# 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:** 4
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/61 "2011-05-14T15:42:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/62 "2011-05-14T16:15:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/63 "2011-05-14T16:44:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/64 "2011-05-14T16:54:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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) > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/65 "2011-05-14T17:21:36Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/66 "2011-05-14T17:23:32Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/67 "2011-05-14T17:29:48Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Soliloquy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@Soliloquy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soliloquy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/68 "2011-05-14T17:40:51Z")
> [@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. Cops aren’t allowed to refuse to show ID. However, as someone else said, warrantless entries into homes are quite commonplace. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/69 "2011-05-14T17:41:00Z")
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. ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/70 "2011-05-14T18:05:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/71 "2011-05-14T18:27:49Z")
I’m more concerned about Indiana banning cell phone usage in a car. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/72 "2011-05-14T18:52:55Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/73 "2011-05-14T19:20:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**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 15, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/74 "2011-05-15T02:22:36Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/75 "2011-05-15T11:53:58Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/76 "2011-05-15T13:11:19Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/77 "2011-05-18T18:02:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/78 "2011-05-18T18:23:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/79 "2011-05-18T18:38:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802/80 "2011-05-18T18:54:07Z")
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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-supreme-court-rules-no-right-to-block-illegal-police-entry-into-home/581802.md?page=5)