Indiana rules that police can enter your home without reason and you CANNOT RESIST

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

This is beyond messed up...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,6950521.story


The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.


"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.
Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.


The line I bolded up there could just as easily be translated to "If officers feel like it".

I know what the Constitution says. Law or not, any Cop entering my home without warrant or reason WILL be met with resistance.

(For the record I do NOT live in Indiana)

[Glados]

I read this. What I saw was that the judges seem to not understand that there is a difference between reasonable resistance and violent resistance. A person can resist in perfectly peaceful ways, including verbally.

It is a separate crime if a person is violent towards police and, therefore, removing the ability to resist is needless. The person can be charged with a different, appropriate crime if they cross the line in resisting.

[Ladeeda]

Unlawful searches and seizures much? I hope the people take this higher. SO unconstitutional.

[Andara Bledin]

This is the wrong decision.

I understand their reasoning, but their "solution" is completely bass-ackwards.

How about, instead of forcing the citizens to roll over in cases where police overstep their bounds to actually focusing on the actual transgressors, and work on training the police on when it's not legal to enter a person's home?

And don't think this will stop people from resisting. Most people already don't know when it is and isn't legal, and those who resist already aren't considering the consequences of going toe to toe with a person armed with a gun, training, and backup. How is this ruling supposed to make a difference?

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

If it's not legal to defend, then illegal entry by the police needs to be prosecuted exactly the same as if anyone else had done it. Including assault, etc charges if applicable.

[Hyena Dandy]

But its not really ruling that they can enter your home illegally. That's what a lot of people are characterizing it as, but it seems more that they're ruling you can't hit them if they do.

It seems to me that if they do enter your home illegally, anything they find is still found illegally, etc. So that while they can enter your home, if they do anything, it has no legal weight. And you're not allowed to hit them.

So... I don't think I approve of the ruling, but I think its important to understand what you're disapproving of.

[Greenday]

But its not really ruling that they can enter your home illegally. That's what a lot of people are characterizing it as, but it seems more that they're ruling you can't hit them if they do.

At the same time though, this basically gives them permission to enter anyone's home that they want to and no one can stop them. So yes, any evidence they find won't apply in court, but at the same time, some intruder is entering your home and you aren't allowed to do squat about it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yes, my point wasn't that its good, its that its not as bad as people are making it out to be. And you can do something. You can get them in trouble once they leave, which admittedly probably isn't as satisfying as punching them out or shooting them, but its still SOMETHING. As opposed to the portrayal of this as meaning that you no longer have any property.

I wasn't trying to say its GOOD, or even NOT BAD. I'm just saying not AS bad as people think it is.

[Greenday]

It means the people have an inability to prevent damage before it can occur. Sure, I can sue the hell out of them later. But that's not going to replace anything that's broken or stolen and the police won't come back to clean everything up.

[MadMike]

So does that mean you can no longer tell them "Not without a warrant?"

[Nyoibo]

So does that mean you can no longer tell them "Not without a warrant?"

Basically, at least that's what I got out of it.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, you can tell them that, but they don't have to listen.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Oh, you can tell them that, but they don't have to listen.

^-.-^

This. Basically the law is just saying don't escalate it to physical violence. Don't impede them. Doesn't say you can't inform them of the giant lawsuit you will slap them with.

[blas87]

Remind me to stay away from Indiana.

I sure hope this doesn't spread. You can get in huge trouble for hurting a police officer, and apparently even in this case, if they just up and enter your home with no warrant or reason.

[Panacea]

So does that mean you can no longer tell them "Not without a warrant?"

That's what I get out of this.

This ruling won't stand constitutional muster before the Supreme Court. It is a clear violation of our 4th Amendment right to be "secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects." If the police can bully their way into your home, then you are not secure in your house.

Funny thing is, North Carolina is moving in the other direction. You can shoot a man in your front yard, without retreating, under the castle doctrine, if you reasonable believe there is a threat to you or your property.

Don't know if that would apply to cops though. Probably not.