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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?