police jump through your window you are not allowed to resist? How do you know it is the police in that case? I suspect, in practice, they do not send one officer through the window because any reasonable person seeing one person burst into their house with no clue who they are is likely to resist. I think when police go in that way they do so in such overwhelming force the person inside figures out very quickly resistance is futile.

2b) If you act as a reasonable person would to someone bursting into your house unannounced are they saying the person is guilty of a crime if the people bursting in happen to be law enforcement? Regardless if they have a warrant?

Can a Legal Eagle clear this up?

[Broomstick]

But what about a lawful entry, based on a warrant, that has to be executed quickly and with no warning? Let's say someone is suspected of harboring a murderer, and the cops get a warrant. Do they have to knock and announce themselves and wait to serve the warrant - all while the fugitive is running out the back door?
At the time they ask the judge for a warrant they can also ask to serve it without knocking. That was already in effect prior to this ruling.

Or in this case - do the cops leave, get a warrant, and then come back hours later to find the wife beaten and possibly killed? Most judges aren't available at night to instantly sign a warrant.
If they have probable cause to think a crime is occurring they are already allowed to enter without warrant or warning.

Homeowner's sitting in his living room. Front door flies open and a guy runs in, then runs off to another part of the house. A uniformed police officer is chasing that guy and running close behind. Can the police officer legally follow the fleeing man into the home without the homeowner's consent?
Yes, because they are in pursuit of a criminal who just forced entry into a building, so a crime is in progress.

[Freudian Slit]

Shut up and do what you're told, you goddamn peasant. And if the cops decide to take your wife with them as a comfort woman, your only lawful recourse is to sue.
:mad:


There are also bad cops who might see this as a license to kick down a door, trash the place looking for "evidence", and confiscate valuable objects like computers. Or maybe just rape the women.

Why all the obsession with cops raping women? Does this actually happen regularly?

[Martin Hyde]

Why all the obsession with cops raping women? Does this actually happen regularly?

No. But unfortunately when you ask a question like that you are almost guaranteeing that someone will link to articles where it has happened, and then say "and just imagine how often it happens and the cop doesn't get caught." So they take anecdotal evidence and then combine it with unfalsifiable evidence and they have their "point."

[Freudian Slit]

No. But unfortunately when you ask a question like that you are almost guaranteeing that someone will link to articles where it has happened, and then say "and just imagine how often it happens and the cop doesn't get caught." So they take anecdotal evidence and then combine it with unfalsifiable evidence and they have their "point."

I'll take the opportunity to reference t he "They're rapin' EVERYBODY up here" meme now, then.

[John Mace]

I am confused so just asking here what exactly this means. Martin Hyde made a good stab at it (no pun intended) but still confused.

1) Are they saying a police officer can come to your door, knock and then demand entry and you are not allowed to stop them even if they have no warrant?

1b) If they have no warrant and you cannot stop them does that mean absolutely any evidence they find is worthless in court? The court just wants to avoid a hassle at the door to protect the officer? If so what is the point?

2) If the police jump through your window you are not allowed to resist? How do you know it is the police in that case? I suspect, in practice, they do not send one officer through the window because any reasonable person seeing one person burst into their house with no clue who they are is likely to resist. I think when police go in that way they do so in such overwhelming force the person inside figures out very quickly resistance is futile.

2b) If you act as a reasonable person would to someone bursting into your house unannounced are they saying the person is guilty of a crime if the people bursting in happen to be law enforcement? Regardless if they have a warrant?

Can a Legal Eagle clear this up?

IANALE, but it seems to me that you have the right to safe from unreasonable search and seizure. That means the cops can't come in, willy nilly, and search your home. They need a warrant or reasonable cause. Additionally, they have to identify themselves as police officers. You can't resist, but if they don't really have "reasonable cause" or a warrant, you can sue their ass (actually, the PD) in court. It is not unusual for people win these cases.

[Leaper]

Well, with this ruling, they can "come in, willy nilly, and search your home." It just doesn't (apparently) cover anything that happens after that, like whether they can use what they find, and any consequences they might face.

[Martin Hyde]

Well, with this ruling, they can "come in, willy nilly, and search your home." It just doesn't (apparently) cover anything that happens after that, like whether they can use what they find, and any consequences they might face.

That's because it doesn't change anything that regard. They will face all the same consequences they would normally face for entering a home unlawfully:

-Discipline at the departmental level
-Any evidence acquired would not be usable in court, so if their unlawful entry acquired important evidence against a major criminal the case against that criminal would be significantly weakened
-There can be civil suits filed against police officers that violate the rights of citizens.

All this ruling seems to say is you can't use force to throw a police officer out of your house based on them being there unlawfully. I don't understand why people confuse that for "now police can acquire evidence from your house under any circumstance they wish and it can't be thrown out of court as improperly acquired."

[Snowboarder Bo]

Sure, it can't be used as evidence in court. Good luck getting it back from the police.

[Martin Hyde]

Sure, it can't be used as evidence in court. Good luck getting it back from the police.

It would depend on what it was, of course.

[Lumpy]

More seriously, your concern is entirely valid, but I'll point out that the court's opinion conversely contends that its decision potentially offers greater protection to public safety, not less:At this point I'd take less safety and more freedom.

[Snowboarder Bo]

It would depend on what it was, of course.

Not really.

No one gets their stash of cocaine back, or their weed, or their illegal weapons and frankly no one expects to.

But good luck getting back anything you own which is legal and which gets confiscated or otherwise impounded by an officer, even if he did enter your house illegally.

[Martin Hyde]

Not really.

No one gets their stash of cocaine back, or their weed, or their illegal weapons and frankly no one expects to.

But good luck getting back anything you own which is legal and which gets confiscated or otherwise impounded by an officer, even if he did enter your house illegally.

Luck would not be involved, only bureaucracy. If the police come into personal property and they did not seize it as part of a criminal operation and they have no statutory right to keep it, the proper owner will have it returned.

[Chimera]

No way this can stand. The people of Indiana need to clear house on their State Supreme Court and start over.

[Digital Stimulus]

At this point I'd take less safety and more freedom.
Just at this point? IMHO, for any and all times, the balance for this comes down on the side of freedom. In other words, I think your statement can justifiably be even more emphatic. Honestly, I'm not understanding the support for this decision.

Although it's entirely possible that I misunderstand the scope and impact of the decision.
The homeowner is not in a position to know when entries are lawful and when they are not.
Given that it is common enough that LEOs do act illegally, it would seem that it's not just the homeowner who lacks that knowledge. (Granted, a homeowner may not have as good an idea of legality as an LEO, but that doesn't change my point.) IMO, the ability and power to encroach on private property requires a high assurance of propriety -- we should at least be striving for there to be almost no question of legality in most situations. And accepting illegal entries as par for the course weakens that assurance, and unacceptably so IMO. Personally, I think that the power of the state needs to be tempered to a high degree.
That's because it doesn't change anything that regard...
Of course it does. It changes the default position of acceptable -- nay, allowable -- homeowner action. Or, in equivalent but more loaded terms, it says that the new normal is that a homeowner must submit to authority -- even when said authority's actions are known to be illegal.

[Grumman]

No way this can stand. The people of Indiana need to clear house on their State Supreme Court and start over.
Of 3/5ths of it, anyway.

[tumbleddown]

But good luck getting back anything you own which is legal and which gets confiscated or otherwise impounded by an officer, even if he did enter your house illegally.
People have problems getting their goods back when they're recovered after a robbery. It took 8 months after the thief was behind bars before I was able to get back a ring that had my damn name engraved in it.

That's the thing that's most worrisome here. If I know a cop is entering my home illegally, and I cannot stop him from doing so, sure I can eventually get back anything he decides to confiscate, sure nothing he takes can be used against me at trial, sure I can sue for damages for anything broken or lost, sure I can sue for the civil rights violation.

But that doesn't change the time I might spend in jail, or the expense I'll face for attorneys to defend me when I'm arrested on bogus charges, and to file a civil suit against the police department. That doesn't ensure my property is going to be returned to me, or replaced if trashed. That doesn't magically de-traumatize my family (or unkill my dog, cops busting into houses are well known for shooting family pets) or restore my reputation in my community.

Being able to sue is cold comfort in such a case.

And let's not kid ourselves: the people that are most likely to be affected by police acting extralegally are exactly the people who are least able to afford attorneys to file complex civil suits against public officials.

[Broomstick]

But good luck getting back anything you own which is legal and which gets confiscated or otherwise impounded by an officer, even if he did enter your house illegally.
Getting your stuff back takes time, sometimes a LOT of time. You might have to wait until after your civil court case is over.

For someone who runs a small business out of their home, having their computer confiscated (and that's pretty much SOP) not only means their home has been illegally entered, but they've also lost the means to continue their livelihood. They're out of business until they get their stuff back. Kind of serious stuff.

[Ravenman]

But that doesn't change the time I might spend in jail, or the expense I'll face for attorneys to defend me when I'm arrested on bogus charges, and to file a civil suit against the police department. That doesn't ensure my property is going to be returned to me, or replaced if trashed. That doesn't magically de-traumatize my family (or unkill my dog, cops busting into houses are well known for shooting family pets) or restore my reputation in my community.

Being able to sue is cold comfort in such a case.

I understand the effects of someone being unjustly accused of a crime. But relating these comments back to the actual case at hand in the OP, how would using violence against a police officer who is illegally trying to search your house relieve you of any of these problems?

If some Bad Lieutenant type cop just decided to kick down your door and ransack your house, totally without justification, and you shot him, do you think that all those problems would just melt away? That you wouldn't need a lawyer, wouldn't have your life placed under investigation, wouldn't have your family traumatized?

[Lumpy]

I'd like to see what would happen if the cops pulled this shit on someone they didn't know was a judge, an assistant district attorney, or a senior member of the governor's staff.

[Bricker]

That was my reaction. I'd like to see a cite that this overturns a precedent going back to the Magna Carta.

Most scholars trace this to section 39 of the Magna Carta (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html):

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.


It was judicially recognized in Hopkin Huggett’s Case, 84 Eng. Rep. 1082 (K. B. 1666), where an illegal arrest that led to the death of the arresting constable was excused on the basis of the illegal arrest:

...for if one be imprisoned upon an unlawful authority, it is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion; much more where it is done under a colour of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is invaded, it is a provocation to all the subjects of England . . .[b]ut sure a man ought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the laws; and if anyone against the law imprison a man, he is an offender against Magna Charta.

[E-Sabbath]

Why all the obsession with cops raping women? Does this actually happen regularly?
From the east coast...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/05/13/2011-05-13_rape_cops_trial_lawyer_for_nypd_officer_kenneth_moreno_says_no_dna_no_case.html?r=news
To the west coast...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/13/ex-cop-accused-duty-rape-pleads-not-guilty/

Hide yo children, hide yo wives.
Yeah, it happens. Frequently enough that we hear about it.

[RTFirefly]

I don't understand why people confuse that for "now police can acquire evidence from your house under any circumstance they wish and it can't be thrown out of court as improperly acquired." Because IIRC, there have been decisions in recent years that have upheld the validity of police using the information gained in an illegal search. IANAL and all that, so take this with the appropriate grain of salt.

[Martin Hyde]

Although it's entirely possible that I misunderstand the scope and impact of the decision.

Given that it is common enough that LEOs do act illegally, it would seem that it's not just the homeowner who lacks that knowledge. (Granted, a homeowner may not have as good an idea of legality as an LEO, but that doesn't change my point.) IMO, the ability and power to encroach on private property requires a high assurance of propriety -- we should at least be striving for there to be almost no question of legality in most situations. And accepting illegal entries as par for the course weakens that assurance, and unacceptably so IMO. Personally, I think that the power of the state needs to be tempered to a high degree.

Of course it does. It changes the default position of acceptable -- nay, allowable -- homeowner action. Or, in equivalent but more loaded terms, it says that the new normal is that a homeowner must submit to authority -- even when said authority's actions are known to be illegal.

You seem to be of the impression this has changed how allowable illegal entry is. If a police officer enters your house unlawfully he will still be subject to all the same legal and disciplinary actions he was before this ruling. The only thing he won't be subject to is your using a club to beat him until he leaves.

Without being deeply familiar with our criminal justice system, I would like to hear from any LEOs or criminal attorneys as to how often home owners did just that to a police officer who entered unlawfully and didn't face serious legal consequences.

Your argument is like saying:

"A shop owner is not allowed to gun down a shoplifter, therefore the shop owners has no protections against shoplifting."

That's ludicrous, the shop owner can still file a police report, can hopefully see that person arrested, and the person will suffer the legal consequences.

[Martin Hyde]

People have problems getting their goods back when they're recovered after a robbery. It took 8 months after the thief was behind bars before I was able to get back a ring that had my damn name engraved in it.

That's the thing that's most worrisome here. If I know a cop is entering my home illegally, and I cannot stop him from doing so, sure I can eventually get back anything he decides to confiscate, sure nothing he takes can be used against me at trial, sure I can sue for damages for anything broken or lost, sure I can sue for the civil rights violation.

But that doesn't change the time I might spend in jail, or the expense I'll face for attorneys to defend me when I'm arrested on bogus charges, and to file a civil suit against the police department. That doesn't ensure my property is going to be returned to me, or replaced if trashed. That doesn't magically de-traumatize my family (or unkill my dog, cops busting into houses are well known for shooting family pets) or restore my reputation in my community.

Being able to sue is cold comfort in such a case.

And let's not kid ourselves: the people that are most likely to be affected by police acting extralegally are exactly the people who are least able to afford attorneys to file complex civil suits against public officials.

And this ruling doesn't change any of that. As I already said, your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated the moment the officer enters your house unlawfully. What happens after that does not change that fact. They remain violated whether you passively wait for the officer to leave or use a club to drive him out.

I can assure you that all those expenses you've worried about are just as present in other States and were just as present in Indiana prior to this ruling. If a police officer tries to enter my house unlawfully in Virginia, and I use force to expel him, here is what will happen:

1. I'm arrested for several of various possible crimes. Assault, resisting arrest, probably many I can't think of.

2. I have to post bail to get released.

3. I have to get a public defender or pay for a private lawyer to have those charges thrown out. At this point my lawyer will begin examining the legality of the LEO's entrance into my home, and presuming it was illegal he will hopefully be able to convince a judge of that fact.

4. If I wish to gain financial compensation from the police department, I will have to retain another lawyer for that case.

So how exactly is any of that different based on whether or not I have the right to physically throw the guy out of my place?

Let's also not forget the possibilities I've not mentioned:

1. While trying to throw the police officer out, I get the living fuck beat out of me because I'm just one middle aged guy against a police officer who has a baton, pepper spray, taser et al not to mention a gun. He will probably not be alone.

2. While trying to throw the police officer out I decide to use one of my own weapons, and am shot and killed, or shoot and kill the police officer. Then I'm on trial for murder.

[tumbleddown]

I understand the effects of someone being unjustly accused of a crime. But relating these comments back to the actual case at hand in the OP, how would using violence against a police officer who is illegally trying to search your house relieve you of any of these problems?
But this ruling doesn't just apply to using justice, it says that there is no right to prevent entry at all. So say my sliding door is open but the screen door is closed, and a rogue cop who wants into my house (say he's got a vendetta against me for whatever reason) decides he's going to cut or jimmy the screen door to walk in.

By this ruling, if I catch him in that act, I can't run and close the sliding door to hamper his entry, even if it's clear by his mode of entry (or other knowledge) that he's not coming in with a warrant or because of exigent circumstances.
If some Bad Lieutenant type cop just decided to kick down your door and ransack your house, totally without justification, and you shot him, do you think that all those problems would just melt away? That you wouldn't need a lawyer, wouldn't have your life placed under investigation, wouldn't have your family traumatized?
It depends. If it's just one cop, the situation is dramatically different. They don't send one cop out to serve a warrant, no knock or knock, search or arrest. If one cop happens to be investigating something and feels the need to enter a private residence exigently they're still meant to call it in and report the situation and request assistance. So if there's no warrant and no call in and a cop comes busting -- or sneaking -- into my house, then a decent police department would take the cop's actions into consideration rather than playing cover their butt games that infringe on a citizen's civil rights.
Because IIRC, there have been decisions in recent years that have upheld the validity of police using the information gained in an illegal search. IANAL and all that, so take this with the appropriate grain of salt.
Yeah, I can easily see how this could grow into a situation where a back-end investigation is begun upon someone and an "inevitable discovery" argument is made to get evidence gathered illegally in this way brought in at trial anyway.

[John Mace]

Most scholars trace this to section 39 of the Magna Carta (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html):



It was judicially recognized in Hopkin Huggett’s Case, 84 Eng. Rep. 1082 (K. B. 1666), where an illegal arrest that led to the death of the arresting constable was excused on the basis of the illegal arrest:

So, you are saying that current precedent in US law is that it's OK to shoot a police officer who enters your home w/o a warrant or without probable cause? That has been the law of the land, and this decisions overturns that law?

[Captain Amazing]

So, you are saying that current precedent in US law is that it's OK to shoot a police officer who enters your home w/o a warrant or without probable cause? That has been the law of the land, and this decisions overturns that law?

No, but traditionally, you had the right to use reasonable force to stop a policeman from entering your home without a warrant. You could, for instance, stand in the doorway and not let him past, or push him out. This decision overturns that in Indiana.

[Lumpy]

Without being deeply familiar with our criminal justice system, I would like to hear from any LEOs or criminal attorneys as to how often home owners did just that to a police officer who entered unlawfully and didn't face serious legal consequences.A somewhat related thread: Self-defense... against police (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=586021)

And this ruling doesn't change any of that. As I already said, your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated the moment the officer enters your house unlawfully. What happens after that does not change that fact. They remain violated whether you passively wait for the officer to leave or use a club to drive him out.Fine. Then the penalty for an officer violating your Fourth Amendment rights should be to be stripped of the aegis of his badge and tried for breaking and entering like any other joe.

[Martin Hyde]

Fine. Then the penalty for an officer violating your Fourth Amendment rights should be to be stripped of the aegis of his badge and tried for breaking and entering like any other joe.

Not going to happen. As long as we accept exigent circumstances (which I do not see going away anytime soon) there is an acceptance that we can't send LEOs to prison who make good faith errors in determining what is and isn't an exigent circumstance.

[Martin Hyde]

A somewhat related thread: Self-defense... against police (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=586021)

Precisely the kind of information I wasn't asking for, I asked about how common it was, not for anecdotes. The reason I ask is that, if as I suspect, it is extremely rare for a citizen's self defense versus a police officer to result in an acquittal then the practical changes in terms of this ruling are minimal (and I am only talking the practical changes, not the legal/philosophical ones.)

[Tom Tildrum]

Yes, because they are in pursuit of a criminal who just forced entry into a building, so a crime is in progress.

But what if it's the homeowner's boyfriend, who let himself in with a key? Why is the police officer chasing him? Does he have a gun, or did he run to the back of the house to flush drugs? These are potentially valid reasons for the police officer to enter without a warrant, but the homeowner cannot necessarily know at the time whether those circumstances exist.

Why all the obsession with cops raping women? Does this actually happen regularly?

As I read it, the decision does not address whether one can use force in self-defense against an officer who is inflicting physical violence (but not effecting an arrest); it only addresses entry by the officer onto the premises.

[Soliloquy]

If a cop shows up at the door without a warrant, and says that he doesn't need a warrant, I have to let him in?
If someone claims to be a cop, but refuses to show a warrant or an i.d., I have to let him in?

This is going to make home invasions a whole lot easier.

Cops aren't allowed to refuse to show ID. However, as someone else said, warrantless entries into homes are quite commonplace.

[jtgain]

Obviously it makes the most sense to wait and sue later, but this decision is outrageous. The very definition of private property is the ability to exclude people who don't have a legal right to be there. This decision violates so many personal freedoms on so many levels that it is mind boggling. One of the worst I've seen in modern history.

See, if the cop is there unlawfully, he is not only NOT acting as an agent of the state, he is violating your rights under color of law which is WORSE than the random home invader. Same reason why you have a right to resist an unlawful arrest: You don't have to submit physically to something that is illegal. This is almost like telling a woman that she can't fight off a rapist, just sue for civil damages after the fact.

[Lumpy]

When did the police become a elite class of lords whom we have to take our hats off and bow to? Damnit, if for any reason the police have to intrude on my privacy or freedom, I want to be treated like the governor's son.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I'm more concerned about Indiana banning cell phone usage in a car.

[John Mace]

No, but traditionally, you had the right to use reasonable force to stop a policeman from entering your home without a warrant. You could, for instance, stand in the doorway and not let him past, or push him out. This decision overturns that in Indiana.

Got a cite for that? Not the standing the doorway part, but the pushing part. How much can you push? Can you punch him in the face, or does the force have to be with open palms only?

[Captain Amazing]

Got a cite for that? Not the standing the doorway part, but the pushing part. How much can you push? Can you punch him in the face, or does the force have to be with open palms only?

Indiana Code 35-41-3-2

(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

See also John Bad Elk v US:

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.

and US v Di Re:

One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.

And that was an arrest, not a search. Also, regarding English Common Law and the Castle Doctrine, see the Pitt quote I gave earlier, as well as this from Blackstone:

And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully; quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium? For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.

[Digital Stimulus]

You seem to be of the impression this has changed how allowable illegal entry is.
No, I'm under the impression that it changes what actions are acceptable by a homeowner on their property. And I'm under that impression because that's exactly what it does.
If a police officer enters your house unlawfully he will still be subject to all the same legal and disciplinary actions he was before this ruling. The only thing he won't be subject to is your using a club to beat him until he leaves.
Sure, at least for the moment, I'll concede that for the sake of argument. But with this ruling, given appropriate circumstances, the homeowner is herself breaking the law if she knows a crime is in progress and attempts to stop it. It's law straight outta bizarro-world, where two wrongs make a right. It's goes further than just adding insult to injury, it adds insult and even more injury to injury.

[Cheesesteak]

Cheesesteak, if the homeowners can't tell the difference between a legal police entry and an illegal one, that's a sign that the cops are already doing something wrong.Not necessarily. Do you know the difference between a valid warrant and a forged warrant? I don't. A cop shows up with a piece of paper he claims is a warrant, I don't actually know if the warrant is valid, if it was forged, it if was obtained with fraudulent information. I don't know.

If I have the right to prevent illegal entry, do I have the right to prevent THIS entry, based on the fact that it may be illegal?

If an officer asserts that he is entering without a warrant based on the law allowing him to do so under particular circumstances, do I know if he's truthful or lying? I don't know chapter and verse of this law, nor do I know what information he is operating under, so it's impossible for me to know if it's legal. Can I stop him then?

If the officer is serving a no-knock warrant, I may be confident that they are officers, but I will have no idea if they even have a warrant until it's far past the time to resist their entry.

There are also entries where the legality may be disputed after the fact, was there a crime in progress, was the warrant legal, situations that are shades of gray not black and white.

You cannot determine the legality, with any degree of certainty, until the entry is long over and the lawyers dig through the details.

[jtgain]

I'm just curious. What is the penalty if a private citizen makes a "good faith" mistake and breaks into someone's house? Let's say that I hear screaming from the neighbor's house and I honestly think that someone is in serious trouble. I break down the door and find out that it's just his 16 year old daughter and her boyfriend in the back bedroom having loud sex.

Now, the neighbor wants me arrested for trespassing, breaking and entering, etc. What happens? (And yes, I think this is related to the thread)

[NotreDame05]

All this case accomplished was to eviscerate a defense to resisting law enforcement. The defendant at trial wanted to argue the unlawful entry by law enforcement permitted him to resist and as a result, he cannot be convicted of resisting law enforcement. Specifically, the defendant requested a jury instruction on this point.

The Indiana Supreme Court has held this is not a defense to the crime of resisting law enforcement and the defendant is not entitled to this instruction. To reach this holding required the Indiana Supreme Court to acknowledge there did not exist a right to resist unlawful entry by law enforcement.

This decision did not hold as lawful that which was previously unlawful, such as a warrantless entry into a home absent consent or exigent circumstances. This decision did not vitiate suppression of the evidence where there is an unlawful entry or a civil rights lawsuit.

Neither is this decision going to result in an inundation of random and warrantless entries and searches of peoples' homes. Essentially, this decision does not change much, other than the ability to raise a specific defense to a resisting charge.

[Max Torque]

According to this article (http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html), one Indiana sheriff has decided that this ruling allows him to perform random house to house searches.
According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

[Saint Cad]

I understand the intention of the ruling but a cop can come in for "no reason at all"? And a Hoosier can't say no? And did anyone else visualize the video where SWAT entered the apartment and shot the guy with the golf club then told his corpse to drop the weapon? In Indiana, his (dead) ass would be up on charges.

[Leaper]

Isn't there a recent (U.S.) Supreme Court decision that some have been saying basically says the police can barge in anywhere they like (or, they claim, effectively says so?

Any relevance here?

[Acid Lamp]

According to this article (http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html), one Indiana sheriff has decided that this ruling allows him to perform random house to house searches.

This is my fear as well.

Cop sees some black teens hanging out in the driveway doing nothing wrong. Cop decided to hassle them and go inside. Rummages around, finds a baggie of pot. Arrests them and states in his report that he never went inside and "smelled weed". Officer bob's word against theirs who wins?

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

As a Hoosier, this is one bad ruling. Poor and working class people cannot afford lawyers' fees to recover any property seized in an illegal raid. I suspect the cops and the jackasses in this state's power structure know this and are perfectly happy with it.

Re the Newton County sheriff: That doesn't surprise me in the least. Newton County is the biggest goddamn speed trap in this state. I hope the poor people in that county can move elsewhere; else they'll find the sherrif is confiscating anything they have that is worth anything.

[MOIDALIZE]

As a Hoosier, this is one bad ruling. Poor and working class people cannot afford lawyers' fees to recover any property seized in an illegal raid. I suspect the cops and the jackasses in this state's power structure know this and are perfectly happy with it.



1. Go to the police station.
2. Ask for your property back.

If that doesn't work:

1. Go to the courthouse.
2. Ask the court to order the police to give you your property back.

There's no magic lawyer spell involved. If it's your stuff and it isn't contraband, demand to have it returned.

As for this particular case, I'm generally in agreement with Martin Hyde. It's not usually obvious that police entry into a home was unreasonable. It's for a judge to decide.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

MOIDALIZE: I live in this benighted state (hopefully for not much longer) and I can tell you it ain't going to work that way in a lot of the rural counties. If the police and the judge want to harass you, you are going to have to get a lawyer to defend your rights. Also, the judges in this state favor the police.
Many rural people don't know much about the Constitution, they don't know much about their rights, and they often are stupid and/or ignorant enough to believe anything the police tell them. Due to my rebellious nature and the fact that I worked 15 years as a reporter, I've met a lot of Hoosier police. The majority of them, especially the state boys, are good cops, but the rest of them are worthless badge-flashers who will use this ruling as an excuse to fuck with someone. I have no concerns about the Indiana State Police, but I can name you towns and counties where I would be greatly worried by this if I had any enemies among the local police.

[FXMastermind]

One of the great things about America is the right to be safe in your home. And to know the State can't just take your shit. Or some stranger (an agent of the state) can't come into your home with out evidence of a crime and a sober sane Judge putting it into writing.

Freedom isn't removed in one fell swoop. It's slowly whittled away, a little bit at a time.

[Chronos]

Yes, I'm aware that courts have upheld no-knock warrants in the past, and that they're considered standard practice in some circumstances. I also think that's a terrible idea. This is just making that already terrible idea one incremental small step worse.

Quoth Cheesesteak:Not necessarily. Do you know the difference between a valid warrant and a forged warrant? I don't. A cop shows up with a piece of paper he claims is a warrant, I don't actually know if the warrant is valid, if it was forged, it if was obtained with fraudulent information. I don't know. If a guy in uniform shows up at my door, shows me a badge, and shows me a document that looks (so far as I can tell) like a search warrant, then it's reasonable for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it's possible that a criminal might try such a ploy to gain access to the house, but it'd be awfully risky for him, since impersonating a police officer is itself a crime, and so he's risking arrest and prosecution before he even steps on my front porch. On the other hand, if a guy shows up at my house and immediately proceeds to kick down the door, I don't have any basis on which to make a reasonable assessment that he's a police officer, and so it's appropriate for me to react the same way I'd react to anyone else kicking down my front door.

[NotreDame05]

According to this article (http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html), one Indiana sheriff has decided that this ruling allows him to perform random house to house searches.

Well, either the sheriff has not read the opinion, or has read it and profoundly misunderstands it. This opinion does not permit him or any member of law enforcement to perform random house to house searches. As I said previously, this decision does not render as legal that which is illegal and at the time of the decision forbidden by the 4th Amendment, such as random house to house searches.

[NotreDame05]

As a Hoosier, this is one bad ruling. Poor and working class people cannot afford lawyers' fees to recover any property seized in an illegal raid. I suspect the cops and the jackasses in this state's power structure know this and are perfectly happy with it.

Re the Newton County sheriff: That doesn't surprise me in the least. Newton County is the biggest goddamn speed trap in this state. I hope the poor people in that county can move elsewhere; else they'll find the sherrif is confiscating anything they have that is worth anything.

Well, if criminal charges are filed, and they cannot afford a lawyer, they will be provided with a public defender who can litigate those claims on their behalf. If no criminal charges are filed, an attorney is not needed to file a motion for return of property and an order for return of property.

[Acid Lamp]

Well, either the sheriff has not read the opinion, or has read it and profoundly misunderstands it. This opinion does not permit him or any member of law enforcement to perform random house to house searches. As I said previously, this decision does not render as legal that which is illegal and at the time of the decision forbidden by the 4th Amendment, such as random house to house searches.

No I think he understands it perfectly. While he isn't permitted to do something he is now not restricted from doing it either. It's created a gray area loophole that needs only be filled by a Cop's word against the homeowner.

[Lumpy]

And even though supposedly nothing found by an illegal search is admissable in court, I'll bet that clever prosecutors will find ways to lever in the results of such searches. Or if nothing else, the knowledge gained by illegal searches will give the police clues to "discover" evidence they wouldn't have known about otherwise.

[Gyrate]

BTW, is there another Magna Carta besides the English one? Reminds of those movies that will show a scene of Paris, including the Eiffel Tower, and the caption will read: "Paris, France".Cue Tony Hancock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs)

I find this ruling troubling. Police have (and require) enormous power and require (and don't always have) commensurate accountability. This gives them a little more power and a little less accountability.

[Bricker]

According to this article (http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html), one Indiana sheriff has decided that this ruling allows him to perform random house to house searches.According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Well, either the sheriff has not read the opinion, or has read it and profoundly misunderstands it. This opinion does not permit him or any member of law enforcement to perform random house to house searches. As I said previously, this decision does not render as legal that which is illegal and at the time of the decision forbidden by the 4th Amendment, such as random house to house searches.

Or the author of the article has misrepresented the sheriff's position. When the author of a news story uses such phrases as "...When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans..." and "...directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. ..." we can form certain conclusions as to the author's bias and professionalism.

The article itself is quite poorly written, another factor in doubting the accuracy of its claims.

NotreDame05 is absolutely correct.

[NotreDame05]

No I think he understands it perfectly. While he isn't permitted to do something he is now not restricted from doing it either. It's created a gray area loophole that needs only be filled by a Cop's word against the homeowner.

he is now not restricted from doing it either.

This is not correct.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held warrantless entries into homes, absent exigent circumstances or consent, is forbidden by both the 4th Amendment. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). So, contrary to your statement "he is now not restricted from doing [it] (it being random house to house searches)" is incorrect. Random house to house entries and searches is presently precluded under the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore, as I stated previously, the Indiana Supreme Court case did not do away with the warrant requirement of law enforcement obtaining a warrant to enter a home. Neither did the Indiana Supreme Court dispense with the doctrine of the existence of exigent circumstances to enter a home without a warrant, or the notion a warrantless entry into a home is unlawful when it cannot be justified by consent or exigent circumstances.

As a result, there isn't any "greay area loophole" this opinion created.

[NotreDame05]

And even though supposedly nothing found by an illegal search is admissable in court, I'll bet that clever prosecutors will find ways to lever in the results of such searches. Or if nothing else, the knowledge gained by illegal searches will give the police clues to "discover" evidence they wouldn't have known about otherwise.

Or if nothing else, the knowledge gained by illegal searches will give the police clues to "discover" evidence they wouldn't have known about otherwise


Not familiar with the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?

[Cheesesteak]

If a guy in uniform shows up at my door, shows me a badge, and shows me a document that looks (so far as I can tell) like a search warrant, then it's reasonable for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is because you're a reasonable person who trusts the police and doesn't have a stash of cocaine under his bed. The police have to deal with people who don't trust the police and know they have something incriminating for the police to find. They would be emboldened to claim that there is fraud, or that the warrant is improper, or any other reason to suggest that the police are not legally allowed entrance.

There are also situations where the police are expressly allowed to enter without a warrant, if they claim one of those situations is in play, you might trust them, many others would not.

I simply think the time to determine legality is after the fact, not during the entry, where emotions are running high and violence is a likely outcome.

[Cheesesteak]

The article itself is quite poorly written, another factor in doubting the accuracy of its claims.Wow, this article really is garbage. Seriously, you conduct a telephone interview with the Sheriff and can't provide even one quote?

Not that I don't doubt a Sheriff could have said something this stupid, but you can't make a wild claim like this, off of an interview, and not include quotes from the interview.

[Acid Lamp]

This is not correct.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held warrantless entries into homes, absent exigent circumstances or consent, is forbidden by both the 4th Amendment. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). So, contrary to your statement "he is now not restricted from doing [it] (it being random house to house searches)" is incorrect. Random house to house entries and searches is presently precluded under the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore, as I stated previously, the Indiana Supreme Court case did not do away with the warrant requirement of law enforcement obtaining a warrant to enter a home. Neither did the Indiana Supreme Court dispense with the doctrine of the existence of exigent circumstances to enter a home without a warrant, or the notion a warrantless entry into a home is unlawful when it cannot be justified by consent or exigent circumstances.

As a result, there isn't any "greay area loophole" this opinion created.

In the magical legal world where everybody toes the line and never ever does anything untoward you are perfectly correct. In the real world this means a private citizen has absolutely no recourse to stop a policeman from invading his home. I should not have to hire a lawyer and sue the policeman for breaking into my home without a warrant. All a cop has to do is claim "exigent circumstances" and he would be good to go, but at least I could still resist. Now I have to simply sit there and take it if they decide to randomly search my home. How would I prove that their claim of "Hearing a noise" or "smelling weed" or anything else was false?

"knock, knock" Hello sir it's the police can we come in?
"What for?"
"We think there might be a criminal around."
"No I don't think so."
Sorry sir but we are coming in anyway."
"Do you have a warrant? If not I'm closing this door."
"No." (Kicks in the door anyway) "Sit down with your hands on your head sir." (Pulls gun)
(Other cop rifles through my things and pockets the cash in my wallet and takes my computer as "evidence")

They cover up by trumping up some imaginary charge, write the report accordingly and keep the computer.

How exactly would I prove them guilty?

[NotreDame05]

Cue Tony Hancock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs)

I find this ruling troubling. Police have (and require) enormous power and require (and don't always have) commensurate accountability. This gives them a little more power and a little less accountability.

How exactly does this decision give them any more power at all? How does this decision give them any less accountability?

Have you actually read the opinion and thought this through? This opinion does ot give "any" more power to law enforcement and it does not make them "any" less accountable.

I fail to see how, in your mind, resisting law enforcement leads to the conclusion of holding them "accountable."

[Hamlet]

How exactly does this decision give them any more power at all? How does this decision give them any less accountability?

Have you actually read the opinion and thought this through? This opinion does ot give "any" more power to law enforcement and it does not make them "any" less accountable.

I fail to see how, in your mind, resisting law enforcement leads to the conclusion of holding them "accountable."I'm a bit late to the party, and all I had heard about the ruling was from blurbs on the radio and, now, this thread. From the rhetoric here, I expected a paramilitary operation, no knock warrant justified by lies and the beating to death of a priest, his bed ridden grandmother, and a newborn puppy. Then the court, with moustaches a-twirling, rules that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in Indiana, and that people can't just get in the way, but they must allow the police to break at least one bone and anally rape their cat. That's the expectations I had from the rhetoric here.

And then, I actually read a bit of the opinion.

Suffice it to say that I'm not too worried that guys who want to stop the police from investigating a domestic abuse report with the woman begging him to let the police enter isn't allowed a jury instruction that says he can stop them.

[Cheesesteak]

Acid Lamp, I think the point is to eliminate the whole kicking down the door and pulling a gun on you part of the encounter. Do you actually believe that you would be able to successfully resist the police entering your home? I don't, unless you're going to pull your own gun, at which point we're looking at somebody leaving the scene in a body bag, and I don't like your odds.

If you could successfully resist their entry, I believe that you would be able to do so simply by declaring non-consent to a search. If they've decided to enter without your consent, putting hands on them isn't going to stop them, it's just going to make the situation far more dangerous.

[Bricker]

In the magical legal world where everybody toes the line and never ever does anything untoward you are perfectly correct. In the real world this means a private citizen has absolutely no recourse to stop a policeman from invading his home. I should not have to hire a lawyer and sue the policeman for breaking into my home without a warrant. All a cop has to do is claim "exigent circumstances" and he would be good to go, but at least I could still resist. Now I have to simply sit there and take it if they decide to randomly search my home. How would I prove that their claim of "Hearing a noise" or "smelling weed" or anything else was false?

"knock, knock" Hello sir it's the police can we come in?
"What for?"
"We think there might be a criminal around."
"No I don't think so."
Sorry sir but we are coming in anyway."
"Do you have a warrant? If not I'm closing this door."
"No." (Kicks in the door anyway) "Sit down with your hands on your head sir." (Pulls gun)
(Other cop rifles through my things and pockets the cash in my wallet and takes my computer as "evidence")

They cover up by trumping up some imaginary charge, write the report accordingly and keep the computer.

How exactly would I prove them guilty?

OK. Let's say the decision went the other way.

NOW how would you prove them guilty?

[Gray Ghost]

I'm a bit late to the party, and all I had heard about the ruling was from blurbs on the radio and, now, this thread. From the rhetoric here, I expected a paramilitary operation, no knock warrant justified by lies and the beating to death of a priest, his bed ridden grandmother, and a newborn puppy. Then the court, with moustaches a-twirling, rules that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in Indiana, and that people can't just get in the way, but they must allow the police to break at least one bone and anally rape their cat. That's the expectations I had from the rhetoric here.

And then, I actually read a bit of the opinion.

Suffice it to say that I'm not too worried that guys who want to stop the police from investigating a domestic abuse report with the woman begging him to let the police enter isn't allowed a jury instruction that says he can stop them.

And if they'd just made the statement in your third paragraph, Hamlet, I don't think that'd be controversial. The problem is that, in contravention of many principles of good judicial writing, the three Justices decided to write: We believe, however, a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Barnes v. State (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf), No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, page 4. (PDF Warning) The Justices didn't need to make that statement to rule against Barnes. That's what's controversial about this case.

[NotreDame05]

In the magical legal world where everybody toes the line and never ever does anything untoward you are perfectly correct. In the real world this means a private citizen has absolutely no recourse to stop a policeman from invading his home. I should not have to hire a lawyer and sue the policeman for breaking into my home without a warrant. All a cop has to do is claim "exigent circumstances" and he would be good to go, but at least I could still resist. Now I have to simply sit there and take it if they decide to randomly search my home. How would I prove that their claim of "Hearing a noise" or "smelling weed" or anything else was false?

"knock, knock" Hello sir it's the police can we come in?
"What for?"
"We think there might be a criminal around."
"No I don't think so."
Sorry sir but we are coming in anyway."
"Do you have a warrant? If not I'm closing this door."
"No." (Kicks in the door anyway) "Sit down with your hands on your head sir." (Pulls gun)
(Other cop rifles through my things and pockets the cash in my wallet and takes my computer as "evidence")

They cover up by trumping up some imaginary charge, write the report accordingly and keep the computer.

How exactly would I prove them guilty?

In the real world this means a private citizen has absolutely no recourse to stop a policeman from invading his home.

This recourse you refer to existed before this decision?

In the "real world," I thought I was living in the "real world" but suppose I am actually a visitor from Krypton venturing an opinion before an audience of Kryptonians, but I digress, the "recourse" you refer to did not exist before this opinion. So, what do you think has actually changed?

All a cop has to do is claim "exigent circumstances" and he would be good to go

If only it were this simple, then you'd have a fantastic point. However, merely claiming "exigent circumstances" is never enough to justify a warrantless entry and search of a home, any more than claiming "officer safety" is sufficient to justify a Terry search for weapons. Forgive me for being rather skeptical as to your idea I am the one who is not operating in the "real world" between the two of us.

Now I have to simply sit there and take it if they decide to randomly search my home. How would I prove that their claim of "Hearing a noise" or "smelling weed" or anything else was false?

Isn't this a dilemma which is always present and preceded this decision? You are not presenting anything new as a result of this decision. Prior to this decision, how do we know law enforcement was telling the truth when they attested to smelling the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a residence, and a K-9 alerted on the residence, in their affidavit of probable cause for a search warrant? How do you demonstrate such claims as false? Such concerns are inherent with law enforcement activities and have long existed before this decision came into existence and not a result of it.

They cover up by trumping up some imaginary charge, write the report accordingly and keep the computer.

How exactly would I prove them guilty

Law enforcement had been engaging in activity of this sort long before this decision. You quite simply are deriding activities which preceded this decision but are not an effect of the decision.

[NotreDame05]

I'm a bit late to the party, and all I had heard about the ruling was from blurbs on the radio and, now, this thread. From the rhetoric here, I expected a paramilitary operation, no knock warrant justified by lies and the beating to death of a priest, his bed ridden grandmother, and a newborn puppy. Then the court, with moustaches a-twirling, rules that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in Indiana, and that people can't just get in the way, but they must allow the police to break at least one bone and anally rape their cat. That's the expectations I had from the rhetoric here.

And then, I actually read a bit of the opinion.

Suffice it to say that I'm not too worried that guys who want to stop the police from investigating a domestic abuse report with the woman begging him to let the police enter isn't allowed a jury instruction that says he can stop them.


I concur. From what I have heard on the radio, in the media, and among laypeople, you'd think the Indiana Supreme Court had abolished the 4th Amendment and the entire body of law developed over the centuries with it!

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

NotreDame05
Guest Join Date: Mar 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Peyote_Coyote
As a Hoosier, this is one bad ruling. Poor and working class people cannot afford lawyers' fees to recover any property seized in an illegal raid. I suspect the cops and the jackasses in this state's power structure know this and are perfectly happy with it.

Re the Newton County sheriff: That doesn't surprise me in the least. Newton County is the biggest goddamn speed trap in this state. I hope the poor people in that county can move elsewhere; else they'll find the sherrif is confiscating anything they have that is worth anything.

Well, if criminal charges are filed, and they cannot afford a lawyer, they will be provided with a public defender who can litigate those claims on their behalf. If no criminal charges are filed, an attorney is not needed to file a motion for return of property and an order for return of property.

Except if the public defender is like a lot of public defenders, they will give their client a minimum of effort and it will take quite a few months for their property to be returned. If motions for return of property are like about every other motion filed in Indiana courts, the litigants will have to pay for it. Not only that, but they will have to take time off from their jobs to go down to the courthouse

NotreDame05, I really wish that you, Bricker, and Hamlet could get the middle-class, college-educated blinders off your eyes. The law doesn't work for the poor the way it works for the middle class and the rich.

[Hamlet]

And if they'd just made the statement in your third paragraph, Hamlet, I don't think that'd be controversial. The problem is that, in contravention of many principles of good judicial writing, the three Justices decided to write: The Justices didn't need to make that statement to rule against Barnes. That's what's controversial about this case.I'm curious how you think these things should be handled. Do you think people should be allowed to use violence, including deadly violence, to protect their homes from their perception of illegal police entry? In the Barnes case, for example, do you think Barnes should have had the power to shoot one of the police officers for entering his home without permission to check on the domestic violence? As far as public policy goes, is that where you land on this issue? As I recall, we had much the same discussion years ago when states started making it illegal to use force to resist arrest. I don't think we've suffered greatly as a nation for that.

The opinion spends a good deal of time discussing the history, and rationale, for the common law rule, and finds that it really doesn't apply anymore. And I tend to agree. Outside of overheated rhetoric and, to my mind, chest thumping bravado, I don't see the upside in allowing somebody to use force, potentially deadly force, to stop the police from entering their home based on their own perception of the illegality of the search.

[BigT]

I'm curious how you think these things should be handled. Do you think people should be allowed to use violence, including deadly violence, to protect their homes from their perception of illegal police entry? In the Barnes case, for example, do you think Barnes should have had the power to shoot one of the police officers for entering his home without permission to check on the domestic violence? As far as public policy goes, is that where you land on this issue? As I recall, we had much the same discussion years ago when states started making it illegal to use force to resist arrest. I don't think we've suffered greatly as a nation for that.

The opinion spends a good deal of time discussing the history, and rationale, for the common law rule, and finds that it really doesn't apply anymore. And I tend to agree. Outside of overheated rhetoric and, to my mind, chest thumping bravado, I don't see the upside in allowing somebody to use force, potentially deadly force, to stop the police from entering their home based on their own perception of the illegality of the search.

The law says they can do it for anyone else. So why the hell is a policeman (who is breaking the law) now a protected class?

And everyone who keeps saying what has changed: Before the owner could assume the person was not a police officer and defend his home, and claim that he thought the officer wasn't an officer. Now he cannot.

This means that, in the real world, people are going to be less likely to defend themselves because they are worried the person might be a cop, and, if they are, they will get into trouble that they previously had a defense against.

It's a backdoor way to get rid of the castle doctrine. And to make a Bricker style argument because Bricker won't--the fact that you object to the castle doctrine should not in any way inform the propriety of this decision. You want to make it illegal to exercise the castle doctrine if the person happens to be a police officer not doing his duty, make a law for it.

The only reason I'm not upset is that I believe the conservative U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the worst part of this ruling, or at the very least limit it the way others are saying it is limited, even though the text disagrees. (Whatever happened to Bricker's textualism, I don't know.)

[Bricker]

Except if the public defender is like a lot of public defenders, they will give their client a minimum of effort and it will take quite a few months for their property to be returned. If motions for return of property are like about every other motion filed in Indiana courts, the litigants will have to pay for it. Not only that, but they will have to take time off from their jobs to go down to the courthouse

NotreDame05, I really wish that you, Bricker, and Hamlet could get the middle-class, college-educated blinders off your eyes. The law doesn't work for the poor the way it works for the middle class and the rich.

Which one of us in this conversation has actually been a public defender?

[Bricker]

The only reason I'm not upset is that I believe the conservative U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the worst part of this ruling, or at the very least limit it the way others are saying it is limited, even though the text disagrees. (Whatever happened to Bricker's textualism, I don't know.)

What text, specifically, are you talking about?

[Kiber]

First - a question: What constitutes resisting entry? I can understand virtually any physical contact would count. But what else? Locking a door and going to another room? Saying "No, you can't come in"? Sitting on the floor and refusing to open the door? Not restraining a dog? Leaving the door open, and not blocking the officer in any way, but saying "No - I want you to leave" the entire time? To me, that might make a big difference.

Pending input on the above, I guess I have 2 main concerns:

1. This law seems to increase the chance of victimizing those people already at greatest risk. I can't prove it, but it sure seems like this would most likely occur in higher crime areas - typically including high percentages of minorities and the poor. In general, I'd rather not increase (even in a very slight way) the chance of these people being further victimized by illegal activities (even if the police perpetrating these have the best of intentions).

2. Apparently, the only recourse to being victimized by the criminal justice system in this way, is to put your faith in that very same criminal justice system. I can certainly understand why many (most?) people might be uncomfortable with this. It essentially means that a resident of Indiana has to say "Go ahead Mr. P.O., do whatever you want. But when you're done, I'm calling the Cops!!!"

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

"We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."
That's a quote from the ruling, Hamlet. That means I cannot fill my doorway, my hand on my baseball bat, and tell a cop: "Get a warrant or I'm going to beat your ass." That means if Officer Friendly wants to fuck with me, she can seize my home computer which I use for business purposes and all the stuff I use can be accidentally deleted or my computer can be kept for months. "Oh, Mr. Peyote Coyote, we know you have been furloughed from your job for four months and have the joy of living on unemployment, but you can hire a lawyer to get your computer back. The Indiana legal system just loves poor people."

Re the Barnes case: If an officer received a call saying: "My husband just beat the shit our of me and I'm afraid he's coming back," or heard someone screaming from a house, sure I would say kick in the door. However, Mrs. Barnes explicitly told 911 he had not struck her. Furthermore, according to the court document, Barnes was leaving the scene and had time to talk to the police for some time. Why didn't the officers just say: "That's fine, sir. We'll just hang around outside the apartment doorway and make sure everything goes peacefully. Mrs. Barnes, don't throw things." Sorry, but I don't see the exigent circumstances the three lying idiots on the Indiana Supreme Court saw. The police had plenty of time to evaluate the situation; this wasn't a case where they had a split-second to decide whether to fire or die. Also, Mrs. Barnes did not give them permission to enter the apartment and no one was in obvious danger of life and limb. Mr. Barnes also never made an effort to use firearms; he merely blocked the doorway -- that is from the officers' own testimony. Frankly, this tends to confirm the rumors I've heard that Evansville police are a bunch of hot-headed botchers. There is no question that the three justices who ruled in favor of this are incompetent, lying swine. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down this mendacious ruling, and I hope we Hoosiers get off our dead arses to get rid of the Three Lying Pigs.

I agree with BigT: This is just a way to get rid of the castle doctrine. I will go further and add that rulings like this are moving the U.S. closer to fascism

[Hamlet]

2. Apparently, the only recourse to being victimized by the criminal justice system in this way, is to put your faith in that very same criminal justice system. I can certainly understand why many (most?) people might be uncomfortable with this. It essentially means that a resident of Indiana has to say "Go ahead Mr. P.O., do whatever you want. But when you're done, I'm calling the Cops!!!"The recourse is most likely to the civil side of the system than the criminal side. The police illegally enter your house, you get to sue them. To me, the "you get to sue them" is a much better resolution than "you get to exact violence upon them". And while there are certainly cases of police officers acting with deliberate malice toward the 4th Amendment, I think a vast majority of cases are like the ones in Barnes, where the police were investigating a crime and may have exceeded their authority in a minor way.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Peyote_Coyote
Except if the public defender is like a lot of public defenders, they will give their client a minimum of effort and it will take quite a few months for their property to be returned. If motions for return of property are like about every other motion filed in Indiana courts, the litigants will have to pay for it. Not only that, but they will have to take time off from their jobs to go down to the courthouse
NotreDame05, I really wish that you, Bricker, and Hamlet could get the middle-class, college-educated blinders off your eyes. The law doesn't work for the poor the way it works for the middle class and the rich.

Which one of us in this conversation has actually been a public defender?

Why don't you address the issues raised, Bricker?

[Kiber]

The recourse is most likely to the civil side of the system than the criminal side. The police illegally enter your house, you get to sue them. To me, the "you get to sue them" is a much better resolution than "you get to exact violence upon them". And while there are certainly cases of police officers acting with deliberate malice toward the 4th Amendment, I think a vast majority of cases are like the ones in Barnes, where the police were investigating a crime and may have exceeded their authority in a minor way.

Surely there is an excluded middle there somewhere, right? I'd like to think the only 2 options aren't 1) shoot to kill and ask questions later, or 2) let anyone and everyone into your house, and hope to win in a civil court action.

But that gets to my initial question. Is "exacting violence against them" what is meant by resisting illegal entry? I can imagine lots of other ways a police officer might interpret someone as resisting entry that don't include threats or use of physical violence.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

The recourse is most likely to the civil side of the system than the criminal side. The police illegally enter your house, you get to sue them. To me, the "you get to sue them" is a much better resolution than "you get to exact violence upon them".

Oh, yes, Hamlet, it's going to be so much better for those who don't qualify for legal assistance, but still don't have as much money as the average lawyer. We get to enjoy those hours of finding an attorney who will take our case, preferably on spec. We get to hope our jury doesn't contain a bunch of idiot dittoheads who think the police wouldn't bother anyone unless they are guilty. We get to hope the judge is reasonably fair. We get to wait for months or years and hope our property is still intact. We have to take time off work. We get to have our names besmirched by some shyster in court.

Personally, I'm like John Lennon. "When it comes to violence, you can count me in." Shooting a cop breaking the law would send a clear message to all police officers, lawyers, and judges:
Keep it legal or pay the price. If you swine cannot do things by the book, find another line of work.

[Bricker]

Why don't you address the issues raised, Bricker?

Already did. This decision settled the question of whether legal police actions can create exigent circumstances. No problem there.

In dicta, the decision also addressed the issue of wther Indiana recognizes the common-law right to resist an illegal arrest. Like the majority of states, they do not.

Those are the issues, and they have already been addressed.

[Chronos]

Quoth Cheesesteak:This is because you're a reasonable person who trusts the police and doesn't have a stash of cocaine under his bed. The police have to deal with people who don't trust the police and know they have something incriminating for the police to find. They would be emboldened to claim that there is fraud, or that the warrant is improper, or any other reason to suggest that the police are not legally allowed entrance.OK, if the cops show their badge and their warrant and the occupant still doesn't let them in, now they've done their part to play nice, and can commence to the door-kicking. But you've got to start by trying to do things in a civilized way.

[Acid Lamp]

My thought was that being able to resist them would undoubtedly bring more officers to the scene, which would ensure that the rules are followed. A lone cop, or pair out to make trouble might think twice about invading people's homes if they are going to get shot and there's nothing they can do about it legally speaking.

[sqweels]

Bottom line: You can sue 'em but you can't shoot 'em.