Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist..

[564826]

so what is the purpose of a warrant then?

now a leo can enter a home and obtain evidence illegally, then when you try and say it was obtained illegally they can throw some probable cause bullshit at you and you get convicted anyways

kind like saying is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

You are guilty until proven innocent.

[jnobles06]

so what is the purpose of a warrant then?

now a leo can enter a home and obtain evidence illegally, then when you try and say it was obtained illegally they can throw some probable cause bullshit at you and you get convicted anyways

kind like saying is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[564826]

I wonder if those Supreme Court Judges are Conservatives or Liberals?

[psdtech]

If officer had probable cause then he can enter, but he didn't so stay the fuck out. Why should some one have to pay a bunch of leagle bills and have to deal all the shit that goes with being arrested when the cop broke the law

[Captain Crawfish]

no warrant = stay the fuck out. simple and has worked for years

[Pro88LX]

Your a god damned moron.....

You're

j/k

[Chas_svo]

One more reason not to live in Indiana

[bcoop]

Also, if that was different, EVERYONE will think we are performing illegal searches and arrests and WILL resist. Because they think they can legally.

Lolwut?

[stevo]

Someone has coated the 'slippery slope' with Teflon and has sprayed it down with Pam.

Stevo

[Lason]

Makes sense. Same thing with a wrongful arrest, you cant resist. This minimizes injuries. if you are the person being wronged, you just wait till its over then file. If they did a wrongful search and got evidence off it, it WILL be thrown out in court. Just my .02's

Also, if that was different, EVERYONE will think we are performing illegal searches and arrests and WILL resist. Because they think they can legally.

Your a god damned moron.....

[Sgt Beavis]

Makes sense. Same thing with a wrongful arrest, you cant resist. This minimizes injuries. if you are the person being wronged, you just wait till its over then file. If they did a wrongful search and got evidence off it, it WILL be thrown out in court. Just my .02's

You're 2 cents makes no sense.

[Grimpala]

Also, if that was different, EVERYONE will think we are performing illegal searches and arrests and WILL resist. Because they think they can legally.

How long did the brainwashing take before it stuck?

[Tannerm]

Also, if that was different, EVERYONE will think we are performing illegal searches and arrests and WILL resist. Because they think they can legally.

[Tannerm]

Makes sense. Same thing with a wrongful arrest, you cant resist. This minimizes injuries. if you are the person being wronged, you just wait till its over then file. If they did a wrongful search and got evidence off it, it WILL be thrown out in court. Just my .02's

[Steve]

Indiana Supreme Court says you have no right to resist an illegal entry to your home by the police. So much for the 4th Amendment.


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.

"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."

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."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html