# Indiana Supreme Court rules no right to block illegal police entry into home **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802 "2011-05-13T17:31:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/41 "2011-05-14T00:50:54Z")
> [@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? > > 1. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/42 "2011-05-14T00:55:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/43 "2011-05-14T01:07:26Z")
> [@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. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/44 "2011-05-14T01:20:34Z")
Sure, it can’t be used as evidence in court. Good luck getting it back from the police. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/45 "2011-05-14T01:24:10Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/46 "2011-05-14T02:07:13Z")
> [@Tom Tildrum](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/47 "2011-05-14T03:29:52Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/48 "2011-05-14T03:38:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/49 "2011-05-14T03:38:56Z")
No way this can stand. The people of Indiana need to clear house on their State Supreme Court and start over. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/50 "2011-05-14T04:11:43Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 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. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/51 "2011-05-14T04:52:35Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/52 "2011-05-14T05:24:59Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/53 "2011-05-14T12:47:10Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/54 "2011-05-14T13:38:36Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/55 "2011-05-14T13:56:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/56 "2011-05-14T14:31:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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 . . .\*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/57 "2011-05-14T14:55:44Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > 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](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… > **[San Diego Union-Tribune](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/)** > > San Diego, California and National News Hide yo children, hide yo wives. Yeah, it happens. Frequently enough that we hear about it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/58 "2011-05-14T15:09:57Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/59 "2011-05-14T15:24:37Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/60 "2011-05-14T15:29:15Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802.md?page=4)