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 2 3 14

Fascism – straight up.

Rebar on May 14, 2011 at 10:04 AM

they obviously didn’t go into Charlton Heston’s home.

kelley in virginia on May 14, 2011 at 10:05 AM

That Constitution thing is so old, we don’t need to follow all the letters of it, time has shown us that a police state like China is the best solution.

I hope an officer enters their homes for no real reason.

amazingmets on May 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM

The Founders must be rolling in their graves. I shudder to think of the totalitarian hell that the USG has in store for us once the collapse ensues.

“America is demonstrably less free than medieval England.”

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 10:07 AM

So if home invasion robbery is your thing, just dress like a cop, right?

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:08 AM

OMG!

petefrt on May 14, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Incrementally, we are witnessing the growth of real fascism. The power of the State is becoming unbridled, and most Americans either don’t know, or worse, don’t seem to care.

Fabian socialism…growing right before our eyes.

But it is Obama at the helm, so nobody is worried a bit, it seems.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Can this be appealed?

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:12 AM

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.

-
So… the entry is lawful, and so is any evidence found… of anything… which might also mean entering while you’re at work…
-
or perhaps they’ll just send in the Spiders

RalphyBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM

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?

You’re way off base here. The ruling does not violate the 4th Amendment. It says that a citizen may not enforce his right through violence. That he must seek redress from the government for the violation.

This is consistent with just about every other area of civil rights. One can’t resist arrest, even if one knows he’s innocent of the crime for which he is arrested. He can sue the government after the fact but he may not initiate violence against the police, even to defend his rights.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:14 AM

So, according to the Supreme Court of Indiana, public policy trumps the Constitution. And all this time I was under the mistaken belief that the Constitution could not be violated by the Gov’t. Silly me! Gov’t agents CAN kick in your front door without a warrant and arrest you if you resist.

Welcome to the Left’s Fascist Utopia! Where have we seen this before?

Now… if they could only figure out a way of taking all your firearms from you as a matter of public policy.

Mahdi on May 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I wonder if there is more to this than is being stated. Are we talking about a situation where it is clear-cut that the entry was illegal, or is this one of those “the entry was deemed illegal in hindsight by a technicality” things? I don’t think a criminal should be able to get away with beating up a cop just because of a typo that was only later found on the warrant.

Count to 10 on May 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Can this be appealed?

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:12 AM

I’ll be totally shocked if this case didn’t end up before the US Supreme Court.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM

I wonder if there is more to this than is being stated. Are we talking about a situation where it is clear-cut that the entry was illegal, or is this one of those “the entry was deemed illegal in hindsight by a technicality” things? I don’t think a criminal should be able to get away with beating up a cop just because of a typo that was only later found on the warrant.

Count to 10 on May 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM

The decision comes from the appeal of a case in which cops responded to a complaint of a man and woman arguing outside their apartment. When the cops arrived, the couple had gone back in and the man told the cops they were no longer needed. They forced their way in, a scuffle ensued and the man was tazed.

If the cops had reasonable suspicion that the woman was in danger, their entry was probably justified (I’m not a lawyer!), but that’s not what the court decided.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM

This ruling will surely be struck down. As stated, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM

If I were a cynical, political hack I would right now be pointing out that Justice Steven, who authored the decision, was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels back in October:

Justice David became the 106th Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court on October 18, 2010. He was appointed by the Governor, from a list of three nominees, to replace Justice Theodore R. Boehm who retired on September 30 after 14 years of service on the Court.

I would of course fail to note that vacancies on the Court are filled using a variation of the Missouri Plan, just like Palin detractors who criticize one of her judicial appointments as evidence that she is less-than-conservative fail to mention that the Missouri Plan is also used in Alaska.

Regardless, Governor Daniels appointed the judge who overturned the 4th Amendment in Indiana.

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM

SCOTUS appeal ASAP.

Unconstitutional violation of 4th Amendment.

profitsbeard on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM

And in other news….sales in Indiana of German Shepherds and Dobermans to homeowners have increased 150% this fiscal quarter, while new business start-ups of Guard Dog Training centers is considered by Business Entrepreneur Weekly as a sound strategy.

Film at 11:00

Renee on May 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

It may be appealable to the US Supreme Court, but one doesn’t know whether they would grant certiorari to the case. This is an obnoxious decision, and we see how the liberals’ ideology of ‘evolving standards’ mostly devolves into loss of freedom and empowering of government.

eaglewingz08 on May 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I don’t think the police are obliged to go away if they think an assault is being committed, but apparently that wasn’t alleged here. (It was a domestic argument.) So why can’t they pursue alternate remedies?

Seth Halpern on May 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM

What is not laughable is that cops have a hard and dangerous job. At times that job involves entering peoples’ homes. So the next time a homeowner figures that the cops have no right to enter his home and shoots one, think of this decision. Even if the cop was wrong, he doesn’t deserve to be killed because of it. The homeowner should not have the right to kill him, his redress should come from a legal judgement.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

This is consistent with just about every other area of civil rights. One can’t resist arrest, even if one knows he’s innocent of the crime for which he is arrested. He can sue the government after the fact but he may not initiate violence against the police, even to defend his rights.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:14 AM

“Windmills do not work that way. Good night!”

Read history much? Just asking, because I believe there was a bit of violent resistance to unlawful entry before this amendment was written.

The good news? At least you’re consistently wrong.

Pattosensei on May 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I believe that SCOTUS has already found that you can refuse an unlawful arrest and ignore or defy an illegal order from the Po-Po, not withstanding the 4th which Id. cannot just override. There needs to be some sort of retribution for commies that submit this blatantly unconstitutional legislation, it is after all, subversion of the Constitution.

rgranger on May 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM

How many times did that swat team shoot that guy?

golfmann on May 14, 2011 at 10:26 AM

All govt. officials should be required to take annual sanity tests.
All Congressmen & White House appointees – quarterly sanity tests.

albill on May 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Incrementally, we are witnessing the growth of real fascism. The power of the State is becoming unbridled, and most Americans either don’t know, or worse, don’t seem to care.

Fabian socialism…growing right before our eyes.

But it is Obama at the helm, so nobody is worried a bit, it seems.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM

-
Shiite… I know people who weclcome this intrusion. It’s all about the Ds and the O… If they say it’s cool, then it must be. We didn’t need all that freedon anyway.
-

“If a dictator provides clean water for their people… if they provide free health care, I like that dictator. If he provides university and education for everyone, I like that dictator.”

(go to 5:00 in the video to see the above quote come outta her mouth, but the end of her rant is jsut as good too 5:30ish)
-

RalphyBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Pattosensei on May 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Sure I know the history. And that’s why I know you to be wrong. This ruling does not legalize unlawful entry in to homes by the police. It protects law enforcement officers from violence, even when their entry in to a home is not lawful. I am all for protecting our police and requiring homeowners to use means other than violence against them to protect their rights.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM

What is not laughable is that cops have a hard and dangerous job. At times that job involves entering peoples’ homes. So the next time a homeowner figures that the cops have no right to enter his home and shoots one, think of this decision. Even if the cop was wrong, he doesn’t deserve to be killed because of it. The homeowner should not have the right to kill him, his redress should come from a legal judgement.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Look MJ…I almost always side with the police in almost every instance. Both my dad and my uncle were police officers (retired now).

And this has little to do with police, but what is protected by our Constitution.

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM

It looks like Mr. Knowitall is back to keep us all informed.

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Sure I know the history. And that’s why I know you to be wrong. This ruling does not legalize unlawful entry in to homes by the police. It protects law enforcement officers from violence, even when their entry in to a home is not lawful. I am all for protecting our police and requiring homeowners to use means other than violence against them to protect their rights.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM

I didn’t rape her. I just had sex with her even though she wasn’t willing.

No, you obviously don’t know history. Why do you think the 4th was put in place?

Pattosensei on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

“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.”

Could the same be said of a criminal’s entry into a home?

Wouldn’t that “unnecessarily escalate(s) the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved”?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I don’t understand how you can see it that way. Should a homeowner be allowed to resist a police officer if he believes that the officer does not have a legal basis for entering his home?

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM

O/T
How’s the job search?

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

For any reason or no reason at all

Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan.

profitsbeard on May 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Should a homeowner be allowed to resist a police officer if he believes that the officer does not have a legal basis for entering his home?

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

If you can’t see the problem with this sort of reasoning there is no hope for you.

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

You’ve got it exactly wrong. If a cop wants to come in, and has no warrant or reason to believe someone’s in danger, he has to know that he can’t just go in. Period.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Uh, did the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals in San Francisco relocate to Indiana and not bother telling anyone?

pilamaye on May 14, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Justice Steven David, appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels.

SlaveDog on May 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM

It was probably done as a way to make it safer for the police to conduct raids/warrants. Now in our efforts to tree hug the police, which are honorable folks, we lose track of one of our inalienable rights. Jeez. Back it up, get American again, and jack this law to the dustbin of history. Let that stand as a warning. Lefties and Righties unite ….

moyeti on May 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Justice Steven H. David was appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Perhaps he was right to drag out any announcement for a Presidential run.

J_Crater on May 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Pfft, who needs that pesky constitution…not Indiana!

Wonder if criminals will now perform home invasions dressed as cops more often now in Hoosierville?

modnar on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

I don’t understand how you can see it that way. Should a homeowner be allowed to resist a police officer if he believes that the officer does not have a legal basis for entering his home?

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Yes. I also have the right to shoot that cop if he forces his illegal entry into my home. That is why the 2nd amendment exists.

Pattosensei on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Should a homeowner be allowed to resist a police officer if he believes that the officer does not have a legal basis for entering his home?

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

So, by extension shouldn’t the police have copy of the keys to your home so that they can search it at any time if they feel they need to?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

@MJ Brutus: He should be entitled to attempt to block the doorway, but if the police force their way in he should not be entitled to physically attack the policeman. If the police were called merely to deal with a domestic quarrel, they had no reason to demand entry.

Seth Halpern on May 14, 2011 at 10:37 AM

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Read THIS

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Thanks for askin’…Gonna take the job in Boca, gotta move in less than 6 weeks. Just in time for Summer.

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

If the police were called merely to deal with a domestic quarrel, they had no reason to demand entry.

Seth Halpern on May 14, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Under the circumstances you describe here, the homeowner should sue the state for violation of his civil rights. That is the remedy and that is the deterrence to unlawful police behavior.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Thanks for askin’…Gonna take the job in Boca, gotta move in less than 6 weeks. Just in time for Summer.

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

NICE! Congrats!

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM

I think it’s only fair that we use all three justices names so they can lay claim to their legacy.
Justice Steven H. David has been on the court for 6 months.
Cheif Justice Randall T. Shepard
Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.

Now let’s see what we can do to make sure these folks don’t ever become a federal judge.

J_Crater on May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM

So, by extension shouldn’t the police have copy of the keys to your home so that they can search it at any time if they feel they need to?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

You might be on to something!/

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM

We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy…

They want the right to be unlawful. They demand the right to act unlawfully with the people of this nation. And when you go into court to fight it they will side with themselves.

So, police may act unlawfully.
This is why our rights must come from God people. This is why we had a revolution…. a Christian revolt against tyranny! Because if your rights come from a court or the police, they can take them from you and spit in your face as they please!

The court has just said they can do anything they want! Define the boundaries of unlawfulness? There are none! Kick you in the face? Would that be unlawful? Sure, can you block a kick to your face from a policeman? The court just said no! Can you interfere with a police officer raping and beating your child? No because that too would be an unlawful act and unlawful acts are now protected by the court!

This is outright tyranny in the highest degree! Now we are not even sheep, we are sheep to be raped, beaten and spit upon and to even resist them when they act unlawfully is not our right!

Violence? They do not care about escalating violence! They only care about the people resisting the violence they want to inflict upon us!

JellyToast on May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM

So what happens when a cop breaks into my house and I bring weapons to bear on them, thinking that you know, only criminals break into houses? I suppose they could lawfully gun me down…in my own home. For no reason. Smells like tyranny to me.

search4truth on May 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM

O/T but similar issues:

The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony

While, at first, this may seem to be a narrower definition, there are some serious concerns that this effectively makes it illegal to link to any website that is accused of being “dedicated to infringing purposes.” That’s because an “information location tool” is defined under current law to be: a “directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link.”

Making matters even worse is a companion bill introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, which would ratchet up charges for sites that stream infringing works to a felony.

Galt2009 on May 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Denninger: Mitch Daniels Disqualifies Himself

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is Adolph Hitler personified and is thus disqualified to run for President of the United States.

Ouch.

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Under the circumstances you describe here, the homeowner should sue the state for violation of his civil rights. That is the remedy and that is the deterrence to unlawful police behavior.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

So you are saying that LEO doesn’t need to ask for permission beforehand as long as they can ask for forgiveness afterward.

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

That is why the 2nd amendment exists.

Pattosensei on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Not according to the liberal mindset. The Second Amendment “exists” according to the Left to enable Rednecks to hunt furry creatures, and for no other reason. Once hunting furry creatures is outlawed, there will be no need for the Second Amendment.

But, Thomas Jefferson, among others, had a more realistic view of the Second Amendment which escapes most of our populace…the Second Amendment exists to be the last bulwark against tyranny of the State over the People. Plain and simple.

This Indiana decision and the Second Amendment are linked, intertwined, a lot more than meets the eye.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

JetBoy on May 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

The ruling you pointed me to addresses a completely different question. The presumption in this ruling is that no lawful basis existed for the police to enter the home. This ruling merely says that a citizen may not resort to violence against the police to uphold his right. That he must use the legal system for redress.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the homeowner should sue his ass off and the entire PD if he has a case. I’m saying that he must not take the law in to his own hands and use violence against our LEOs.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM

The decision comes from the appeal of a case in which cops responded to a complaint of a man and woman arguing outside their apartment. When the cops arrived, the couple had gone back in and the man told the cops they were no longer needed. They forced their way in, a scuffle ensued and the man was tazed.

If the cops had reasonable suspicion that the woman was in danger, their entry was probably justified (I’m not a lawyer!), but that’s not what the court decided.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Sounds like the case for probable cause was ambiguous.

Count to 10 on May 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I think it’s only fair that we use all three justices names so they can lay claim to their legacy.
Justice Steven H. David has been on the court for 6 months.
Cheif Justice Randall T. Shepard
Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.

J_Crater on May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard:

In September 2005 Shepard was chosen by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission and reappointed by Governor Mitch Daniels to the Supreme Court. On November 4, 2008 the public voted to keep Shepard on the court in a statewide retention election.

Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.:

Frank Sullivan, Jr., was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court effective November 1, 1993, by Governor Evan Bayh.

Justice David Steven:

The one-hour ceremony included remarks by Governor Mitch Daniels and Chief Justice Shepard. The Governor administered the oath of office to Judge David while his wife, Catheryne Pully, held the Bible on which he placed his hand. Justice David became the 106th Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court on October 18, 2010. He was appointed by the Governor, from a list of three nominees, to replace Justice Theodore R. Boehm who retired on September 30 after 14 years of service on the Court.

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Ouch.

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Oof. If Daniels runs, his opponents will beat him with this without mercy.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

This ruling merely says that a citizen may not resort to violence against the police to uphold his right. That he must use the legal system for redress.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

The court has no authority to tell people how they must act.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Now… if they could only figure out a way of taking all your firearms from you as a matter of public policy.

Mahdi on May 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Maybe if they ask the Indiana Supreme Court.

heshtesh on May 14, 2011 at 10:49 AM

So, by extension shouldn’t the police have copy of the keys to your home so that they can search it at any time if they feel they need to?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

You might be on to something!/

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Just to be clear on this, I am not advocating this but just following things out to their logical conclusion.

Let us also be clear on the

“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.”

Part of the ruling – could it be said that resisting an attack by a criminal “unnecessarily escalates the level of violence”?

Where does it stop?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:50 AM

The court has no authority to tell people how they must act.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Quibble noted. Change my sentence to read:

That he must may only use the legal system for redress.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Quibble noted. Change my sentence to read:

That he must may only use the legal system for redress.
MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:50 AM

They have no authority to tell you that either.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM

All I have to say is this:

Indiana is a very well-armed state.

Cops should consider this.

MadisonConservative on May 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM

The decision comes from the appeal of a case in which cops responded to a complaint of a man and woman arguing outside their apartment. When the cops arrived, the couple had gone back in and the man told the cops they were no longer needed. They forced their way in, a scuffle ensued and the man was tazed.

If the cops had reasonable suspicion that the woman was in danger, their entry was probably justified (I’m not a lawyer!), but that’s not what the court decided.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM

If the arguing had ceased, there is no reason to believe that anyone was under imminent danger. About half the time the abusive member is female.

Slowburn on May 14, 2011 at 10:52 AM

I really shouldn’t comment until crrdog and ProudWino explain the finer points of law on this matter.

darwin-t on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

If I understand the details of the case correctly, then I side with the officers in this particular incident. However, I don’t believe that they should be able to enter for any reason or no reason at all as the ruling cited. Plain and simply it is a violation of the fourth amendment. Should a person have the right to violently resist and unlawful search? I’m really not certain. I do recall a case in Denver in which a no knock warrant was issued and executed by Denver police. The problem was, it was the wrong address on the warrant. Consequently an innocent man was shot and killed by police. (They thought he had a weapon which, as I recall, turned out to be a pop can). So, there are instances in which mistakes can be made and remedies can be sought out through the court system. But, how far do we let it go? It is a slippery slope on which the court has placed us. Yes, there are police who would still go through the proper channels since they don’t want their case thrown out on a technicality such as an illegal search and seizure. But, what of the future? As has been pointed out our rights are being eroded more and more. Where does it stop? When do we take our stand?

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

They have no authority to tell you that either.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Of course they do. Tell my why not.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Vigilance is tiring, which is why the Bill of Rights can never taken for granted, and was one of the greatest gifts to individual liberty in the history of mankind.

txmomof6 on May 14, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Now… if they could only figure out a way of taking all your firearms from you as a matter of public policy.

Mahdi on May 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM

They’re working on that:

Step 1. Assert Federal control over the purchase of every gun – even between private individuals – and screw the Commerce Clause.

Step 2. Bar people from buying said guns via a due process-free watch list system.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[There is a risk of giving them ideas coming out and stating this, but I suspect they already have thought about it]

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

What is not laughable is that cops have a hard and dangerous job. At times that job involves entering peoples’ homes. So the next time a homeowner figures that the cops have no right to enter his home and shoots one, think of this decision. Even if the cop was wrong, he doesn’t deserve to be killed because of it. The homeowner should not have the right to kill him, his redress should come from a legal judgement.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Then maybe the police officer shouldn’t enter the home until he’s had time to redress the court.

What’s this apply to? It is already legal for a police officer to enter a home without a warrant if he has sufficient belief that a crime is in the process of being committed.

Now the police don’t even have to have a valid reason to enter your house. They just can… and it’s up to you to pay the exhorbitant court costs and fees to prove they violated your civil rights… and after 10 years of trials and stress you MIGHT win that case where the cops came in and intimidated you for putting up that “Don’t vote for Obama” sign.

This was a domestic squabble of a couple yelling at each other. The cops were called and showed up and the couple moved back into their home to continue their squabble there and the cops attempted to follow them into the house, the owner said no and the cops busted in ANYWAY at which point the owner and the cops got into a fist fight INSIDE the house.

But that’s OK now because the owner shouldn’t have attacked the cops that ILLEGALLY went into his house to mediate the couples fight… a fight they did NOT want mediated.

When cops do illegal things they are CRIMINALS. That’s the entire point of the 2nd and 4th amendments. That the power ultimately rests with the individual. My GOD have we all forgotten this?!

Skywise on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Should a person have the right to violently resist and unlawful search?

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Yes. Especially if it’s “no knock”. You have no idea who’s trying to break into your home.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

That means that it is up to the legislature to provide penalties against the state sufficient to deter unlawful behavior by its agents such as the police. That is where our protection lies, not in the use of violence by citizens against our cops.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

This ruling merely says that a citizen may not resort to violence against the police to uphold his right. That he must use the legal system for redress.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

So tell me, seriously, define the boundaries of unlawfulness?
The court said police can enter for any reason! Even an unlawful reason! This is insane! Absolutely insane!

A cop can walk down the sidewalk, walk up to your front door, open it, walk inside and go up to your teenage daughter’s bedroom and look in her closet, open her drawers all while she lays on the bed under his orders! He is the police! He has the badge! If he wants to do a TSA search on her in her underwear she must, according to this court, comply! Why?! Because he’s acting UNLAWFULLY! He may be acting unlawfully but so what?! The court just said he has the right to act unlawfully and there is nothing you can do about it!

This court just ruled police lawlessness legal!

JellyToast on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

So if the police illegally kick in your door and enter your home for any reason or no reason at all you have the right to politely complain about it later….?
You can take it up …in court.

NeoKong on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Of course they do. Tell my why not.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Figure it out yourself.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:58 AM

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

And if the legislature sides with the court?

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

This ruling merely says that a citizen may not resort to violence against the police to uphold his right. That he must use the legal system for redress.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

All burglars to now dress like Police Officers. You will be welcomed in the home. It’s state law you know. Anything that happens during your visit will be addressed at a later day.
Take care.

Electrongod on May 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

They have no authority to tell you that either.

darwin on May 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Of course they do. Tell my why not.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

So, you would assert that the government should have unlimited authority over the people?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

And if the legislature sides with the court?

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Now that I think about it more, the legislature had already acted. When they passed the fourth amendment.

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 11:01 AM

When government can tell private citizens where they can and cannot live, or tell them that their property ownership is no longer sacred Right and can be taken by government and given to another private citizen without redress [See Kelo.] this Indiana ruling takes on a good deal more significance.

So, we are all supposed to assume that any officer of the law entering our home or property with or without warrant, with ambiguous intentions, must be welcomed in…and that at some point later, down the road, perhaps when we can afford it, we can hire a team of lawyers to try to compose a civil suit against the offending officers? When? In a few years? A decade? Litigation does not happen overnight nor is it an affordable route for most citizens.

So, when and where does the infringement stop? Can the government then tap our phones at will, monitor our internet activities whenever, read our mail routinely, without warrant? If they can enter our homes routinely and we are forbidden to resist…why not all the rest? After all, we all know that every single member of law enforcement from the rent-a-cop to the police commissioner is a sterling citizen, never once straying outside the law, even for a moment, so considerate of the Rights of the Citizens are they that such would never happen.

The idea that we must not resist, but must enter into lengthy and costly litigation against the State is laughable…and truly sad at the same time, since it seems that there are citizens who actually believe that going to court to seek redress is the best remedy.

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 11:01 AM

The court just said he has the right to act unlawfully and there is nothing you can do about it!

This court just ruled police lawlessness legal!

JellyToast on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

And when that police officer is done and leaves your house, you may go to the court house and sue him, the county, the state and everyone else who is in his chain of command for violation of your civil rights. That is the remedy.

The court has not “ruled police lawlessness legal.” It has only said that a citizen may not resort to violence to defend his right against the police.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 11:01 AM

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Also the second amendment.

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 11:02 AM

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.

While I agree the decision was stupid, I think you are also way off track Bruce. Take a chill pill.

Went on a call once, ‘woman screaming for help, sounds of fighting’. Got there with another officer, announced ourselves at the screen door. Guy came out in the hallway, told us to F… off. I walked in, told him I wanted to speak to the woman. He charged down the hallway, ended up in cuffs. Woman was found in the bedroom, beaten unconscious, broken jaw, smashed eye socket.

According to you, Bruce, what I did was illegal. I should have driven 14 miles to the court house to get a search warrant.

Bad arrests usually result in bad case decisions. In this particular case, Justice Steven David is an idiot.

News Flash! “Domestic violence” incidents are about the worst call you can go on. A real damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Particularly when the victim doesn’t want to be a victim. And DV cases don’t just ‘go away’. They only escalate over time.

GarandFan on May 14, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Scenario 1…

-
911 receives a hang up call… The policy is that they send a unit to investigate, but the wrong address is given. So, the police show up at the wrong address, The homeowner, who has been legally drinking (beer) in his own home refuses to open up… let’s make it this guy just for fun… Henry Louis Gates Jr. (of the police acted stupidly fame)
-

By the time the police decide to break the door down so they can enter… Mr. Gates has retreated to his bedroom and retrieved his gun… In his righteous albeit drunken state he has decided to make a stand at the bedroom door.
-

Hearing the police approach the bedroom he opens fire.
-

Do we…
A. Prosecute Mr. Gates.
B. Allow him to sue the police for having invaded his home.
C. Have another Beer Summit where deceased officers widow apologizes.
-

Scenario 2…
-

The details are the same but in the shootout only Mr. Gates is killed…
-

Do we…
A. Prosecute the police officers for murder.
B. Allow them to continue as if it was just another day‘s work.
C. Have another Beer Summit where Obama claims that the police are still acting stupidly.
-

Also we could tweak the situation such that the home owner does/does not know about the entry laws (not Mr. Gates this time because I’m sure he would know about this new law).
-

RalphyBoy on May 14, 2011 at 11:03 AM

This is consistent with just about every other area of civil rights. One can’t resist arrest, even if one knows he’s innocent of the crime for which he is arrested. He can sue the government after the fact but he may not initiate violence against the police, even to defend his rights.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:14 AM

That which this generation tolerates, the next embraces. It is the threat of violence against unlawful entry that keeps the government in check. We are BORN with the right to defend ourselves and our property.

Put another way, we can’t kill terrorists because it would increase violence. We need to ask for redress from the UN.

8ull$hit!!!!!

csdeven on May 14, 2011 at 11:04 AM

And if the legislature sides with the court?

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I don’t understand you. I hope the legislature does side with the court. What I said was that it is the legislature’s job to provide for penalties against the state sufficient to deter the police from acting unlawfully.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

would like to hear Mitch Daniels take on this. I get he has the economic chops the Establishment types like, but how is he on these issues which are the very basic tenets of our freedoms?

ginaswo on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

So, by extension shouldn’t the police have copy of the keys to your home so that they can search it at any time if they feel they need to?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Think of all the trouble they could save if they just put surveillance cameras in every home.

Or maybe just use cerebral implants which have shut-off switches in them like they have at the cable company. You commit a crime, they flip the switch and you are deactivated.

You, or your next of kin, could apply for reactivation. We could put the fine folks at Blogger and Google in charge of reviewing reactivation requests. They have experience with that sort of thing.

Lily on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it and all that.

Frickin IDIOT “LIBERALS”.

COMMUNISTS. ALL OF THEM.

KMC1 on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

That means that it is up to the legislature to provide penalties against the state sufficient to deter unlawful behavior by its agents such as the police. That is where our protection lies, not in the use of violence by citizens against our cops.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

So what about violence by police against it’s citizens?! What the heck kind of government are we living in? Are the people here to serve at the behest of the police? Who are the police suppose to be protecting? Themselves or the people? Why do we even have police in the first place! To uphold laws!

This is what we get with zero tolerance! The bullies can do what ever they want, the sheep must submit! I have said before that the children who are forced to undergo policies like zero tolerance will be the adults who force the same kinds of laws upon the rest of society!

JellyToast on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

GarandFan on May 14, 2011 at 11:02 AM

In your case you were right to do as you did, as were the officers in the case involved in the ruling. Both times there was reasonable suspicion that a person’s life was in danger.

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM

The bottom line is that the law has always – always – erred on the side of protecting the rights of the citizen. This ruling changes that.

flipflop on May 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM

coldwarrior on May 14, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Why couldn’t they do all those things in the name of preventing violence and having an orderly society?

What could go wrong?

Chip on May 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Vigilance is tiring, which is why the Bill of Rights can never taken for granted, and was one of the greatest gifts to individual liberty in the history of mankind.

txmomof6 on May 14, 2011 at 10:56 AM

“Was” is the operative word. Between this, the unPatriot Act, the War on Drugs’s no-knock raids, and the Constitution-free zones, most of the BoR is dead.

“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights.”
–H. L. Mencken

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!! Nice hijack!

csdeven on May 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM

This is just another example of an unconstitutional exception the courts have carved out of our Bill of Rights over the years. Add it to ‘conservation’ nation wide warrant-less searches, sobriety stops, asset seizure, TSA sexual assault, perverted Takings law, etc, etc…

It is what corrupt courts do.

JIMV on May 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM

I don’t understand you. I hope the legislature does side with the court. What I said was that it is the legislature’s job to provide for penalties against the state sufficient to deter the police from acting unlawfully.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

You hope that the legislature agrees that police can walk into your house for any or no reason at all and go through your things?

boomer on May 14, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 14