Citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry in Indiana

[highnote]

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

In a move that flies not only in the face of the U.S. Constitution but defies common law dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that residents of the Hoosier state have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.


http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/indiana-supreme-court-citizens-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry

Welp, there goes another "right".... right down the toilet.

[sonnyp]

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry




http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/indiana-supreme-court-citizens-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry

Welp, there goes another "right".... right down the toilet.


this whole search and seizure thing by government agencies on all levels is way,way out of control.

[mostpost]

How do you know the decision was wrong if you don't know the facts of the case? The article does not identify the case involved and it misrepresents the facts. But I will wait until you find the case before commenting further.

[sonnyp]

if you're talking to me, i know people who have had their doors broken down by ICE, FBI, HOMELAND SECURITY, supposedly for betting offshore on warrants signed by judges giving, basically, carte blanche since the patriot act went in.

everyting seized was returned, no charges, no sorry...didn't even pay for the front door.


here's a story about a "huge federal bust". what do you think ?


http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/raw-milk-raid-on-amish-farmer

[Pell Mell]

How do you know the decision was wrong if you don't know the facts of the case? The article does not identify the case involved and it misrepresents the facts. But I will wait until you find the case before commenting further.

I had read about this in several places. Please tell us why we need to know the exact case or circumstances when the decision spells out exactly what it means for everyone.
Suppose the supreme court says in a decision that everyone has the right to carry a gun anywhere, any time, under any circumstances, period. What difference does it make what the case was or what the circumstances were? It's now the law regardless.

This decision says the cops can enter your house without a warrant, period! It doesn't say under certain circumstances.

Your so good at research, how about you find the case and prove the articles are wrong, nit-picker. :bang:

[mostpost]

if you're talking to me, i know people who have had their doors broken down by ICE, FBI, HOMELAND SECURITY, supposedly for betting offshore on warrants signed by judges giving, basically, carte blanche since the patriot act went in.

everyting seized was returned, no charges, no sorry...didn't even pay for the front door.


here's a story about a "huge federal bust". what do you think ?


http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/raw-milk-raid-on-amish-farmer

The story was about a raid on a business selling raw food such as raw milk. The argument was we sell raw meat and raw eggs why can't we sell raw milk.
Of course this ignores the fact that we traditionally cook meat and eggs before we eat them. We do not cook milk. Unpasteurized milk is very prone to bacteria and can cause severe, even fatal illness. And no, you don't have the right to do whatever you want even if it harms you. People do not have the right to buy raw milk and they certainly don't have the right to sell it to gullible fools.

[mostpost]

I had read about this in several places. Please tell us why we need to know the exact case or circumstances when the decision spells out exactly what it means for everyone.
Suppose the supreme court says in a decision that everyone has the right to carry a gun anywhere, any time, under any circumstances, period. What difference does it make what the case was or what the circumstances were? It's now the law regardless.

This decision says the cops can enter your house without a warrant, period! It doesn't say under certain circumstances.

Your so good at research, how about you find the case and prove the articles are wrong, nit-picker. :bang:

You don't know what the decision says. You did not read the decision. I did. It does not say what it is purported to say in the story. The story does not have the facts of the case correct. The story distorts the facts of the case and the decision in order to advance an agenda. The story distorts the Magna Carta and how it applies in the present day. If you want to discuss this, go find the case. I found it in two minutes with just the information given in the story.

[Pell Mell]

You don't know what the decision says. You did not read the decision. I did. It does not say what it is purported to say in the story. The story does not have the facts of the case correct. The story distorts the facts of the case and the decision in order to advance an agenda. The story distorts the Magna Carta and how it applies in the present day. If you want to discuss this, go find the case. I found it in two minutes with just the information given in the story.

How about a link.

[dartman51]

The story was about a raid on a business selling raw food such as raw milk. The argument was we sell raw meat and raw eggs why can't we sell raw milk.
Of course this ignores the fact that we traditionally cook meat and eggs before we eat them. We do not cook milk. Unpasteurized milk is very prone to bacteria and can cause severe, even fatal illness. And no, you don't have the right to do whatever you want even if it harms you. People do not have the right to buy raw milk and they certainly don't have the right to sell it to gullible fools.

I'm surprised at you mosty. As much as you would like for us to emulate Europe. Raw or unpasteurized milk is readily available in Europe. It's amazing how we survived before we had the FDA looking out for us. Telling people that unpasteurized milk will kill you, is a lie. I grew up drinking it, and eating butter that my mother made with the "raw" cream. I'm 62, and in very good health, so I guess it's a good thing no one told us how bad it was. An article that might enlighten you http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/milk_history.html :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Is George W. Bush still President? How come all the left-leaners aren't on here jumping up and down shouting how all of our rights are being eroded away by these rulings? Didn't they do this while Bush was President?

And another thing...ever since Bush left office, our rights have been FURTHER compromised...just witness these increasingly invasive searches by TSA officials at the airports.

Where is the outrage from the left-leaners?

Democrats = Hypocrisy Squared

[mostpost]

Is George W. Bush still President? How come all the left-leaners aren't on here jumping up and down shouting how all of our rights are being eroded away by these rulings? Didn't they do this while Bush was President?

And another thing...ever since Bush left office, our rights have been FURTHER compromised...just witness these increasingly invasive searches by TSA officials at the airports.

Where is the outrage from the left-leaners?

Democrats = Hypocrisy Squared
Here is the case.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
And here is a paragraph from the article posted by swetyjohn.

The court's decision arises out of a case in which a husband and wife were arguing outside their apartment. When police arrived to investigate, the couple retreated into their domicile. The husband attempted to close the door, but one officer forced his way into the apartment. The husband shoved the intruder against a wall, whereupon a second officer used a stun gun on the man and arrested him.

That paragraph does not give an accurate account of what happened. Here is the account as found in the court's decision.
Officer Lenny Reed, the first responder, saw a man leaving an apartment with a bag and began questioning him in the parking lot. Upon identifying the man as Barnes, Reed informed him that officers were responding to a 911 call. Barnes responded that he was getting his things and leaving and that Reed was not needed. Barnes had raised his voice and yelled at Reed,prompting stares from others outside and several warnings from Reed.

Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was very agitated and was yelling. Barnes continued to yell, loudly and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you‘re going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell.
Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes‘s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment.

Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed‘s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, "don‘t do this" and "just let them in.' See Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital.

The article says the couple retreated to their apartment as if it were a mutual decision and they were united in opposition to the police. In fact Mary Barnes only wanted Richard to come back so he could get the rest of his things and leave. Also it was only Richard Barnes who objected to the police entering the apartment. See bolded statements by Mary above.

Those are the factual errors in the article. There are also errors in the application of the law.

The police may enter a persons residence without that person's permission if they have a warrant or if they have probable cause. A 911 call constitutes probable cause. An officer responding to a 911 call must have access to the premises in order to determine if any one is being held against their will or under duress. The officers in this case were given permission to enter the apartment by one of the tenants of the apartment. Their entry was lawful. Richard Barnes resistance was not.

I know that the claim is that this decision gives the police the right to enter a person's home at any time for any and no reason. I will discuss that shortly.

[mostpost]

Is George W. Bush still President? How come all the left-leaners aren't on here jumping up and down shouting how all of our rights are being eroded away by these rulings? Didn't they do this while Bush was President?

And another thing...ever since Bush left office, our rights have been FURTHER compromised...just witness these increasingly invasive searches by TSA officials at the airports.

Where is the outrage from the left-leaners?

Democrats = Hypocrisy Squared
Back to Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana.
The appeal was based on the failure of the trial judge to include a jury instruction advising the jury of a citizens right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen's home.

The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that a citizen could exercise this right after but not before such unlawful entry. The court held that English common law did not apply because circumstances of arrest and imprisonment are so much different from what they were in 17th century England.
page 4 of the decision
(citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite
detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—
The court also noted the remedies available in the case of an illegal or mistaken arrest.
page 5 of the decision.
: (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).

Let's look at each of these remedies individually.
1. bail: A person accused or suspected of a crime is taken before a magistrate within a reasonable time and bail is set. This means the person will spend a minimal time in jail depending on the severity of the offense. In 17th century England you could spend years in jail waiting for a judge to come around.

2. Prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause. The DA's office reviews the case. It determines whether the police acted appropriately and whether sufficient evidence was gathered legally to warrant a charge. Then a judge decides if the DA's office was correct.

3. The exclusionary rule: Any evidence taken as the result of an illegal search or entry is not admissible. Also any evidence developed from other sources as a result of an illegal entry is not admissible.

4.Police department internal review and disciplinary procedure. All police departments have an Internal Affairs Department which is charged with monitoring and enforcing police behavior. Officers failing to meet ethical standards or committing criminal acts are subject to discipline, suspension, removal from the force and even criminal prosecution.

5. Civil remedies: Citizens are allowed to sue police departments and officers
for damages if actions by those entities causes harm.

Balanced against those safeguards the court considered the deleterious effects of resistance and the effectiveness of such resistance.

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. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest
situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ‗measured‘ response may fast become
excessive.‖). Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For
example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent
circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976)
(holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in
the course of a ―hot pursuit‖);

My opinion below.
Then there is the question of who determines whether an entry is lawful or unlawful. Certainly the typical homeowner is not qualified to make the determination. A police officer is more qualified, but his judgement is not absolute. The only thing we can hope is that the officer's training and knowledge of the law and departmental procedures is sufficient that he makes no unlawful entries into citizens homes. Failing that our recourse is not to violence, but to the courts.

[bigmack]

I know that the claim is that this decision gives the police the right to enter a person's home at any time for any and no reason.
(mosty gag #147)

Hey mosty, what's the difference between any and no?

[mostpost]

Is George W. Bush still President? How come all the left-leaners aren't on here jumping up and down shouting how all of our rights are being eroded away by these rulings? Didn't they do this while Bush was President?
George W. Bush is not still President. Thank you, Jesus.

This case has nothing to do with George W. Bush or Barack Obama. This is an Indiana case decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana. The President does not appoint the members of the Indiana Supreme Court. The governor of Indiana does that.

In this case, the majority was:
Justice Shepard appointed in 1985 by Robert D. Orr, a Republican.
Justice David appointed in 2010 by Mitch Daniels, a Republican
Justice Sullivan appointed in 1993 by Evan Bayh, a Democrat.

Dissenting were:
Justice Dickson appointed in 1986 by Robert D. Orr, a Republican
Justice Rucker appointed in 1999 by Frank O'Bannon, a Democrat.

Any attempt to paint this decision as a plot by the evil left is misplaced. Not that that would stop you.

[mostpost]

(mosty gag #147)

Hey mosty, what's the difference between any and no?

I should have said for any reason or no reason at all. Which is how it was worded in the article.

[Spiderman]

Is George W. Bush still President? How come all the left-leaners aren't on here jumping up and down shouting how all of our rights are being eroded away by these rulings? Didn't they do this while Bush was President?

And another thing...ever since Bush left office, our rights have been FURTHER compromised...just witness these increasingly invasive searches by TSA officials at the airports.

Where is the outrage from the left-leaners?

Democrats = Hypocrisy Squared

Another cheap shot of disinfomation by the vaunted, know-it-all, PA. Let's see how you can spin Mosty's astute display of the actual facts.

The TA was installed during junior's administration. The SC was stacked in favor of cons during junior's ugly two terms.

[mostpost]

Another cheap shot of disinfomation by the vaunted, know-it-all, PA. Let's see how you can spin Mosty's astute display of the actual facts.

The TA was installed during junior's administration. The SC was stacked in favor of cons during junior's ugly two terms.

I can tell you exactly what he is going to say. He is going to say that he was always to opposed to the actions of the TSA and that his complaint is with the fact that we now support what we opposed during the Bush Administration. The problem is this case has nothing to do with either administration and it especially has nothing to do with the TSA,

If we want to discuss airport security we should discuss how the climate of fear that made this security necessary was amped up by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. We should discuss how Israel has a much less physically invasive yet more efficient security system.

[hcap]

mostpost....

The righties are using false equivalence on a regular basis. Many threads started are frantically looking for the slightest similarity between GW Bush's obvious screw ups and just as obvious the exaggerated and fabricated sins of Obama

They really have nothing left to factually bitch about..

They are doing EXACTLY what your bowling buddy did, and deny they are losing the debate

[Pell Mell]

Hey Mosty, you went through the whole damned appeal of Barnes when it wasn't necessary. If the decision of the court only applied in this particular case it would be one thing but that's not the case.

The majority decided, and I quote: "In sum, we hold that the right to reasonably resist an UNLAWFUL police entry into a home is NO LONGER recognized under Indiana law."

Justice Rucker in his dissent said:" There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home."

He based his dissent on the 4th Amendment of the constituition.

So what is being said is that, regardless of the merits of this case, the court has made a broad ruling that in essence rebukes the 4th amendment and that is what this thread is about.
So say what you want, what this means, is that in any future cases the homeowner has lost his rights regardless of the circumstances.
And that's my Damned decision! :p

[PaceAdvantage]

Another cheap shot of disinfomation by the vaunted, know-it-all, PA. Let's see how you can spin Mosty's astute display of the actual facts.

The TA was installed during junior's administration. The SC was stacked in favor of cons during junior's ugly two terms.Are you people that daft that you have completely lost the ability to see the BIG PICTURE?

Come on lads. Don't play this game with me.

The BIG PICTURE was that during Bush, the left-leaners cried their eyes out that our RIGHTS WERE BEING TAKEN AWAY.

Now, during Obama, these rights ARE STILL BEING TAKEN AWAY, at an EVER INCREASING RATE. The Indiana Supreme Court decision is a REFLECTION of where we are as a society. Obama, the CHANGER, hasn't had ANY IMPACT it appears. Where is the OUTRAGE?

The TSA is EXPANDING their invasive searches. The SCANNERS, the 6-year-old girl with a strangers HAND DOWN HER PANTS...a BABY'S DIAPER being SEARCHED!!!

If Bush were still Prez. you'd BOTH be on here telling us how this is Nazi Germany redux, and it's all Bush's fault.

Is this what you two call progress:

QpCeCaRTWLg

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Mosty, you went through the whole damned appeal of Barnes when it wasn't necessary. If the decision of the court only applied in this particular case it would be one thing but that's not the case.

The majority decided, and I quote: "In sum, we hold that the right to reasonably resist an UNLAWFUL police entry into a home is NO LONGER recognized under Indiana law."

Justice Rucker in his dissent said:" There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home."

He based his dissent on the 4th Amendment of the constituition.

So what is being said is that, regardless of the merits of this case, the court has made a broad ruling that in essence rebukes the 4th amendment and that is what this thread is about.
So say what you want, what this means, is that in any future cases the homeowner has lost his rights regardless of the circumstances.
And that's my Damned decision! :pIsn't it amazing that a man praised as often as mosty is by the left-leaners here CONSISTENTLY FAILS to grasp even the simplest of big-picture concepts? He argues the merit of the case instead of what really matters, the FINAL JUDGEMENT which impacts ALL the citizens of Indiana.

This in turn sets a PRECEDENT for other courts to follow.

Yeah, mosty is a genius... :lol:

[bigmack]

Hey Mosty, you went through the whole damned appeal of Barnes when it wasn't necessary.
I saw that earlier and had to laugh. He goes through these little exercises while any reader wonders where in world he's run off. He sure schooled PA on IN SCourt decisions. :lol:

"Big Picture" ain't mosties game. It's the minutia where he shines. Nevermind, 98% of the time he rolls with minutia it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

And so it goes.

[Tom]

The big picture is a bit blurry to the left, you know, the ones who thought water boarding KSM was horrible and killing Bin Laden was spot on.

A natural immunity to facts is required to join the big tent party.

[mostpost]

Isn't it amazing that a man praised as often as mosty is by the left-leaners here CONSISTENTLY FAILS to grasp even the simplest of big-picture concepts? He argues the merit of the case instead of what really matters, the FINAL JUDGEMENT which impacts ALL the citizens of Indiana.

This in turn sets a PRECEDENT for other courts to follow.

Yeah, mosty is a genius... :lol:

Did you read my number 12 or just # 11. In 11 I do discuss the facts of the case and whether the police were justified in entering the apartment. In 12 I discuss the decision and the Indiana Supreme Courts decision that a homeowner can not resist police entry into his domicile.

I agree with this decision for a number of reasons. First because there are a number of safeguards in place that ensure that police can not enter a home willy nilly and with no regard for the consequences. Second because a homeowner is far from the most qualified to determine if a police officer is acting in accordance with the law. Third because no evidence seized in an illegal search can be used against anyone. Fourth the court is correct that the Magna Carta and English common law have no standing in an American court.

The decision does set a precedent, but a precedent can be overturned by a higher court and a precedent is only valid until someone finds a way to change it. I agree with the decision based on arguments presented by the majority. That does not mean I would agree with it forever.

I agree with Justice Rucker in his dissent where he says the court was correct in finding that Barnes should not resist even though he felt the police entry was illegal, but wrong to use that decision to overturn the right in general.
Perhaps the majority should not have addressed the issue of the right to resist unlawful police entry. They did and their interpretation of the issue seems right to me.

[Robert Goren]

For the record, there were a lot of conservatives who did not agree with Bush on these kinds of things. And there were some liberals like me who agreed with him.
One more thing, resisting law officers under any circumstances is never a good idea. It is a good way to end up "dead right". It always better to let your lawyer sort this out.

[mostpost]

For the record, there were a lot of conservatives who did not agree with Bush on these kinds of things. And there were some liberals like me who agreed with him.
One more thing, resisting law officers under any circumstances is never a good idea. It is a good way to end up "dead right". It always better to let your lawyer sort this out.

I think this says it better than I did.

[PaceAdvantage]

[/B]

I think this says it better than I did.So you want to rid us of another check on runaway authority? Dismantle the 4th Amendment why don't you? How soon before you start championing that move? :lol: