OK. Let’s say the decision went the other way.
NOW how would you prove them guilty?
And if they’d just made the statement in your third paragraph, Hamlet, I don’t think that’d be controversial. The problem is that, in contravention of many principles of good judicial writing, the three Justices decided to write:
The Justices didn’t need to make that statement to rule against Barnes. That’s what’s controversial about this case.
This recourse you refer to existed before this decision?
In the “real world,” I thought I was living in the “real world” but suppose I am actually a visitor from Krypton venturing an opinion before an audience of Kryptonians, but I digress, the “recourse” you refer to did not exist before this opinion. So, what do you think has actually changed?
If only it were this simple, then you’d have a fantastic point. However, merely claiming “exigent circumstances” is never enough to justify a warrantless entry and search of a home, any more than claiming “officer safety” is sufficient to justify a Terry search for weapons. Forgive me for being rather skeptical as to your idea I am the one who is not operating in the “real world” between the two of us.
Isn’t this a dilemma which is always present and preceded this decision? You are not presenting anything new as a result of this decision. Prior to this decision, how do we know law enforcement was telling the truth when they attested to smelling the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a residence, and a K-9 alerted on the residence, in their affidavit of probable cause for a search warrant? How do you demonstrate such claims as false? Such concerns are inherent with law enforcement activities and have long existed before this decision came into existence and not a result of it.
Law enforcement had been engaging in activity of this sort long before this decision. You quite simply are deriding activities which preceded this decision but are not an effect of the decision.
I concur. From what I have heard on the radio, in the media, and among laypeople, you’d think the Indiana Supreme Court had abolished the 4th Amendment and the entire body of law developed over the centuries with it!
Except if the public defender is like a lot of public defenders, they will give their client a minimum of effort and it will take quite a few months for their property to be returned. If motions for return of property are like about every other motion filed in Indiana courts, the litigants will have to pay for it. Not only that, but they will have to take time off from their jobs to go down to the courthouse
NotreDame05, I really wish that you, Bricker, and Hamlet could get the middle-class, college-educated blinders off your eyes. The law doesn’t work for the poor the way it works for the middle class and the rich.
I’m curious how you think these things should be handled. Do you think people should be allowed to use violence, including deadly violence, to protect their homes from their perception of illegal police entry? In the Barnes case, for example, do you think Barnes should have had the power to shoot one of the police officers for entering his home without permission to check on the domestic violence? As far as public policy goes, is that where you land on this issue? As I recall, we had much the same discussion years ago when states started making it illegal to use force to resist arrest. I don’t think we’ve suffered greatly as a nation for that.
The opinion spends a good deal of time discussing the history, and rationale, for the common law rule, and finds that it really doesn’t apply anymore. And I tend to agree. Outside of overheated rhetoric and, to my mind, chest thumping bravado, I don’t see the upside in allowing somebody to use force, potentially deadly force, to stop the police from entering their home based on their own perception of the illegality of the search.
The law says they can do it for anyone else. So why the hell is a policeman (who is breaking the law) now a protected class?
And everyone who keeps saying what has changed: Before the owner could assume the person was not a police officer and defend his home, and claim that he thought the officer wasn’t an officer. Now he cannot.
This means that, in the real world, people are going to be less likely to defend themselves because they are worried the person might be a cop, and, if they are, they will get into trouble that they previously had a defense against.
It’s a backdoor way to get rid of the castle doctrine. And to make a Bricker style argument because Bricker won’t–the fact that you object to the castle doctrine should not in any way inform the propriety of this decision. You want to make it illegal to exercise the castle doctrine if the person happens to be a police officer not doing his duty, make a law for it.
The only reason I’m not upset is that I believe the conservative U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the worst part of this ruling, or at the very least limit it the way others are saying it is limited, even though the text disagrees. (Whatever happened to Bricker’s textualism, I don’t know.)
Which one of us in this conversation has actually been a public defender?
What text, specifically, are you talking about?
First - a question: What constitutes resisting entry? I can understand virtually any physical contact would count. But what else? Locking a door and going to another room? Saying “No, you can’t come in”? Sitting on the floor and refusing to open the door? Not restraining a dog? Leaving the door open, and not blocking the officer in any way, but saying “No - I want you to leave” the entire time? To me, that might make a big difference.
Pending input on the above, I guess I have 2 main concerns:
-
This law seems to increase the chance of victimizing those people already at greatest risk. I can’t prove it, but it sure seems like this would most likely occur in higher crime areas - typically including high percentages of minorities and the poor. In general, I’d rather not increase (even in a very slight way) the chance of these people being further victimized by illegal activities (even if the police perpetrating these have the best of intentions).
-
Apparently, the only recourse to being victimized by the criminal justice system in this way, is to put your faith in that very same criminal justice system. I can certainly understand why many (most?) people might be uncomfortable with this. It essentially means that a resident of Indiana has to say “Go ahead Mr. P.O., do whatever you want. But when you’re done, I’m calling the Cops!!!”
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
That’s a quote from the ruling, Hamlet. That means I cannot fill my doorway, my hand on my baseball bat, and tell a cop: “Get a warrant or I’m going to beat your ass.” That means if Officer Friendly wants to fuck with me, she can seize my home computer which I use for business purposes and all the stuff I use can be accidentally deleted or my computer can be kept for months. “Oh, Mr. Peyote Coyote, we know you have been furloughed from your job for four months and have the joy of living on unemployment, but you can hire a lawyer to get your computer back. The Indiana legal system just loves poor people.”
Re the Barnes case: If an officer received a call saying: "My husband just beat the shit our of me and I'm afraid he's coming back," or heard someone screaming from a house, sure I would say kick in the door. However, Mrs. Barnes *explicitly * told 911 he had not struck her. Furthermore, according to the court document, Barnes was leaving the scene and had time to talk to the police for some time. Why didn't the officers just say: "That's fine, sir. We'll just hang around outside the apartment doorway and make sure everything goes peacefully. Mrs. Barnes, don't throw things." Sorry, but I don't see the exigent circumstances the three lying idiots on the Indiana Supreme Court saw. The police had plenty of time to evaluate the situation; this wasn't a case where they had a split-second to decide whether to fire or die. Also, Mrs. Barnes did not give them permission to enter the apartment and no one was in obvious danger of life and limb. Mr. Barnes also never made an effort to use firearms; he merely blocked the doorway -- that is from the officers' own testimony. Frankly, this tends to confirm the rumors I've heard that Evansville police are a bunch of hot-headed botchers. There is no question that the three justices who ruled in favor of this are incompetent, lying swine. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down this mendacious ruling, and I hope we Hoosiers get off our dead arses to get rid of the Three Lying Pigs.
I agree with BigT: This is just a way to get rid of the castle doctrine. I will go further and add that rulings like this are moving the U.S. closer to fascism
The recourse is most likely to the civil side of the system than the criminal side. The police illegally enter your house, you get to sue them. To me, the “you get to sue them” is a much better resolution than “you get to exact violence upon them”. And while there are certainly cases of police officers acting with deliberate malice toward the 4th Amendment, I think a vast majority of cases are like the ones in Barnes, where the police were investigating a crime and may have exceeded their authority in a minor way.
Why don’t you address the issues raised, Bricker?
Surely there is an excluded middle there somewhere, right? I’d like to think the only 2 options aren’t 1) shoot to kill and ask questions later, or 2) let anyone and everyone into your house, and hope to win in a civil court action.
But that gets to my initial question. Is “exacting violence against them” what is meant by resisting illegal entry? I can imagine lots of other ways a police officer might interpret someone as resisting entry that don’t include threats or use of physical violence.
Oh, yes, Hamlet, it’s going to be so much better for those who don’t qualify for legal assistance, but still don’t have as much money as the average lawyer. We get to enjoy those hours of finding an attorney who will take our case, preferably on spec. We get to hope our jury doesn’t contain a bunch of idiot dittoheads who think the police wouldn’t bother anyone unless they are guilty. We get to hope the judge is reasonably fair. We get to wait for months or years and hope our property is still intact. We have to take time off work. We get to have our names besmirched by some shyster in court.
Personally, I’m like John Lennon. “When it comes to violence, you can count me in.” Shooting a cop breaking the law would send a clear message to all police officers, lawyers, and judges:
Keep it legal or pay the price. If you swine cannot do things by the book, find another line of work.
Already did. This decision settled the question of whether legal police actions can create exigent circumstances. No problem there.
In dicta, the decision also addressed the issue of wther Indiana recognizes the common-law right to resist an illegal arrest. Like the majority of states, they do not.
Those are the issues, and they have already been addressed.
Quoth Cheesesteak:
OK, if the cops show their badge and their warrant and the occupant still doesn’t let them in, now they’ve done their part to play nice, and can commence to the door-kicking. But you’ve got to start by trying to do things in a civilized way.
My thought was that being able to resist them would undoubtedly bring more officers to the scene, which would ensure that the rules are followed. A lone cop, or pair out to make trouble might think twice about invading people’s homes if they are going to get shot and there’s nothing they can do about it legally speaking.
Bottom line: You can sue 'em but you can’t shoot 'em.