No right to resist entry by LEOs

[Love the 1911]

We also need to remember that although this case did set a precedent, it only sets a precedent based on circumstances similar to the one that this case was based on. This individual knew without a doubt that he was dealing with LE. This does not cover no-knock warrants which are a teriible idea 99.99% of the time (I'll give the Navy SEALS the benefit of the doubt on the Bin Laden raid) or other random acts where an unknown individual enters your home and ends up later being identified as LE.

The ruling is based on the likely outcome which is not an area where our courts should be getting involved in (similar to seatbelt laws). The likely outcome of physically resisting LE is someone getting hurt. When I am across town and I hear an officer needs assistance call, I respond to an officer needing assistance. I am not responding to a home-invasion where the perpetrator was shot and killed. I bring a lot of friends with me and we are trained and ready to do what is necessary to make sure we all go home. Even if the homeowner gives up, they will face criminal charges and in all likelihood, be convicted on most charges. The grown-up, responsible thing would be to allow them inside (if our reputation was better, I would add that you know they are not there to physically harm you or your loved ones), and go through the legal system later to make all involved parties pay for their involvement. I don't believe the courts should rule on these types of things as it is a personal decision to think through your actions before carrying them out and that is all that was mandated here. A bloodbath is going to end poorly for the citizen the vast majority of the time. Then, it is the department's word only and they were there legally. Install video cameras, verbally resist, lock doors, but do not fight.





INCOMING!!!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I heard they found Alf during one of those raids...

No, I'm serious about this. I heard that Noble County is carrying out no-knock raids because people have unpaid hospital bills. From what I was told there were at least three such raids. Just checking to see if anyone had heard about this.

 

[lashicoN]

How many last chances should we give? How many more warnings before we take action?

I can't help but to point out that this sounds like you're talking about the forbidden R word. Good questions, all the same.

So Kirk, T. Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I know which one I am,...but I'm not tellin'.

Oh, I'm a bit of both. I'm a simple pot stirrer. I wasn't the Valedictorian, but I understand the need to stir the pot in order to keep the gross film of idiocy off the soup. I don't try to mask the fact that I stir the pot, because I believe stirring the pot is the right thing to do, so that the soup comes out properly cooked.

 

[ckcollins2003]

It's not as the homeowner has no recourse against illegal entry, it's just that the homeowner must seek their recourse only in the courts, rather than by defending their home by force.

Is that how you see it?

If I'm right, I still think it's a bad deal, but a different animal than the total dismissal of the homeowner's protection against illegal search.

I actually covered this lawsuit thing just a few pages ago. Sure, you can take the officer/s to court if you'd like, but what charges are you going to pursue? They will have broken no law and done nothing wrong unless they were met with resistance, which means that if they burst through your door and your dog attacks them, they shoot the dog (and possibly you at the time) and get away with it because you failed to obey this ruling.

Lets even say no resistance was met. They've done nothing illegal. Unlawful they have, they've entered your home unlawfully, but guess what, you can't do anything about it because they are allowed to.

There are no criminal charges to press against them thanks to this new ruling. That's the biggest fault of this entire ordeal. It is for the safety of the LEO's, which don't get me wrong, safety for them is needed, but it's also needed for us citizens just as much. Officers make mistakes, they are only human, but when they shoot an innocent person because they got the address wrong, it's their word against a dead person's.

No, I'm serious about this. I heard that Noble County is carrying out no-knock raids because people have unpaid hospital bills. From what I was told there were at least three such raids. Just checking to see if anyone had heard about this.

Hmm, I really thought you were joking, obviously. No, I didn't hear about that but it honestly doesn't surprise me the least bit anymore.

 

[ckcollins2003]

We also need to remember that although this case did set a precedent, it only sets a precedent based on circumstances similar to the one that this case was based on. This individual knew without a doubt that he was dealing with LE. This does not cover no-knock warrants which are a teriible idea 99.99% of the time (I'll give the Navy SEALS the benefit of the doubt on the Bin Laden raid) or other random acts where an unknown individual enters your home and ends up later being identified as LE.

The ruling is based on the likely outcome which is not an area where our courts should be getting involved in (similar to seatbelt laws). The likely outcome of physically resisting LE is someone getting hurt. When I am across town and I hear an officer needs assistance call, I respond to an officer needing assistance. I am not responding to a home-invasion where the perpetrator was shot and killed. I bring a lot of friends with me and we are trained and ready to do what is necessary to make sure we all go home. Even if the homeowner gives up, they will face criminal charges and in all likelihood, be convicted on most charges. The grown-up, responsible thing would be to allow them inside (if our reputation was better, I would add that you know they are not there to physically harm you or your loved ones), and go through the legal system later to make all involved parties pay for their involvement. I don't believe the courts should rule on these types of things as it is a personal decision to think through your actions before carrying them out and that is all that was mandated here. A bloodbath is going to end poorly for the citizen the vast majority of the time. Then, it is the department's word only and they were there legally. Install video cameras, verbally resist, lock doors, but do not fight.

I agree with you to a certain extent. That would be the most responsible thing to do... however, if you've done nothing wrong and are not expecting anything, it shouldn't happen in the first place.

With people now impersonating police officers and busting down doors, I can't trust anybody to come into my house unannounced. If they knock on the door and show me their badge, have a police car in the driveway, and tell me they need to take a look inside for something, by all means they are welcome. If they can't produce a reason or a badge, I believe they are there to do me harm and will more than likely be met with heavy resistance.

I shouldn't have to go out and buy cameras and other security equipment because some jerkoff politicians feel the need to infringe upon my rights.

Now lets reverse the tables. What would you do, a law enforcement officer, if someone busted down your door and made their way inside your home? I'm 99.9% positive I know the answer, because it's exactly what I would do...

As for no-knock warrants, I completely agree with you, they should be for military use and high risk police operations only, and during those operations the intel should be 100% correct, no mistakes as to which house it is and who the accused is.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well said, however a year or so ago, around Christmas time,I caught a Delaware County Sheriff snooping through my truck at 3:30am. When I surprised him face to face with my 9mm carbine at the ready position his words were, "I seen the interior light on and thought someone had broken in".

In no way shape or form were my interior lights on until that door opened. I always lock my vehicle before I get out. How he got my door unlocked is beyond me, I didn't look for a slim jim as I was more focused on his hands, but I know police officers carry them.

He was on duty and performing these acts. A few weeks later my battery charger was stolen along with neighbors cars broken into. Makes me wonder if he didn't come back since my driveway sensors had stopped working a couple nights before the theft.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but it is possible that the lights were on, a thief could of jimmied your door and didn't close it all the way. It doesn't have to be that the officer did. Although if that was the case he should of came to your door first and shouldn't of been snooping through your truck without permission. It could of been the thief who jimmied your door that came back and snagged your charger.

I actually covered this lawsuit thing just a few pages ago. Sure, you can take the officer/s to court if you'd like, but what charges are you going to pursue? They will have broken no law and done nothing wrong unless they were met with resistance, which means that if they burst through your door and your dog attacks them, they shoot the dog (and possibly you at the time) and get away with it because you failed to obey this ruling.

Lets even say no resistance was met. They've done nothing illegal. Unlawful they have, they've entered your home unlawfully, but guess what, you can't do anything about it because they are allowed to.

There are no criminal charges to press against them thanks to this new ruling. That's the biggest fault of this entire ordeal. It is for the safety of the LEO's, which don't get me wrong, safety for them is needed, but it's also needed for us citizens just as much. Officers make mistakes, they are only human, but when they shoot an innocent person because they got the address wrong, it's their word against a dead person's.

They have done several unlawful things in your scenario, breaking and entering for one, this ruling does not grant them any additional powers, it restricts your rights to be able to use force against them if they break the law. It doesn't mean they didn't break the law, or give them immunity if they do.

 

[T.Lex]

So Kirk, T.Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I'm the kind that resists artificial dichotomies.

Knowledge is power. People should know stuff to be empowered. Like, the important stuff. Rights and stuff.

This decision by the court is important. But, to be fully understood, it must be understood in its context. It is not simple, but it is still important.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Let's say there's a fight at a bar that you weren't involved in, police are called, and arrive. The entire scene is confusing, some one in error points to you as being one of the combatants, and police try to detain you. Do you resist?

hell yes. no self respecting soldier is gonna get rolled up by the MP's. oh, wait you meant civilian police ........ never mind nothing to see here

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Knowledge is power. People should know stuff to be empowered. Like, the important stuff. Rights and stuff.

Yeah ! and people should have the right to drink BRAWNDO ! Cause it's got electrolytes and stuff .

 

[E5RANGER375]

Correct on both. In the case of Barnes, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it wasn't prudent for the LEO to enter. The 2 justices who dissented on the overall Court decision agreed that, in Barnes, it was proper.

There are many who post on these gun forums (this is rabid on all of them) who probably were not the valetictorian of their senior class. They live a simple life and have a simple understanding of the law. They live in a world of Clint Eastwood movies and wishing for better days. It's pretty easy for "pot stirrers" to get them riled.

In reality, this Court decision changed virtually nothing. This is only going to be applicable in cases where an LEO arrives at a private residence w/o a search warrant. All the talk of "wrong addresses", etc., is from the movies. It just doesn't happen in real life. "The cops can't just kick my door in at 2am!!!" No, and they don't want to. Again, too many movies. Raids on meth houses, etc., occur with a warrant. This Court ruling will have no affect on them. It ONLY will apply to those situations where LEO's arrive at a private residence w/o a warrant. Guess what, folks? Virtually 100% of the time, that is a domestic dispute call! When else does LEO's show up at someone's door step w/o a warrant and want entry? It doesn't happen.

Less Clint Eastwood, less unbridled testosterone, more common sense. That's what we need. Your world will be ok. The end is not near because of this ruling. If the bad LEO enters your house and you don't think it was proper, there's a civil (and perhaps criminal) court just waiting to hear from you. That's all the Court said: you do not have the right to resist but you definitely have the right to litigate. It replaces gunfights and bodily injury (battery) with a court room. Frankly, the only ones who will be complaining are the domestic dispute participants. The ones who cause LEO runs in the first place. If you're not part of the problem, relax.

So Kirk, T. Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I know which one I am,...but I'm not tellin'.

Is this a trick question? too bad I cant read the question to give an answer.

 

[T.Lex]

Hey Ranger-

Uh... is it weird that you and I are both in the same list?

I mean, I'm not sure who should be more insulted - you or me.

 

[Slapstick]

Yeah ! and people should have the right to drink BRAWNDO ! Cause it's got electrolytes and stuff .

I shouldn't have read this while drinking coffee, now I have a mess to clean up.

 

[ckcollins2003]

I'm not saying this is what happened, but it is possible that the lights were on, a thief could of jimmied your door and didn't close it all the way. It doesn't have to be that the officer did. Although if that was the case he should of came to your door first and shouldn't of been snooping through your truck without permission. It could of been the thief who jimmied your door that came back and snagged your charger.

You are completely right, that is possible... but why did he have my center console open when I walked up on him? Sure, he could have been doing the "right thing" by seeing if anything was missing, had he known what was in my car...

They have done several unlawful things in your scenario, breaking and entering for one, this ruling does not grant them any additional powers, it restricts your rights to be able to use force against them if they break the law. It doesn't mean they didn't break the law, or give them immunity if they do.

It does grant them additional powers. When we cannot resist the UNLAWFUL entry of a police officer into our house, it grants them the power to come in whenever they damn well please, and we all know the court's take the side of the police officer when it's a "he said she said" type of situation.

If we cannot use force to defend ourselves against people who yell, "POLICE!" then who's supposed to do it?

As far as immunity goes, they all have immunity. An officer of the law breaks it, they get suspended WITH PAY, or they get to RESIGN. There is hardly ever any house arrest, jail time, or even community service for an officer who breaks the law, even if they kill someone for being drunk in the morning while on duty.

Come on now... you're going to have to do better than that to convince me this is a good thing...

 

[Sailor]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Past cases

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 1[/FONT]

 

[Sailor]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ind. Supreme Court Threatened After Allowing Warrantless Searches


Court Spokewoman: We obviously want to protect the safety of our employees and alert police to individuals who might be dangerous

By: Allison Bricker
Contributing Editor

Ind. – The Indiana Supreme Court has received numerous threats via telephone and email following a controversial decision handed down last Thursday, May 12th, 2011, that “authorizes” police to search homes randomly according to Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman, Kathryn Dolan. In a 3-2 ruling in BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA, a Governor Mitch Daniels appointee, Justice Steven David wrote that under “modern” (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence, Hoosiers must submit to the violent force of any and all UNLAWFUL searches instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion due to individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law.


“We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with {SIC} modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Justice Steven David
Majority Opinion
BARNES vs. STATE of INDIANA
No. 82S05-1007-CR-343

A Natural Inherent Right of humanity first acknowledged in the English Magna Carta in 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court decreed both the 4th Amendment to the federal constitution and Section 11 of the Indiana state Constitution, null and void, although no mention was given to Indiana’s governing document, despite it being directly in the line of fire.
Section 11. Search and seizure

Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Indiana Constitution
Ratified 1851[/FONT]

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^ [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"via telephone and email"? Intelligent people...
[/FONT]

 

[eldirector]

^^^ [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"via telephone and email"? Intelligent people...
[/FONT]

Of course, no one mentions the "threats". Could simply be "I'll do my best to get you off the bench next election cycle."

 

[2A_Tom]

I have misgivings about this ruling. I believe the premise of the appeal was flawed, in that it accepted the appealate's claim that the entry by the police was illegal.

In the political forum there is an excellent article on the 7 instances where the fourth Amendment does not apply. This case falls into this category for a couple of reasons 1. the officers were responding to a domestic violence 911 call, 2. the officers had already determined he had committed a misdemeanor, 3. he was vacating the apartment and therefore given over possession to the woman, who invited the police in.

I have no problem with what the police did in this instance. What I do have a problem with is that this ruling says that the police have the right to enter a house "ILLEGALLY". This sets a terrible precedent.

I do not know of any time in current history when a police officer entered a citizens house illegally. But to in essence make it lawful for police to enter under "ANY" circumstances this could be abused.

The police may enter my home with a warrant, with my permission, under exigent circumstances and now "ILLEGALLY".

 

[Prometheus]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Past cases

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 1[/FONT]

QFT.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It does grant them additional powers. When we cannot resist the UNLAWFUL entry of a police officer into our house, it grants them the power to come in whenever they damn well please, and we all know the court's take the side of the police officer when it's a "he said she said" type of situation.

If we cannot use force to defend ourselves against people who yell, "POLICE!" then who's supposed to do it?

As far as immunity goes, they all have immunity. An officer of the law breaks it, they get suspended WITH PAY, or they get to RESIGN. There is hardly ever any house arrest, jail time, or even community service for an officer who breaks the law, even if they kill someone for being drunk in the morning while on duty.

Come on now... you're going to have to do better than that to convince me this is a good thing...

Read the opinion, it does not grant them the authority to come in whenever they feel like it, it does take away the power of the people to resist unlawful entry though.

And I'm not trying to convince you that it is a good thing, this was a very bad holding. Just stating that it is not as bad as you are trying to state.