Report here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
That was my reaction. I’d like to see a cite that this overturns a precedent going back to the Magna Carta.
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.
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.
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: