Indiana Supreme Court rules Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful entry of their homes by police

posted at 10:03 am on May 14, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

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.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

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. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

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.”

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong – in Indiana

“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.

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the  Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

And check out this “analysis”:

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.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

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.”

I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:

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.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14

Now, there are some who might say that children should not take guns to school, but they are Tories who obviously hate our children and the constitution.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Delicious insanity!

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:56 PM

You should remember you already agreed with the point I was making here, that this ruling makes it criminal for citizens to defend themselves against tyranny & that when a citizen does do, they should be judged by a jury of their peers whether their actions were justified or not.
The ruling is unnecessary.
You are devolving into insanity here.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Just pointing out your double standard. I know that most all teachers are good people that do good things and should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is good reason to believe otherwise.

Am I foolish to think that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:56 PM

We’ve had all sorts of assertions in this thread on how oppressive police will come in guns blazing and plant evidence on you as a routine procedure.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Who has said that police do this as a routine procedure? Back it up with evidence or else you are just making sh*t up. And remember, the operative phrase here is “as a routine procedure”.

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Just pointing out your double standard. I know that most all teachers are good people that do good things and should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is good reason to believe otherwise.

Am I foolish to think that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I’ve posited no double standard here about agents of the state.
I’ve not indicated that most cops are bad, or even an unhealthy number are bad.
I’ve not said I’m living in fear of cops or other agents of the state chomping at the bit to barge in on me in my home & shoot me up.
You said you agreed with me that a person should be able to defend themselves & be judged by their peers.
The state sets a dangerous precedent when they make self defense a criminal act.
Your tirade does nothing but show how nuts you are acting.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Who has said that police do this as a routine procedure? Back it up with evidence or else you are just making sh*t up. And remember, the operative phrase here is “as a routine procedure”.

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Of course no one did. I’ve followed this thread carefully & unless I missed it, no one here is saying that all or most agents of the state are out to get us.
But why use logic here.
Let’s just go ahead & assume ALL agents of all governments are out to do right by you & give over all your freedoms.
Bcs this is the America of 2011.
And bad things don’t really happen anymore, or at least hardly ever.
There will never be another time in history, in America, where tyranny will ever rein again.
So the abolition of the right to self defense against tyranny is not necessary anymore.
Bcs we are civilized & have the courts.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Who has said that police do this as a routine procedure? Back it up with evidence or else you are just making sh*t up. And remember, the operative phrase here is “as a routine procedure”.

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 6:59 PM

I won’t deny I have probably come the closest to asserting the point you bring up in your question. After all, I have already said on page 13 I will NEVER trust a cop. I have absolutely NO reason to, and decisions like this give me more justification to NEVER trust a cop.

Still, I’ll even concede most cops probably wouldn’t resort to such dirty pool. But, despite my concession, I’d rather not leave my freedom, liberty, and God given rights to chance.

The proper way to keep government honest is to NEVER stand idly by when they stomp upon your God given rights. There has NEVER been a government that existed in history that never tried to do so. Including our own.

I won’t fear, but I won’t trust. I WILL, however, ALWAYS stand up for what belongs to my family and myself.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 7:12 PM

I won’t fear, but I won’t trust. I WILL, however, ALWAYS stand up for what belongs to my family and myself.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 7:12 PM

And people like GM will paint you & I & others who feel this way as crazy gun totin’ rednecks who want to kill kids & cops blah blah blah.
GM knows what we are talking about here.
He/she is just choosing to bring up irrelevant crap to dodge the point. The point I’ve been trying to make, which he/she has already agreed upon with me.
So this spewing nonsense is nothing but crazy rabid rambling attempting at undoing what makes sense.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Just pointing out your double standard. I know that most all teachers are good people that do good things and should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is good reason to believe otherwise.

Am I foolish to think that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I’ve posited no double standard here about agents of the state.
I’ve not indicated that most cops are bad, or even an unhealthy number are bad.
I’ve not said I’m living in fear of cops or other agents of the state chomping at the bit to barge in on me in my home & shoot me up.
You said you agreed with me that a person should be able to defend themselves & be judged by their peers.
The state sets a dangerous precedent when they make self defense a criminal act.
Your tirade does nothing but show how nuts you are acting.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Does a student have the right to defend themselves against a teacher who they believe is treating them in an illegal manner? If a parent think that his/her child has been abused by a teacher, should they seek redress through the legal system or?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM

What would happen to a student that used physical force against a teacher in your school, Dave? What if the student claimed it was in self-defense?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Is the a policy in the school code of conduct that allows for students to use force against teachers in self-defense? If it’s not, should it be as a restraint against abuses of the powers granted to teachers to maintain order in the school environment?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:39 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 7:58 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 8:05 PM

The IN. court found it constitional, did they not?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM

What would happen to a student that used physical force against a teacher in your school, Dave? What if the student claimed it was in self-defense?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:37 PM

I think you’re confusing me with the other Badger here.

What would happen if my kid (as a for instance) used physical force against a teacher at his school? He’d likely be expelled, and potentially could be issued a citation for disorderly conduct. Even if it was in self-defense. So what?

My son HAS been taught he has EVERY moral right to DEFEND himself against any and all acts of aggression against him. He has the full support of his father in defending himself. Even my ex-wife stands by my teaching of our son this lesson as well, and agrees whole-heartedly.

What’s your point?

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 8:11 PM

I think you’re confusing me with the other Badger here.

What would happen if my kid (as a for instance) used physical force against a teacher at his school? He’d likely be expelled, and potentially could be issued a citation for disorderly conduct. Even if it was in self-defense. So what?

My son HAS been taught he has EVERY moral right to DEFEND himself against any and all acts of aggression against him. He has the full support of his father in defending himself. Even my ex-wife stands by my teaching of our son this lesson as well, and agrees whole-heartedly.

What’s your point?

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 8:11 PM

My mistake. I confused you two. I don’t want to get into trouble with the Badger anti-defamation society or anything…

Do you think that it’s possible that he might be aquitted for defending himself in an extreme situation, despite there not being a provision in the student code of conduct?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 8:21 PM

The IN. court found it constitional, did they not?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM

I will accept your response in good faith that you are ready to be rational. But I will go right back to my previous comment if you refuse to cooperate honestly.

They did not find it constitutional. They basically ruled the constitution was unconstitutional.

“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,”

What they did was find that that section of the constitution was invalid.

Read the 2nd and 4th amendments to see why that ruling is an abridgment of our God given rights.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 8:26 PM

My mistake. I confused you two. I don’t want to get into trouble with the Badger anti-defamation society or anything…

Do you think that it’s possible that he might be aquitted for defending himself in an extreme situation, despite there not being a provision in the student code of conduct?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 8:21 PM

It’s easy to remember which Badger is which. I’m from Wisconsin.

Anyways…

Yeah, I suppose it’s possible, but I find it unlikely.

There is too much collusion between government entities around my area. Cops, judges, and other employees of the public sector are just too buddy-buddy for someone like my son to get a fair shake. That’s just our reality. But that doesn’t mean we’re gonna move away, hoping to find a place where he is more likely to get an honest shake. Our life is here. And here is where we must be for a while yet.

I see that you have faith in the legal system, but the reality is that for many people, there is NO justice in the legal system.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Very good point! It is a closed system where you have the upper hand if you know someone or are beholding to them. The unions work the same way.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 9:37 PM

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.

It says nothing in there about exigent circumstances, right? It does say “against unreasonable search and seizure”. What is reasonable/unreasonable? This has been long debated before the interwebs was created, yes?

I’ll state that you have the greatest expectation of privacy in your dwelling and it should not be breached without either a warrant or the warrantless execptions already recognized by the courts.

If police enter in bad faith, they should face the legal penalties for that, both civil and criminal.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 9:41 PM

It’s easy to remember which Badger is which. I’m from Wisconsin.

Anyways…

Yeah, I suppose it’s possible, but I find it unlikely.

There is too much collusion between government entities around my area. Cops, judges, and other employees of the public sector are just too buddy-buddy for someone like my son to get a fair shake. That’s just our reality. But that doesn’t mean we’re gonna move away, hoping to find a place where he is more likely to get an honest shake. Our life is here. And here is where we must be for a while yet.

I see that you have faith in the legal system, but the reality is that for

many people, there is NO justice in the legal system.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM

FWIW, I was very troubled by what I saw from many LEOs in Wisc. as reported by Ann Althouse’s blog. It’s one thing to have a political opinion and even be politically active off duty, but on duty you better act in a professional and apolitical manner, your only alligance to the constitution and the laws you are sworn to enforce. There should be no favoritism of any kind.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 9:49 PM

In fairness, though, it ain’t just on the left you see this attitude of government doing no wrong around here. We have WAY too many “law and order” type “conservatives” who feel that the police should get to do whatever the hell they please in order to “keep the peace,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. But, that’s not exactly my point, either.

My point is (and the lessons I teach my son are) right is right, and wrong is wrong. NEVER aggress against another, but ALWAYS stand ready to defend yourself. Even if you have to suffer consequences for your stand, and even if you must stand alone, that doesn’t change the fact that morally, you deserve your liberties, and you better be ready to fight for them when you need to, as aggressively as necessary to secure them.

Now, as far as how we change things in order to have a more fair and just system where private citizens are treated with the same (or more) respect and fairness than government employees like cops? I don’t know. This is one area where it’s intellectually difficult for me to argue with the anarcho-capitalists. If security personnel and legal personnel had to compete on the open market for customers, maybe there would be more incentive for them both to respect our God given rights, because not doing so would drive them out of business. I’m not saying that I think necessarily this is the best option; I just don’t have a better one right now.

In theory, the Bill of Rights should stand, but too often the courts don’t care. They make crap up, invent policy, and collude with government agents against us.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM

My best metaphor is to compare gov’t and law enforcement as an aspect of government to fire. Too little and you freeze to death, to much and you burn to death. The goal is to find the ideal point between the two extremes.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 10:40 PM

In fairness, though, it ain’t just on the left you see this attitude of government doing no wrong around here. We have WAY too many “law and order” type “conservatives” who feel that the police should get to do whatever the hell they please in order to “keep the peace,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. But, that’s not exactly my point, either.

The Chinese Public Security Bureau and the Ministry of State Security have unlimited authority to “keep the peace”. Not a system I’d want to live under.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 10:42 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Agreed. Now move to the 2nd and you’ll see how it was written to enforce the 4th upon a police state.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM

In fairness, though, it ain’t just on the left you see this attitude of government doing no wrong around here. We have WAY too many “law and order” type “conservatives” who feel that the police should get to do whatever the hell they please in order to “keep the peace,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. But, that’s not exactly my point, either.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Yes absolutely. That is why the founders didn’t view politics in terms like left and right. They viewed it in terms of tyranny on one end and anarchy on the other. It doesn’t matter what letter is after their name, what mattered most was that they shunned tyranny and anarchy in favor of a balanced approach. The balance between the need for government to avoid the strongest survive mentality, and the limitations on government to keep control on that government and maximize freedom.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 11:21 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Agreed. Now move to the 2nd and you’ll see how it was written to enforce the 4th upon a police state.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM

I’ve read the 2nd many times. I grasp it’s role as the final safeguard against tyranny. I never disagreed with that point.

This does not mean you settle disputes with guns, except in the gravest extreme, with no other viable option.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:29 PM

This does not mean you settle disputes with guns, except in the gravest extreme, with no other viable option.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Our God given right to use force of arms to stop a police state intrusion onto our 4th amendment right is explained in the 2nd. There is no mention of the gravest of circumstance required before we act, because any intrusion against our God given rights by the government is of the gravest concern. It is exactly that threat of violence and the refusal of the constitution to give legal cover to the state that keeps the government, and it’s employees in check.

This ruling in Indiana just made it illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. They did it by diminishing the absolute importance for the government to be extremely vigilant when it comes to the 4th and taking away the 2nd to give themselves cover to be lackadaisical.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 PM

This does not mean you settle disputes with guns, except in the gravest extreme, with no other viable option.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Our God given right to use force of arms to stop a police state intrusion onto our 4th amendment right is explained in the 2nd. There is no mention of the gravest of circumstance required before we act, because any intrusion against our God given rights by the government is of the gravest concern. It is exactly that threat of violence and the refusal of the constitution to give legal cover to the state that keeps the government, and it’s employees in check.

This ruling in Indiana just made it illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. They did it by diminishing the absolute importance for the government to be extremely vigilant when it comes to the 4th and taking away the 2nd to give themselves cover to be lackadaisical.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Is Indiana a police state? I think not. Are Indiana cops the Gestapo? I think not. Does this ruling absolve civil and criminal liability for police misconduct? Not as I read it.

Taking anyone’s life is a big deal. It’s nothing to be done lightly. As long as someone is alive, even the worst person, they have the opportunity to seek redemption. I think that if you value life as an aspect of your morality, you will seek to avoid violence, especially deadly force unless you have no other viable option.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:59 PM

You are right about a point you made in your last post, G M. Taking someone’s life IS a big deal. It absolutely should not be taken lightly. This is why most people won’t even consider it under most, if not all, circumstances. People generally don’t like to play God.

But, take away someone’s rights, rights nobody has the moral authority to take away, and all of the sudden, you just left people in a position where they have nothing to lose anyways, so desperation changes the potential outcome. Put another way, the main reason Doc Holliday was such an effective gun fighter was he was dying of tuberculosis anyways, and dying from a bullet was less tortuous to him than suffering from his disease.

Rulings like this, and others, which back people in a corner are more likely to cause the violence and unrest most people don’t want to see happening.

Badger State Dave on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM

I think that if you value life a an aspect of your morality, you will seek to avoid violence, especially deadly force unless you have no other viable option. G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Which, AGAIN, has absolutely NOTHING to do with this ruling.
There was virtually ZERO instances of citizens shooting Officers, ergo your entire premise is false.
You keep referring to police states as being an exaggeration, an impossiblility.
Yet, this ruling precisely erodes the specific Constitutional protections which are designed to prevent same.

You have successfully trolled several hundred extra responses, for the purpose of protecting the erosion of your protections under the law. That does NOT make you a good person, no matter how elite you believe yourself to be. Nor does it make your “argument” factual.

KMC1 on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 AM

Is Indiana a police state? I think not. Are Indiana cops the Gestapo? I think not. Does this ruling absolve civil and criminal liability for police misconduct? Not as I read it.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Okay, you’re straying back into feelings instead of sticking with the constitutional. The 2nd is there to PREVENT the police state. There is no requirement that we suspend that right until we have a full blown police state. Police state tactics must be resisted at the time they happen so as not to encourage the state to push the boundaries we established for them.

csdeven on May 17, 2011 at 6:27 AM

Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

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.

Insert witty screen name here on May 17, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Does this ruling absolve civil and criminal liability for police misconduct? Not as I read it.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Hey. Dumbass with reading comprehension issues: If the IN Supreme House of Law says they can enter for whatever reason, then, (and I’m typing real SLOW fer ya)

THERE AIN’T NO MISCONDUCT.

THERE
AIN’T
NO
MISCONDUCT

Perhaps your mommy can splain it to ya.

BigAlSouth on May 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Insert witty screen name here on May 17, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Well, that didn’t take long.

Ghettos of Warsaw indeed.

KMC1 on May 17, 2011 at 11:03 AM

The IN Supreme Court is just a ‘truck stop’ on the way to the final destination of this battle. Guaranteed this decision will be overturned. In the meantime, I have heard the argument that people should allow the authorities to do what they want, encouraging/trying to convince home owners that instead of taking the law into their own hands and blowing a policeman who doesn’t have a warrant or a good reason back out the door with the blast of their shotgun that it would be better for them to deal with the ‘offense’ later through the courts. The problem with that is – If our Constitutional Rights are SO obvious as is this court’s decion is wrong, why would home owners have any confidence that the courts will get ‘it’ right LATER?!

But hey, we ARE talking about the ‘Land of Chicago’, where the Constitution, rules, regs, etc don’t mean a whole lot, where ‘Its the Chicago way’ carries more weight.

easyt65 on May 17, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I wouldn’t be so sure the USSC will overturn this decision. It depends on whether or not Obozo gets re-elected. Elections have consequences, and one of them is SC Justice appointments.

KMC1 on May 17, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Rulings like this, and others, which back people in a corner are more likely to cause the violence and unrest most people don’t want to see happening.

Badger State Dave on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Good point. This is a bright line / line in the sand for me. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution several times. I wrote a check with my life as potential payment. I will not yield to tyranny or thuggery under color of authority. The legal system can redefine the Constitution to suit them, but I can choose to disagree, and protect my family. Remember, good citizens outnumber the bad apples that will abuse this unexpected ruling.

NaCly dog on May 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Does a student have the right to defend themselves against a teacher who they believe is treating them in an illegal manner? If a parent think that his/her child has been abused by a teacher, should they seek redress through the legal system or?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM

This has nothing to do with the ruling, which makes self defense against tyranny a crime.
Any parent can come & beat another teacher’s a$$ bcs that teacher hurt their child.
And any child can make the decision to beat on a teacher in self defense.
If there are consequences, they’ll happen.
You are just plugging away at irrelevant straw men here.
You already indicated you agreed with me in this issue.
Why do you continue to torture yourself?

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 3:05 PM

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.
Insert witty screen name here on May 17, 2011 at 9:55 AM

WTH?
Well it’s nice to know I’ll be making my visit to Grandma’s house in IN short this year.
Jeezum!

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM

I think Ronald Reagan said it best, “trust but verify.” The phrase not only applies to the USSR but also to any government official sporting a weapon. In other words, “yeah, I trust you… but let’s see the search warrant.”

boqueronman on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

If this makes it to the SCOTUS, I bet the SCOTUS affirms this ruling.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Deal.

unclesmrgol on May 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Again, until it’s been adjudicated, how do you know a search is legal or illegal? You might think a warrantless search was illegal, but the court might rule that it was a legal search. Then what?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.

In their decision, the Indiana Supreme Court admitted that the officer’s entry was unlawful. The wording in the decision is unambiguous.

unclesmrgol on May 17, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14