The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 13, 2011, 03:05 PM   #1
Timeframe
Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 64
no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html
Timeframe is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 03:07 PM   #2
chasep255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 727
At least then any evidence obtained can not be used to convict.
chasep255 is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 03:13 PM   #3
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
I'm sure it's based on the idea it is better to resolve the matter in a court than to authorize physical force to stop a police officer who may be entering a house in a good faith, but unlawful manner. For example, (1) wrong address on a search warrant, (2) hearing screams from inside (it's the TV), (3) thinking someone answering the door might be going for a gun when, with 20-20 hindsight, they are not, (4) chasing a drug suspect in hot pursuit who enters one of two apartments in a breezeway and the officer picks the one where he smells marijuana burning (wrong choice). All of these are illegal entries but we don't want to declare open season on police officers. BTW, the last two examples are real.
KyJim is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 04:15 PM   #4
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
This is soooo wrong,,,

I do not care what the decision is based on,,,
Dissolving a constitutional right for the sake of expediency is wrong,,,
Now the citizens of Indiana are living in a state where their police will say.

Screw the constitution, I'm going in,,,
Let him try and sue me for it.

This is a police state ruling.

Whatever happened to the concept of a police officer doing his job properly,,,
Or not at all?

I hope the ensuing lawsuits bankrupt the state!

aarond
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat.
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 04:25 PM   #5
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
Let's not forget this little tidbit:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

USCA CONST Amend. IV
I find the decision disturbing on several levels, but since the article doesn't provide the actual decision, it's hard to say if it will stand up to federal constitutional scrutiny.

Edited to add: Drat! There is a link to download the decision & I just overlooked it!
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 04:35 PM   #6
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarondgraham
I do not care what the decision is based on,,,
Dissolving a constitutional right for the sake of expediency is wrong,,,
Now the citizens of Indiana are living in a state where their police will say.
I agree.

Do y'all realize that the RiGHT to resist unlawful police action dates to the Magna Carta? That's right -- to the year 1215. This court has decided to toss just shy of 800 years of legal precedent into the ash can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magna Carta
(39) 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.
In other words, beginning in 1215 the "authorities" were not allowed to enter the home of any free man without a warrant. The U.S. Bill of Rights merely repeats this ancient injunction against warrantless (that is, illegal) search and seizure. I suspect the court's ruling will be appealed, I HOPE it will be appealed, and I hope it will be reversed -- because this ruling is in direct opposition to the Constitution and concept of allowing police freedom to ignore Constitutional constraints is truly frightening.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 05:09 PM   #7
lawnboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
It's a State court. State courts do stupid things all the time. Federal court will whack this out of the park.

This'll be one of those rare times when the ACLU AND the NRA will be sharing a table in the courtroom.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum

"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields
lawnboy is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 05:28 PM   #8
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
The 4th amendment is mostly moribund. The American people either sat placidly or cheered its demise. We traded a little bit of freedom for the promise of greater security.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 06:58 PM   #9
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
Wow Indiana is making New Jersey look good, didn't think that was possible.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 07:11 PM   #10
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Just as my usual caution - this is an interesting L and CR issue. Don't cop bash with insults so that we have to close it. Anybody want to place bets?

As far as the case itself - it wasn't mistaken identity but the husband said there was no need to enter after the couple went inside after a domestic argument outside the apartment. Given what we know about domestic violence, did the law not act to protect a wife that might be intimidated?

I throw that out as a rationale for the police action. I'd like to see more of the argument for the entry. You don't need a warrant for an on-going incident.

Sorry to be a contrarian but I don't like to make judgments on a news report alone.

The question of resisting a clearly mistaken break-in seems different. Without searching, the police have gotten in deep trouble for those, paid damages and had charges against them. The resisting homeowner got off in a case?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 07:41 PM   #11
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
After skimming over the actual decision (there's a PDF link in the article) I, like Glenn, am hesitant to start wringing my hands over this. The Indiana Supreme Court did not give officers the right to enter without a warrant or probable cause and doing so will still result in inadmissibility of evidence and possible repercussions for both the offending officer and his department. What this decision states is, basically, that an individual cannot use the belief of an illegal entry as a defense for assaulting an LEO.

Honestly, resisting law enforcement, whether you believe their entry is legal or not, seems like a rather foolhardy exercise to me anyway. If I thought I were the victim of an illegal entry, I would verbally protest it (i.e. make it crystal clear that the officers did not have permission to enter my home) but I would not attempt to physically resist because that seems like a good way to get tackled, tased, pepper sprayed, or shot to me. All I can tell that the Indiana Supreme Court is saying is to let the court system vindicate you in case of an illegal entry and I can't say that I entirely disagree with that.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 08:29 PM   #12
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
Quote:
It's a State court. State courts do stupid things all the time. Federal court will whack this out of the park.
+1. This won't hold up in a higher court.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 08:56 PM   #13
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
The court's reasoning is the legal system now provides redress in these cases that it once did not. Hence, one no longer needs the right to fend off illegal seizure by the police.

That is similar to the argument made by those opposed to gun possession by The People. The modern day police are readily available, consequently the means and the ability for self defense are unnecessary. The cops will have it all under control in a jiffy.

That anti-gun argument has already failed in Heller, and lawnboy is correct, SCOTUS will reverse this POS state court decision.

Good rundown at this legal blog:
http://volokh.com/2011/05/13/no-righ...e-court-holds/
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:01 PM   #14
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Those were the days.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:24 PM   #15
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
What this decision states is, basically, that an individual cannot use the belief of an illegal entry as a defense for assaulting an LEO.
IF the decision were limited in scope to following a couple who were actively engaged in a domestic dispute from outdoors to indoors, I could possibly even go along with it. But this is a blanket ruling. As written, it covers not only the domestic dispute case that triggered the decision, but also cases like a SWAT team smashing down the door at an incorrect address at oh-dark-thirty.

And that's a VERY different situation. If I am NOT a law breaker, NOT a terrorist, and I go to bed secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing wrong, why would I have ANY reason whatsoever to believe that people smashing down my front door and yelling "Police!" are really police? Whether they have a warrant for a different address, or a warrant for a different person who used to live at my address months or even years ago, or a warrant obtained through falsification of evidence -- their entry into my home is unlawful. Bad enough -- but what if they AREN'T police? If I am not allowed to resist an unlawful entry because the entrants may be police -- that can get me killed.

From a police perspective that might be justified in the holy name of "officer safety" but, from my perspective, that would be a very bad thing. IMHO, if police officers don't wish to get shot while breaking down doors, they should refrain from breaking down doors.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:25 PM   #16
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
In the article the judge is quoted as saying "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" and that the police are entitled to enter for "no reason at all".

I thought part of the logic for deciding whether a law was unconstitutional or not was the intent of the original writers. I think the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights is pretty clear of why they did what they did and put it in the Constitution.

I can understand the logic of the judge not wanting anybody to get hurt.

What I cant understand is the why the judge wants to set up folks for any abuse which will happen if he says the police officer does not need any reason to enter a persons home.

If the judge had ruled that the officer had a reasonable belief that the wife was in danger and he decided to enter the apartment I wouldn't argue with that and try to second guess the officer.

This judicial logic just seems to be a bad thing waiting to happen. It is a very small group of people that cause problems. I have faith and trust in the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

However, stuff like the ATF Debacle and other incidents have proved that it is good to have standards that you have to meet. In my opinion the judges just threw out the bath water with the baby in it.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 11:39 PM   #17
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Quote:
If I am NOT a law breaker, NOT a terrorist, and I go to bed secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing wrong, why would I have ANY reason whatsoever to believe that people smashing down my front door and yelling "Police!" are really police? Whether they have a warrant for a different address, or a warrant for a different person who used to live at my address months or even years ago, or a warrant obtained through falsification of evidence -- their entry into my home is unlawful. Bad enough -- but what if they AREN'T police? If I am not allowed to resist an unlawful entry because the entrants may be police -- that can get me killed.
Shooting at a SWAT team, whether they're at the correct address or not, is also a good way to get yourself killed. Look, regardless of what the IN Supreme Court ruled, if you physically assault a cop, regardless of the reason, bad things are probably going to happen. This ruling isn't going to cause or stop cops from kicking in the wrong doors, it happened before and it will probably happen again.

Honestly, I think we both know that the type of situation you are describing is extremely unlikely anyway. Lone cops don't go kicking in doors and I've yet to hear of a street gang that could convincingly impersonate a SWAT team since the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The court cited in its decision that its rationale was that resisting an arrest unnecessarily increases the risk of injury or death to all involved. I think that if you could demonstrate that you had reasonable belief that those attempting to arrest you were not LEO's, you would probably still be able to mount a fairly strong legal defense.

I'm not saying that I completely agree or disagree with the decision yet because, honestly, I haven't entirely made up my mind. All I'm saying here is that I don't think this is the end of the Fourth Amendment that some are making it out to be.

Originally Posted by Eghad
Quote:
In the article the judge is quoted as saying "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" and that the police are entitled to enter for "no reason at all".
While I've not thoroughly read the dissenting opinions yet, I found no such assertion in the majority opinion. Specifically, the following was stated:

Quote:
Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (―Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.‖). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984).
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...7c31bf.pdf.pdf

(Note to the Mods, since this document is public record I don't think quoting it should run afoul of copyright. If, however, you feel that it does please edit or delete my post as you deem necessary).
Webleymkv is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 12:19 AM   #18
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Rest assured, quoting ANY public record is not an infringement.

The problem with this opinion is exactly the problem the two dissenting Justices opined upon. It is not narrow, to the case at hand. It is overly broad and gives any and all discretion to the police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opinion
We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.
Now look at the reasoning:

Quote:
Originally Posted by opinion
Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right. Accordingly, the trial court‘s refusal to give Barnes‘s tendered instruction was not error.
Public policy now determines the contours of your 4th amendment rights? Do you remember what the Heller Court said about that? Something about enumerated rights take certain policy options off the table, wasn't it?

Regardless, this is just one more Court, cutting a slice out of the patient who has been on life-support for many years now. sigh.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 01:23 AM   #19
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
The groundwork for this ruling is various state-level laws and/or rulings that say you cannot resist a false arrest. All you can do is meekly turn around, cross your wrists and hope the courts get it right.

The main defense against false arrest is hidden cameras, the tech for which is getting better all the time. Right now this is state of the art:

http://looxcie.com

We don't really have the cellular network bandwidth to live-stream the results to a server somewhere. We almost do, and possibly do with the best 4G networks. There's a way to do unattended delayed-stream though right now - in other words, as long as the hardware stays intact, it will keep uploading. You have the Looxcie dump it's data to an Android smartphone, which is uploaded via Dropbox. It can't upload as fast as it can record but it CAN keep uploading from within police evidence bags . And the phone will keep uploading even once the camera goes off or goes battery-dry. (The camera and smartphone communicate over Bluetooth.)

Now...we've got one state (Illinois) where recording police is specifically banned (and the ban happened after some police misconduct got caught on camera!). We've got a couple other states where law enforcement seems to think this is illegal but it's not, and we've got one recent case where cops beat up a cameraman, took the camera and threw it away, and charged the cameraman with assault on law enforcement...showing the need for covert and streaming cameras. See also:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/orlando...ears-in-prison

The guy that runs that site has videotaped police misconduct and been charged with "wiretapping" in Florida, beating a criminal conviction at the appellate level without a lawyer. His site is pretty much the top place to track camera-on-cops issues.

And trust me, that will be an issue for us! Look at what the Looxcie can do now: record up to five hours of video on the internal memory, and then start rolling it over keeping the last continuous five hours. And it has more battery power than that. A camera like that either on-body or possibly on-gun IS going to turn up in a criminal defense case involving a shooting.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 06:47 AM   #20
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
Although I dont like the logic, I understand the reasonng. The similar law as written in NYS is to protect the citizen. Acting under the assumption that the police have overwhelming firepower, If a Citizen resist an unlawfull arrest he may justify the police use of this firepower. Even if the arrest was mistaken, or unjustified under law, the subsiquent use of police force would be justified.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 07:25 AM   #21
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Al said it best.

The ruling opens the door too wide and could lead to potential abuse.

A standard is there for a reason.

Public policy is a changing standard.

Probable cause is a defined standard.

There is a reason that our founding fathers did not favor a full democracy and chose a republic form of government. They realized the potential for misuse and abuse over a period of time.

Just because I feel that I have the right to resist an unlawful act by an officer of the law does not mean I should and set myself up for potential abuse. There is is plenty of time after the act to seek legal and other remedies. The founding fathers also wanted you to be responsible and use common snesne when excercising your rights as they are not absolute in some cases.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 08:32 AM   #22
smoakingun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2009
Location: melrose, fl
Posts: 634
so it is "unlawful" to resist wrongful arrest, now, in indiana anyway, it is "unlawful" to resist unlawful entry. Instead we are expected to take the abuse of our liberty and fight it out in court? When we are found not guilty of what we are acused of, or it is proven that the officer was wrong, who pays for our defense, our aggravation, or time lost to our defense and unlawful incarseration? Maybe it is time we begin standing up for ourselves? Our founders did. They sacraficed thier lives and fortunes so that we would be free, so that we would have the right to be secure in our persons and property. How much more liberty are we willing to sacrafice in the name of security?
__________________
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
smoakingun is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 08:38 AM   #23
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Honestly, I think we both know that the type of situation you are describing is extremely unlikely anyway. Lone cops don't go kicking in doors and I've yet to hear of a street gang that could convincingly impersonate a SWAT team since the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
No, we DON'T both know that this type of situation is unlikely. The CATO Institute has a huge database of police warrants served illegally, and the news at least every week reports somewhere in the U.S. a home invasion by thugs claiming to be police. Maybe not SWAT, but "police."

"Convincingly" has nothing to do with it when they are outside pounding on the door and I'm inside in my pajamas trying to get my wife and kid out of what might be the line of fire within seconds.

As for lone cops kicking in doors -- just last week there was an incident reported on this forum of an OFF DUTY cop who followed a man into the man's own home and shot him in front of the guy's fiancee and her child -- then walked back across the street without even calling for medical assistance.

If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all too often, and certainly often enough to make it unwise to assume that anyone outside hollering "Police!" is really police, you either live in a very small town or you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the real world.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; May 14, 2011 at 09:19 PM. Reason: Typo
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 09:11 AM   #24
chadstrickland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
Whoa man..just read the whole thread and there is some scary strings attached to that law...as people have already said it is easy to abuse..but how many times have y'all gotten ****** off because some rapist or murderer was set free because the overwhelming evidence they had on the perps was obtained illegally....that drives me nuts..however..I have yet to see a sinlge cop or a couple of cops do hard knocks on people ( I am no expert and they may have..and hard knock is like kicking doors in or snatching them off )....but if im setting in my living room reading a book and next thing I know my door is being beat down with a battering ram and some dude with a shield and 5 of his buddies is behind him shouting at me and maybe even throw me on the grown and have a squashing contest..I would be a little shocked..and idk about mad.im a mellow person..but if it turned out that I wasnted the country king pin and they had the wrong adress..I would certainly expect to have my stuff fixed..and fixed right..a new pair of underwear..and my couch cleaned...I wouldn't sue them...but alot of people do..which is bs..people make mistakes...but if 2 cops was outside my house..with no flashy cars going open up its the police..then ima probably call the cops and then do a quick investigation to determine if they drove up in a honda civic or squad car..I do not agree with the law..but understand its place..however laws like that is the reason this country is about to go in the toilet
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..
chadstrickland is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 09:16 AM   #25
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
I think the point is... In resisting an unlawfull arrest, or a warrant may result in your physical injury or death. It is very difficult for the courts to make a dead person whole again. In the case of an illegal arrest or incursion by the police can be taken to court and the victim can be made whole with a monitary settlement.

I know it's difficult to digest... but these laws are to protect the public. Not the police.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.32408 seconds with 8 queries