Don’t open the door, and when they bust through, you bust a cap in dat ass
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.
The cops can already enter without knocking.
The 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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”.
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.
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.
- 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?
- 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?
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.
If they have probable cause to think a crime is occurring they are already allowed to enter without warrant or warning.
Yes, because they are in pursuit of a criminal who just forced entry into a building, so a crime is in progress.
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.”
I’ll take the opportunity to reference t he “They’re rapin’ EVERYBODY up here” meme now, then.