Indiana supreme court just eliminated the 4th Amendment - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 10:19 AM

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Quote:

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.

this is an absolutely insane decision and just goes to show the continuing illegitimacy of the judicial system. how much further will people let the state run rampant before we fight back?

Derwood · 05-13-2011, 10:21 AM

can a state supreme court legally rule against the Federal Constitution?

Jinn · 05-13-2011, 10:27 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

can a state supreme court legally rule against the Federal Constitution?

numerous states have written laws doing exactly that. I asked this question over a year ago, how people feel about the courts eliminating common law rights as public policy and I dont think anyone responded.

---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

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.

Jinn, in the article there is a link to access the PDF of the decision.

There's a few reasons I'm not really worried here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

#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.

the dissents of this opinion explain in great detail just how overbroad the majority decision was. The majority didn't focus on the exigent circumstances in their holding. They just flat out eliminated a common law right. The dissenters even stated that had the majority focused on only the exigent circumstance, they would have gladly added domestic violence calls to the exceptions under exigent circumstances. The majority didn't do that though. The majority just flat out said that you have no right to resist entry by police officers, whether that entry is lawful or unlawful, because modern day circumstances allow for other remedies of rights violations now.

Jinn · 05-13-2011, 11:41 AM

Wow, somehow I missed that big fucking box that said "PDF: SUPREME COURT RULING" - haha, sorry about that. I apologize.

However, after reading through this I still agree with the majority. Specifically, in upholding the appeals' motion:

"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police
action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following
modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case.

I don't think there's a really solid rationale for allowing *physical* resistance to unlawful arrest by a uniformed police officer in the 21st century. I know the (not dismissively) cowboy defense of home ideal is appealing, but they have a point that we don't really have issues of indefinite detention, lack of bail, torture to worry about if arrested by an actual police officer. Likewise, we have remedies like above and the very solid right to sue the police department.

Even if I were to grant what I suspect you believe, that a high percentage of police officers abuse their powers and will attempt you arrest you unlawfully, I don't personally think that reasonably resisting an armed police officer does anything to resolve the situation. It increases the likelihood that one or both of you will be grievously injured or killed, over what would likely be a minor detention and a posted bond and return home. If the person was not a police officer, failed to identify themselves clearly as such or I believed they would reasonably commit more than simple detain and arrest, then I would reasonably resist; understanding that I was now resisting in self-defense, rather than as an extension of my Fourth Amendment.

Perhaps, as always, it comes down to a level of faith in the police force to do what is right and just a significant majority of the time (90%) and to protect the civility AND rights of its citzenry. I haven't lost nearly as much faith as you, I imagine; nor do I see a reasonable reason for your loss of faith.

This isn't particularly new, by the way. As the opinion noted, most states have through jurisprudence long-removed the right to reasonable physical resistance to arrest.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

Wow, somehow I missed that big fucking box that said "PDF: SUPREME COURT RULING" - haha, sorry about that. I apologize.

However, after reading through this I still agree with the majority. Specifically, in upholding the appeals' motion:

"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police
action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following
modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case.

I don't think there's a really solid rationale for allowing *physical* resistance to unlawful arrest by a uniformed police officer in the 21st century. I know the (not dismissively) cowboy defense of home ideal is appealing, but they have a point that we don't really have issues of indefinite detention, lack of bail, torture to worry about if arrested by an actual police officer. Likewise, we have remedies like above and the very solid right to sue the police department.

Even if I were to grant what I suspect you believe, that a high percentage of police officers abuse their powers and will attempt you arrest you unlawfully, I don't personally think that reasonably resisting an armed police officer does anything to resolve the situation. It increases the likelihood that one or both of you will be grievously injured or killed, over what would likely be a minor detention and a posted bond and return home. If the person was not a police officer, failed to identify themselves clearly as such or I believed they would reasonably commit more than simple detain and arrest, then I would reasonably resist; understanding that I was now resisting in self-defense, rather than as an extension of my Fourth Amendment.

Perhaps, as always, it comes down to a level of faith in the police force to do what is right and just a significant majority of the time (90%) and to protect the civility AND rights of its citzenry. I haven't lost nearly as much faith as you, I imagine; nor do I see a reasonable reason for your loss of faith.

This isn't particularly new, by the way. As the opinion noted, most states have through jurisprudence long-removed the right to reasonable physical resistance to arrest.

so i can safely assume you're ok with the courts eliminating rights as public policy?

how is 'qualified immunity' and the 'good faith' exception reasonable avenues of acceptable remedies?

Jinn · 05-13-2011, 11:59 AM

No, you can't safely assume what I didn't say and quite clearly disagree with.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 12:54 PM

jinn, you said

Quote:

I don't think there's a really solid rationale for allowing *physical* resistance to unlawful arrest by a uniformed police officer in the 21st century.

and since this has always been a clearly established common law right since 1215, what else did you say or should I safely assume?

the framers of the constitution clearly wrote the 4th Amendment to prevent the government agents from entering private property without a warrant or clearly outlined exigent circumstances, so how is agreeing with this ruling anything but being comfortable with the courts removing rights?

hunnychile · 05-13-2011, 01:09 PM

More evidence of America going down the drain. This kinda change makes me sick inside.

Is it really a done deal? Or is someone "punking" us?

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunnychile

More evidence of America going down the drain. This kinda change makes me sick inside.

Is it really a done deal? Or is someone "punking" us?

below is the exact text from the opinion:

Quote:

We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

note the words 'unlawful entry'. this means that whether lawfully or unlawfully, the police enter your home, you have no right to resist their entry.

Jinn · 05-13-2011, 02:29 PM

It's not safe to assume because of how you're framing the question.

Quote:

and since this has always been a clearly established common law right since 1215, what else did you say or should I safely assume?

the framers of the constitution clearly wrote the 4th Amendment to prevent the government agents from entering private property without a warrant or clearly outlined exigent circumstances, so how is agreeing with this ruling anything but being comfortable with the courts removing rights?

To the extent that you've said "common law" here, I presumed you understood what it meant. Your usage here and in previous posts in this thread seems to reveal a misunderstanding.

As opposed to statutory law and regulatory law, case law and common law are laws and interpretations of statutory and regulatory laws which regulate our society and are inextricably TIED to our social policy and evolve with social needs. Saying that the "right" to "reasonably resist" is a "clearly established common law right since 1215" means you're ignoring every social change and judicial ruling in the intervening 800 years. I'll once again quote the majority opinion, which laid this out for you:

Quote:

In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where ―resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.‖ Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ―(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 24–25

But because case and common law *IS* social policy and inextricable from evolving social needs, of course I support the ability of a judicial branch which performs its function, interpreting law in a contemporary framework. I would not want our laws evaluated as contemporary for 1700 - I want them analyzed in the framework of modern America of the 21st century. In fact they must be, and this concept is supported by anyone who believes even vaguely in a balanced government with three divisions and a judicial system of evaluating the executive and legislative.

But you framed the question in such a way as to imply that I support a judicial system which removes immutable protections from the government as established in the Constitution. As I'm sure has been noted before, the Constitution limits the power of the government, rather than "granting" rights. In the case of the Fourth Amendment, it limits only the government from "unreasonable" search and seizure, and the ability to execute same without warrants. Removing the ability to (in most cases) violently resist an attempted police arrest does not undermine the protections of the 4th Amendment. I am far more concerned about case and administrative law that removes the requirement for a warrant, such as warrantless wiretaps, warrantless GPS tracking and warrantless ISP access requests than I am about a precedent regarding your ability to resist an arrest you feel in the heat of the moment is "unlawful".

A fine (and final) point also raised in the majority opinion is that there is a balance of rights here - certainly, the right of a citizen to be protected from police overreach is there, but what of the right of a police officer to their physical security? I cannot condone resistance to arrest (lawful or otherwise) in an environment when so many options for legislative and administrative redress exist, and in an environment where strong law exists to protect the detained, arrested and incarcerated.

From a pragmatic standpoint, as well; you will fare better accepting the unlawful arrest and suing the police department than you will attacking the officer. There's no way around that obvious fact.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

It's not safe to assume because of how you're framing the question.

not safe for you, because it's a cut and dry answer. You either DO or DON'T support the courts determining what rights YOU have. The framers did NOT give courts that authority, why should you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

To the extent that you've said "common law" here, I presumed you understood what it meant. Your usage here and in previous posts in this thread seems to reveal a misunderstanding.

unless you wish to redefine fundamental rights and common law rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

As opposed to statutory law and regulatory law, case law and common law are laws and interpretations of statutory and regulatory laws which regulate our society and are inextricably TIED to our social policy and evolve with social needs. Saying that the "right" to "reasonably resist" is a "clearly established common law right since 1215" means you're ignoring every social change and judicial ruling in the intervening 800 years.

this is the fallibility of your living constitution theory. This country wasn't founded upon a central government determining what rights you had available to you at certain times in it's history. They experienced that firsthand from the crown and CHOSE to deny the government that power with the bill of rights.

[quote=Jinn;2901410]I'll once again quote the majority opinion, which laid this out for you:

Quote:

In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where ―resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.‖ Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ―(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 24–25

The above is clearly an example of the worst kind of judicial tyranny. It gives credence to the idea that people sitting on a bench talking law knows better than you in how life should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

But because case and common law *IS* social policy and inextricable from evolving social needs, of course I support the ability of a judicial branch which performs its function, interpreting law in a contemporary framework. I would not want our laws evaluated as contemporary for 1700 - I want them analyzed in the framework of modern America of the 21st century. In fact they must be, and this concept is supported by anyone who believes even vaguely in a balanced government with three divisions and a judicial system of evaluating the executive and legislative.

the fatal flaw in this belief is that the government did not create us. we created the government. I need you to show me WHERE the creators of this government gave them the power to determine our future in the constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

But you framed the question in such a way as to imply that I support a judicial system which removes immutable protections from the government as established in the Constitution. As I'm sure has been noted before, the Constitution limits the power of the government, rather than "granting" rights. In the case of the Fourth Amendment, it limits only the government from "unreasonable" search and seizure, and the ability to execute same without warrants. Removing the ability to (in most cases) violently resist an attempted police arrest does not undermine the protections of the 4th Amendment.

so you're redefining 'unreasonable' how? because what you're saying is that there is NO unreasonable search and seizure now, and if there is, the courts MIGHT correct it and reimburse you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

I am far more concerned about case and administrative law that removes the requirement for a warrant, such as warrantless wiretaps, warrantless GPS tracking and warrantless ISP access requests than I am about a precedent regarding your ability to resist an arrest you feel in the heat of the moment is "unlawful".

this is more than the right to resist in unlawful arrest. this decision REMOVES/NEGATES/INVALIDATES a right that you once had in favor of public policy. what other rights will you be comfortable having removed in favor of public policy? what right do you now have to privacy in the sanctity of your own home? you have NONE, if you live in Indianapolis anyway, and there's no telling how many other state supreme courts will rule such now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

A fine (and final) point also raised in the majority opinion is that there is a balance of rights here - certainly, the right of a citizen to be protected from police overreach is there, but what of the right of a police officer to their physical security?

so the rights of police officers override your rights to anything. this is what we call authoritarianism, or pro police state ideology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

I cannot condone resistance to arrest (lawful or otherwise) in an environment when so many options for legislative and administrative redress exist, and in an environment where strong law exists to protect the detained, arrested and incarcerated.

From a pragmatic standpoint, as well; you will fare better accepting the unlawful arrest and suing the police department than you will attacking the officer. There's no way around that obvious fact.

do you have any stats or examples of the courts ACTIVELY holding police officers accountable for violating the rights of citizens? I'd love to see them compared to the number of times a court gives qualified immunity to police officers following policy, or good faith exceptions because they 'believed' they were acting with exigent circumstances. How about absolute immunity for prosecutors that withhold exculpatory evidence for defendants that did not commit a crime, but go to prison anyway? How about judges who rule that you have no right to be free from being framed by the government? or no right NOT to be executed by the government off of false testimony that prosecutors KNEW to be false?

Willravel · 05-13-2011, 03:22 PM

This law basically makes official a reality that's been the case for some time. I remember making a thread in which I asked what my rights are insofar as protecting myself from a police officer. After a bit of discussion, I think everyone in the thread realized or agreed that there's little if anything that can be done. If I am attacked by a police officer, the simple act of defending my life can be legally construed as assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, and other broad, vague legal charges. In the end, my only legal recourse is to take the illegal punishment and hope there's enough evidence to bring a case against the police officer or officers at a later time. I believe this to be unjust, just as I believe this law to be unjust.

I admit I read the OP of this thread, read up on the law a bit more, and thought about it before coming back to post. I do not believe that I would resist in the instance of the police illegally breaking into my home if I were the only person in danger. If, however, my family, friends, and yes dog, were injured or killed, I believe I would feel, at least on an emotional level, justified in 'resisting'.

Police already have a great amount of power and not all of them are responsible with that power. The fact that, in Indiana, they can violate the 4th Amendment and barge into any home at any time for no reason and the homeowner/resident has no legal right to resist is more than troubling; it's very dangerous.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2011, 03:39 PM

couple that with the following issues.

1) IF you try to record the incident, your camera will be confiscated and video will be erased or the camera turn up missing. guy records cops, gets arrested, camera and video are missing

If you DON'T record the incident, the court will give greater weight to the cops testimony than yours.

2)If your video survives and can be brought forward, the prosecutor will most likely drop charges, but this is after your cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you against the charges as well as whatever you had to post for bail. If you didn't lose your job because you got arrested, you're lucky.

3) the prosecutor will either decide not to press charges against the cops because he works with them daily, or just not to alienate the entire force. A grand jury is made up of morons, usually, and will choose to not indict an officer because too many people in this country are raised with the belief that cops are good guys.

4) without hard evidence like video, most lawyers will not take up your case against cops. SOME will take the case because they know they can get a settlement from the city, of which they will get 75% or more and you'll get the measly rest. Last case I read about unlawful entry settlement was 25k, lawyer got 23k of it.

5) prosecutors are interested in conviction rates to further their career. they have absolute immunity from wrongdoing, so there is nothing to give incentive for them to act ethically.

7) this is just one more right eliminated. how many more will the courts try to get away with eliminating?

Willravel · 05-13-2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

1) IF you try to record the incident, your camera will be confiscated and video will be erased or the camera turn up missing. guy records cops, gets arrested, camera and video are missing

Do not be obvious when recording the police. This should go without saying. Don't hold your phone up, but rather at your side. Hide behind something like a bush if possible. Upload the video to Youtube as soon as possible and log out of your Youtube account on your phone in case it's confiscated. That's the nice thing about modern phones: you can record a video, upload it, and then log out all in a matter of seconds if you know what you're doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

2)If your video survives and can be brought forward, the prosecutor will most likely drop charges, but this is after your cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you against the charges as well as whatever you had to post for bail. If you didn't lose your job because you got arrested, you're lucky.

Public defender. If you want to see a look of pure joy, hand your public defender a copy of the video exonerating you. As you say, it will make your case much, much easier. Less paperwork is, for a public defender, like Christmas for children. Not only that, but like teachers often public defenders do their tireless, thankless, low-paying jobs because they're idealistic and want to do good. Freeing an innocent person is going to make their day.

dksuddeth · 05-16-2011, 04:02 PM

Supreme Court: Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes - latimes.com

Quote:

The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

so now, with indiana negating your right to protect your home from unlawful invasion by law enforcement and this case now giving law enforcement all kinds of green lights by 'hearing sounds' (how does one defend against supposed sounds?) allowing home invasion, should we just go ahead and scrap the constitution as it stands?

Strange Famous · 05-17-2011, 02:14 PM

I'm not too sure how Magna Carta has any affect on US law at all?

Willravel · 05-17-2011, 02:33 PM

The Constitution of the United States is heavily, heavily influenced by the Magna Carta, but the Magna Carta itself is not law here.

dksuddeth · 05-18-2011, 03:40 AM

Gee, who didn't see this one coming?

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

Quote:

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.

and this one also....

Ind. Supreme Court Threatened After Allowing Warrantless Searches | Today's Lead Story

Quote:

The Indiana Supreme Court has received numerous threats via telephone and email following a controversial decision handed down last Thursday, May 12th, 2011, that “authorizes” police to search homes randomly according to Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman, Kathryn Dolan. In a 3-2 ruling in BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA, Justice Steven David, appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels wrote that under “modern” (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence, Hoosiers must submit to the violent force of any and all UNLAWFUL searches instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion due to individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law.

From the Indiana State Constitution:
Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Indiana Constitution
Ratified 1851

scout · 05-18-2011, 04:37 PM

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...5121101shd.pdf

Direct link to the whole decision including the dissent.

Why can't we have one party that is socially liberal that also believes in the Second and Fourth Amendment? Dang Republican appointees believe in the Second but trash the Fourth and Democrat appointees tend to be more liberal but trash the Second. I'm tired, real tired, of giving up rights just to fight the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terrorism". The US Supreme Court just pretty much confirmed the police no longer need a warrant if they "suspect evidence is being destroyed". You can bet your bottom dollar every single place they {police} go into now will be to prevent the destruction of evidence.

I've heard if you get really, really pissed and think it's time just grab your gun and run into the street. If you get there and your all alone it's not time. I guess it's not time.

dksuddeth · 05-19-2011, 03:22 PM

has it gotten to this point, that government agents have specifically said that they'll conduct random house to house searches because the court has said you no longer have a right to resist, lawful or unlawful, entry? are we that complacent now?

EventHorizon · 05-19-2011, 08:35 PM

Wouldn't the supremacy clause (Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) have some bearing on this? it seems like this is exactly a conflict of state and federal legislation. someone please correct me in the likely event that i'm wrong

dksuddeth · 05-20-2011, 06:19 AM

and the inevitable and predictable result of rulings like this is?

2nd home invasion in three days - southbendtribune.com

SOUTH BEND - A woman told police she was forced to the floor at gunpoint early Saturday morning, after a gang of masked men broke into her home in what may be a case of mistaken identity.

Police were called to the home in the 1500 block of Webster Street about 1:30 a.m., after the woman reported the robbery.

According to police reports, the 41-year-old woman told police that she heard someone kicking on her door and then saw it break open as a group of men, wearing ski masks and carrying guns, rushed into her home.

The woman said the men yelled “Police” several times as they entered with guns drawn.

The woman said she and another man, who came downstairs after hearing the noise, were forced to lie on the floor and that a blanket was placed over their heads. The woman said the men asked for drugs and money.

The woman said at one point she heard one of the men say they were at the wrong house.

The men then left, taking the woman’s cell phone. She removed the blanket from her head to find her home ransacked.

Police were unable to locate any suspects, who might have left the area in a van.

Saturday morning’s home invasion is similar to an incident reported Thursday morning, when a woman and her three children were held at gunpoint at their home in the 200 block of North Gladstone.

Police said it’s not known if the cases are related, but both remain unsolved.

StanT · 05-20-2011, 07:43 AM

And here is the inevitable result of resisting.

Family Demands Answers in Fatal Shooting of Ex-Marine by SWAT Team - ABC News

There isn't enough detail here to have an opinion; but you gotta figure that pulling a weapon on a SWAT team is never going to turn out well.

dksuddeth · 05-20-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

And here is the inevitable result of resisting.

Family Demands Answers in Fatal Shooting of Ex-Marine by SWAT Team - ABC News

There isn't enough detail here to have an opinion; but you gotta figure that pulling a weapon on a SWAT team is never going to turn out well.

I'm familiar with the story and the SWAT/sheriff statements are highly suspect.

pan6467 · 05-20-2011, 08:48 PM

So does this mean that I can shoot an officer as an illegal intruder if he knocks my door down? LOL, Yeah. I agree with Scout. Our political parties are too fucked up worrying about one Amendment (our rights) and not ALL of them.

I may not like the idea of guns but I will defend a person's right to have one. I may not like abortion, but I am not going to go bombing clinics or damning a woman to Hell (not my pay grade), I may not like what certain talking heads have to say, just as some may not like what I have to say.... but I'll defend their and my right to say it.

When I swore into the Navy I swore to protect, uphold and DEFENDTHE CONSTITUTION and ALL PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. ILLEGAL entry for ANY reason by ANYONE is just that, ILLEGAL. I don't care what the Supreme Court says, there are RIGHTS given to us by the very document that gives them power.

05-13-2011, 10:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	can a state supreme court legally rule against the Federal Constitution? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

05-13-2011, 10:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	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

05-13-2011, 11:41 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Wow, somehow I missed that big fucking box that said "PDF: SUPREME COURT RULING" - haha, sorry about that. I apologize. However, after reading through this I still agree with the majority. Specifically, in upholding the appeals' motion: "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case. I don't think there's a really solid rationale for allowing physical resistance to unlawful arrest by a uniformed police officer in the 21st century. I know the (not dismissively) cowboy defense of home ideal is appealing, but they have a point that we don't really have issues of indefinite detention, lack of bail, torture to worry about if arrested by an actual police officer. Likewise, we have remedies like above and the very solid right to sue the police department. Even if I were to grant what I suspect you believe, that a high percentage of police officers abuse their powers and will attempt you arrest you unlawfully, I don't personally think that reasonably resisting an armed police officer does anything to resolve the situation. It increases the likelihood that one or both of you will be grievously injured or killed, over what would likely be a minor detention and a posted bond and return home. If the person was not a police officer, failed to identify themselves clearly as such or I believed they would reasonably commit more than simple detain and arrest, then I would reasonably resist; understanding that I was now resisting in self-defense, rather than as an extension of my Fourth Amendment. Perhaps, as always, it comes down to a level of faith in the police force to do what is right and just a significant majority of the time (90%) and to protect the civility AND rights of its citzenry. I haven't lost nearly as much faith as you, I imagine; nor do I see a reasonable reason for your loss of faith. This isn't particularly new, by the way. As the opinion noted, most states have through jurisprudence long-removed the right to reasonable physical resistance to arrest. __________________ "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 Last edited by Jinn; 05-13-2011 at 11:44 AM..

05-13-2011, 11:59 AM	#7 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	No, you can't safely assume what I didn't say and quite clearly disagree with. __________________ "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

05-13-2011, 01:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	More evidence of America going down the drain. This kinda change makes me sick inside. Is it really a done deal? Or is someone "punking" us? __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

05-13-2011, 03:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This law basically makes official a reality that's been the case for some time. I remember making a thread in which I asked what my rights are insofar as protecting myself from a police officer. After a bit of discussion, I think everyone in the thread realized or agreed that there's little if anything that can be done. If I am attacked by a police officer, the simple act of defending my life can be legally construed as assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, and other broad, vague legal charges. In the end, my only legal recourse is to take the illegal punishment and hope there's enough evidence to bring a case against the police officer or officers at a later time. I believe this to be unjust, just as I believe this law to be unjust. I admit I read the OP of this thread, read up on the law a bit more, and thought about it before coming back to post. I do not believe that I would resist in the instance of the police illegally breaking into my home if I were the only person in danger. If, however, my family, friends, and yes dog, were injured or killed, I believe I would feel, at least on an emotional level, justified in 'resisting'. Police already have a great amount of power and not all of them are responsible with that power. The fact that, in Indiana, they can violate the 4th Amendment and barge into any home at any time for no reason and the homeowner/resident has no legal right to resist is more than troubling; it's very dangerous.

05-13-2011, 03:39 PM	#14 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	couple that with the following issues. 1) IF you try to record the incident, your camera will be confiscated and video will be erased or the camera turn up missing. guy records cops, gets arrested, camera and video are missing If you DON'T record the incident, the court will give greater weight to the cops testimony than yours. 2)If your video survives and can be brought forward, the prosecutor will most likely drop charges, but this is after your cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you against the charges as well as whatever you had to post for bail. If you didn't lose your job because you got arrested, you're lucky. 3) the prosecutor will either decide not to press charges against the cops because he works with them daily, or just not to alienate the entire force. A grand jury is made up of morons, usually, and will choose to not indict an officer because too many people in this country are raised with the belief that cops are good guys. 4) without hard evidence like video, most lawyers will not take up your case against cops. SOME will take the case because they know they can get a settlement from the city, of which they will get 75% or more and you'll get the measly rest. Last case I read about unlawful entry settlement was 25k, lawyer got 23k of it. 5) prosecutors are interested in conviction rates to further their career. they have absolute immunity from wrongdoing, so there is nothing to give incentive for them to act ethically. 7) this is just one more right eliminated. how many more will the courts try to get away with eliminating? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-17-2011, 02:14 PM	#17 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I'm not too sure how Magna Carta has any affect on US law at all?

05-17-2011, 02:33 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The Constitution of the United States is heavily, heavily influenced by the Magna Carta, but the Magna Carta itself is not law here.

05-18-2011, 04:37 PM	#20 (permalink)
scout Psycho	http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...5121101shd.pdf Direct link to the whole decision including the dissent. Why can't we have one party that is socially liberal that also believes in the Second and Fourth Amendment? Dang Republican appointees believe in the Second but trash the Fourth and Democrat appointees tend to be more liberal but trash the Second. I'm tired, real tired, of giving up rights just to fight the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terrorism". The US Supreme Court just pretty much confirmed the police no longer need a warrant if they "suspect evidence is being destroyed". You can bet your bottom dollar every single place they {police} go into now will be to prevent the destruction of evidence. I've heard if you get really, really pissed and think it's time just grab your gun and run into the street. If you get there and your all alone it's not time. I guess it's not time. __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson Last edited by scout; 05-18-2011 at 04:41 PM..

05-19-2011, 03:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	has it gotten to this point, that government agents have specifically said that they'll conduct random house to house searches because the court has said you no longer have a right to resist, lawful or unlawful, entry? are we that complacent now? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-20-2011, 06:19 AM	#23 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	and the inevitable and predictable result of rulings like this is? 2nd home invasion in three days - southbendtribune.com SOUTH BEND - A woman told police she was forced to the floor at gunpoint early Saturday morning, after a gang of masked men broke into her home in what may be a case of mistaken identity. Police were called to the home in the 1500 block of Webster Street about 1:30 a.m., after the woman reported the robbery. According to police reports, the 41-year-old woman told police that she heard someone kicking on her door and then saw it break open as a group of men, wearing ski masks and carrying guns, rushed into her home. The woman said the men yelled “Police” several times as they entered with guns drawn. The woman said she and another man, who came downstairs after hearing the noise, were forced to lie on the floor and that a blanket was placed over their heads. The woman said the men asked for drugs and money. The woman said at one point she heard one of the men say they were at the wrong house. The men then left, taking the woman’s cell phone. She removed the blanket from her head to find her home ransacked. Police were unable to locate any suspects, who might have left the area in a van. Saturday morning’s home invasion is similar to an incident reported Thursday morning, when a woman and her three children were held at gunpoint at their home in the 200 block of North Gladstone. Police said it’s not known if the cases are related, but both remain unsolved. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-20-2011, 07:43 AM	#24 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	And here is the inevitable result of resisting. Family Demands Answers in Fatal Shooting of Ex-Marine by SWAT Team - ABC News There isn't enough detail here to have an opinion; but you gotta figure that pulling a weapon on a SWAT team is never going to turn out well.

05-20-2011, 08:48 PM	#26 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	So does this mean that I can shoot an officer as an illegal intruder if he knocks my door down? LOL, Yeah. I agree with Scout. Our political parties are too fucked up worrying about one Amendment (our rights) and not ALL of them. I may not like the idea of guns but I will defend a person's right to have one. I may not like abortion, but I am not going to go bombing clinics or damning a woman to Hell (not my pay grade), I may not like what certain talking heads have to say, just as some may not like what I have to say.... but I'll defend their and my right to say it. When I swore into the Navy I swore to protect, uphold and DEFENDTHE CONSTITUTION and ALL PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. ILLEGAL entry for ANY reason by ANYONE is just that, ILLEGAL. I don't care what the Supreme Court says, there are RIGHTS given to us by the very document that gives them power. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"