Indiana 4th amendment ruling

[tbburg]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.
On the one hand, this is a terrible test case. I know when I left Ohio, the current policy there was if an officer was dispatched on a domestic violence call, they were taking somebody into custody. If you have a loud enough screaming match with your significant other that the neighbors call the cops,.. well, you need a good talking to(at least).
Further, unless you honestly know your life is in danger, assaulting a police officer is always a no-no.

On the other hand, the ruling(at least as written up in the article) puts no limit on police activity. It basically says "Hey, sue 'em later, it's all the same". This I don't agree with. You HAVE to let them in? Under any circumstances? What if you don't answer your door?

Link to article at nwitimes.com

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.(bold mine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Thoughts?(on the ruling and the implications thereof - not the idiots involved in the actual test case.)

 

[FlexdXJ]

Well, thats a bunch of crap! That is definitely a bad example of a case. I mean, in some circumstances yes the police should be able to come in(like in this case) but a warrant should be need since, you know, its the law and all.......

 

[REWSTER]

bunch of crap is right. if they force ther way into my home they wont like the 2 pitbulls that protect it

i bookmarked that site, there is alot of good local news for me when i watch the news on tv its all chicago

 

[tbburg]

'Found a down-loadable PDF of the actual ruling:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-...pdf_c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb.html

 

[CherBear]

Complete trash. The hell if I am just going to let my rights get trampled like this.

 

[RNMedic]

smell a Supreme Court Case.

 

[Prosonic]

bunch of crap is right. if they force ther way into my home they wont like the 2 pitbulls that protect it

No they won't. That's why they won't hesitate to shoot them.

Well, one more state I'll never move to.

 

[FlexdXJ]

Indiana folks: There is a big thread on Ingunowners

http://ingunowners.com/forums/carry.../149200-no_right_to_resist_entry_by_leos.html

Great info for gun owners in the hoosier state. I'm there along with Big Hank

 

[90 waggy]

this is just another way to strip more constitutional rights from us!

Maine=the way life should be.

 

[REWSTER]

No they won't. That's why they won't hesitate to shoot them.

as a south chicago native who has friends in the lime quary business i hope they dont do that :skull1:


(if anyone reads this and actualy thinks i would do something like this pull your head out your ass. i would never do that.........to a cop):eyes:

 

[tbburg]

Interesting take on the ruling:

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html