Indiana: Your home is no longer your castle

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that a homeowner has no right to resist an unlawful entry to their home by police. The court stated that the homeowner should not resist and if they feel that there has been an injury they should pursue legal remedies afterward.

So if the cops try to get into your home and you resist they can take whatever means possible to overcome your resistance -- up to and including killing you -- and if they have erred or have the wrong address "Oh, well! Sorry about that." In the meantime, you are sitting in jail for resisting, or you are dead, until they figure out they were wrong -- something you already knew from the outset.

SOURCE

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

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.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

Copyright 2011 nwitimes.com. All rights reserved.
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Mom, was my dad a bad guy?" four-year-old Joel Guerena plaintively asked his mother Vanessa after her husband, 26-year-old Jose, was killed in a withering barrage of gunfire during a SWAT invasion of their home. "They killed my dad! Police killed my dad! Why? What did my dad do?"

[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
4dce1b91954f6image.jpg
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] 71 rounds fired.[/FONT]
 
*reports minx apartment to the Seattle PD as being the central hub for an interstate TeaParty underground courier system* ;)
 
We can watch the cops tear down doors, it seems

"CROWN POINT, Ind. – 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."

lol constitution
 
He will be like the original 97% who sat back & bitched that the King sucked but did nothing else.
 
Yeah, illegal entry sucks. All that walking and hiding, we should just have trollies every 20minutes and no border patrol whatsoever. -- After all they're just real swell folks helping out our economy doing the jobs Americans wont.

If there wasn't a border it would be even better right?
 
A pattern has emerged...

Obama refuses to protect our borders from a people that have a corrupt & questionable government & he is now demanding the Israeli's move theirs to an undefendable position while propping up a terrorist group "government" with a people who have never had a government.
 
Back
Top