The Glade 4.0

Cops can enter your house for whatever reason they want.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 29697.html

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Ugh. If the wife felt threatened, she shouldn't have gone back inside, or should have invited the cops in. If she didn't, then the cops shouldn't have been there.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

In this case there may have been exigent circumstances, the article didn't cover it. If the argument were heated enough they believed the one of the couple presented a real and present danger, then they would have had the right to follow the couple back into the house as a matter of public safety. The article however didn't cover that and the officers may have been quite out of line.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I'd be more concerned with the degree of unlawfulness of the entry. The article states the police entry was unlawful, but we don't know specifics. You don't want an extreme situation of, "Well, the residents of the house shot four cops, but there was a typo on the warrant, so they get off scot free."

It doesn't matter if there were exigent circumstances in this instance. The ruling doesn't just cover this case, it covers any instance of illegal police entry into a home. The ruling says that the police can enter your home illegally and you can't act to prevent it. Only after the fact can you seek remuneration.

"Well, the police can enter your house illegally, and you can't do anything about it until you take them to court." is already an extreme situation.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

OK, the article claims this somehow overturns some principle dating back to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had absolutely zilch to do with modern ideas of law enforcement and search and seizure. Yes, it may have started the basic idea of the righs of nobleman that later expanded, but claiming the principle in question dates back that far calls into question the basic honesty of the article.

Second, of course you don't have the right to resist illegal entry. If people did, then every criminal would always claim every entry was illegal and resist. It doesn't matter though, because this in no way makes any evidence obtained by illegal entry admissible. The case is still completely **** if the police enter illegally.

Finally, this is the Indiana supreme court, not the USSC, so it's not "cops can enter your home whenever they want". It's "If you happen to live in Indiana, and the polcie happen to enter your home illegally, you're not allowed to resist them unless you also have probable cause to believe they will use excessive force (as defined by law, not by anyone's personal ideas) in arresting you there. If they do this, any evidence they obtain will still be inadmissible."

Quite frankly, the entire situation would probably not have happened if we did not have excessive domestic violence laws that require the police to take measures that are totally unnecessary for a verbal argument.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Of course you don't have the right to resist illegal entry? Wait, what?

Adkisson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1316 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985).

Robinson v. State, 814 N.E.2d 704, 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Alspach v. State, 755 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).




Absolutely.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You should be able to sue them but I don't think you can legally attack police officers if it isn't self defense.

Since those are prior rulings by Indiana's courts, this current ruling overrides them as it is a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court.

In any case, the matter has never been taken up by the USSC, or the ISC would not be ruling on it. Therefore,t he only governing legal precedent is that you do not have the right to resist arrest unless you have probable cause to believe excessive force will be used in making it.

In the State of Indiana, pursuant to arrest by Indiana law enforcement officers, and those of its subdivisions, illegal entry might have been considered excessive force, but that is now vacated by the current ruling. I predict this matter will go to the USSC, and in the meantime, it makes no difference if you don't live in Indiana.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They are Indiana cases because this is an Indiana case. When you stated, "Second, of course you don't have the right to resist illegal entry.", I assumed you were speaking about not just Indiana, but everywhere in the US, including Indiana. I don't believe you were saying "because of this ruling of course you don't...". Before yesterday would you have said the same thing? Do I need to cite case-law regarding other states?
I guess I am rather surprised that you'd say such a thing. If a cop shows up at my door, I have to let him in for any reason whatsoever, or none at all? The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow you to stop them from entering for any reason? I don't believe you think I have to let a police officer into my home any time they choose to do so.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yes. Until you pointed it out, I was not aware of the prior Indiana rulings, so I would have said the same thing about everywhere, although in the case of Indiana I would have been incorrect.

Everwhere



Not at all. You can refuse entry. If he comes in anyhow, you do not have the right to physically resist, unless there is some tangible circumstance that makes you think he will use excessive force against you personally. (And no, the entry is not by itself, necessarily such a circumstance. It could be a contributor to the totality of the circumstnaces though.)

Nothing about this ruling requires you to ever grant permission to anything. More importantly, it does not in any way allow any evidence he obtains in the process of doing so to be used against you. Finally, it does not remove any legal remedies in civil or criminal action against him.

The fact of the matter is that while this may grate on one's sensibilities, if it were not the case law enforcement would be impossible. Every criminal would resist, claiming unlawful entry, even when a warrant had already been issued, most because criminals don't understand the law very well anyhow as a general rule, and some figuring on the off chance they'd be right.

If you want to have the right to resist simply based on your own legal opinion, fine. Expect to have a society with no law enforcement, and essentially, no law.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The establishment of the right to be secure in one's house from entrance by the King's men was established in common law long long before this nation was founded. A writ or warrant from local nobility would be required or from the local Shire Reeve (Sheriff).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It's not based on my own legal opinion, it's based on Common Law.


Did we have no law enforcement prior to 1964? How about 1983? I am surprised that Common Law has been abrogated in so many states. In 1964, California, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were the only states to have abrogated an individuals right to resist. Between 1983 and now, that number rose to 38 states that take away that right. Those that remain are: Michigan, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi.
Source: 2 Boalt J. Crim. L. 2

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

By your own legal opinion, I meant your own opinion of what is an illegal entry, and I didn't mean you personally, I mean "you" as in "people in general."



I'll need a link to that, since your source does not seem to google to any document. I, quite frankly, do not buy that people had the right to forcibly resist entrance to their home by peace officers based on nothing more than their personal decision that an entry was unlawful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Would this really matter if we operate under the precedent of being able to resist unlawful entry? The suspect/criminal might be able to resist claiming unlawful entry, but if the police have a warrant then shouldn't it just be charge of resisting arrest/lawful execution of search warrant?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

That would be fine if lawful entry were confined exclusively to when they have a warrant. There are plenty of circumstances where a warant isn't necessary; for example, if someone is in there beating their wife (and I mean actually beating, not stupid **** like verbal altercations that caused this mess in the first place) the police should not need a warrant to stop the guy from beating the tar out of her. The husband, however, will inevitably try to argue after resisting (assuming this doesn't escalate to the point he gets killed) that it was illegal because she was actually beating him or whatever. The argument may be bullshit, but people who get in trouble will say almost anything to shift responsibility or attention elsewhere.

Moreover, you have to understand that a lot of criminals are "jailhouse lawyers". If something relating to what they can do is flatly illegal they won't try to claim it is legal, but if there's some sort of judgement call involved, they will always claim its legal, and they can always find some lawyer to take the case. For example, if it were legal to resist police illegal entry, they would claim that any warrant was an illegal warrant because <insert pertinent reason here>. This means ending up with a lot more cops, and criminals getting shot. Criminals make a lot of really stupid arguments out of desperation, and while a lot of them are obviously silly, it's a major problem if that silly argument makes some dumbass think he can shoot at the police and get away with it when otherwise he wouldn't have.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wow.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I don't understand what the police have to hide about people resiting them - after all if the polices actions are legal they can always just settle the matter later in court.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yeah.. that's wonderful. Resisting involves force. If it's illegal, the homeowner can also resolve the matter later in court, except that since no one resisted, no one got hurt or killed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes its easy to resolve getting shot and killed by the police executing a search on the wrong address. I am sure those that have been so killed take a lot of comfort and solace in the fact that it can be "remedied" later in courts where the police can testify without fear of contradiction.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is a tough situation, really. One the one hand, people should be able to defend themselves and their property.

On the other hand, Joe Schmo isn't qualified to know for sure what is a legal and/or unlawful entry. I keep up with this stuff and I would not be 100% confident.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to allow people to **** up in their jobs from time to time, provided any "victims" are fully compensated and property restored. So if my home were invaded and property seized as the result of a mistake, it would be reasonable for me to allow this, and sue the **** out of them. Unreasonable to open fire or some ****.

I would look into the % of winning cases when opening up civil or criminal suits on police officers or their administrators before you assume you would spend even more money on these suits and get anywhere.

Civil suits are preponderance of evidence and the department will spend considerable money and resources making sure they do not get publicly embarrassed at the same time you have to go against the assumption that since the police did something to you - you must be a bad guy and therefore whatever the police did was ok.

This ruling also allows them to find one thing illegal in your home after an illegal invasion and then self-justify that invasion on the basis that they "really" had a warrant for whatever they found - since they can now be the issuing force behind their own warrants.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There's a lot of "what if" in your post. Yeah, it could go badly. So could violent escalation to prevent them from entering.

But the court case doesn't rule against "violent" resistance to illegal entry. It makes shutting the door and standing in the way illegal, too.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I'm pretty sure that your odds of getting shot are significantly higher if you resist an illegal entry than if you don't.