|
At the minimum, I'd like to see the actual case details rather than a little news blurb. I looked online but couldn't even find David's written opinion for the court.
"Reasonably resist" is an awfully broad stroke as it is.
There's a few reasons I'm not really worried here.
#1: it's Indiana, not the federal government. If citizens of Indiana want to protest this law, and the fact that it appears state law is in contradiction with the US Constitution, they're free to do so. That's the recourse for citizens of states who pass these laws.
#2: The Constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure, but does not make clear the method by which they may enter, except by warrant. Hundreds of years of case law have made a number of notable exceptions, like exigency. From the vague description the summaries have given, it appears that a call of a man and woman arguing in the front yard and then retreating inside the home and barring the door justifies very obvious exigent circumstances for the police to enter, especially considering the way domestic violence laws are structured.
#3: Without reading the entire opinions, it could be that a few inflammatory journalists have overblown the actual precedence created here. It could be that they more weakly defined this as a case of exigency and an invalid reason for "reasonable" resistance to entry.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
|