No right to resist entry by LEOs

[mrjarrell]

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.

When you can combine this ruling with King v. Kentucky it certainly does give then the right to make crap up and enter at their own will, with no defence on your side.

 

[Lead Head]

Passing a law might be a warm gooey feeling, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Republic is dead in the eyes of 'our' government.

What a truly outstanding statement and should not be taken as a passing comment.

When it becomes dead in "our eyes" then it is truly lost.

 

[finity]

So a person that isn't in violation of the law can be justifiably detained by police because of the word of another person? You're ok with that?

Whoa nelly! I need to find some pointers pronto....

I think I'm going to invent a new acronym... JBC (Jack-Booted Citizens)
I love the consistency of this place...

I'd like to ask you what you would do if you are called to a bar fight & several people point to an individual & say "he started it"?

Are you saying that you would completely ignore the statements of several witnesses & just let the guy leave because you didn't see it? You wouldn't at least detain the person temporarily to try to ascertain what was going on?

You do know that an arrest can be made in a felony without the officer having to actually witness the crime right? All you need is PC. As far as I know that PC can be made with witness statements alone. Correct?

As a matter of fact isn't that how MOST felony arrests happen?

- Crime happens
- Cops get called
- Witnesses make statements
- If the person who "committed the crime" is there then they get "detained" or if they're not there then a warrant gets issued
- Person who is detained is investigated to ensure the facts are as the witnesses portrayed them
- etc.

It's not like we're agreeing that the police have the authority to carry out extra-judicial executions or anything. But to detain someone accused of a crime by witnesses...I don't see a problem there at all.

Tell me, what charges would your lawsuit consist of?

Civil rights violation?

If a police officer just up and entered your home, which by this ruling means he is doing nothing wrong, what charges would you bring against him? No crimes have been committed. Are you going to charge him with being a police officer?

Seriously though, what charges can you bring up against a police officer if he does conduct a "random" search of your house, like that Sheriff wants to do.

Have you actually read that decision?

Nowhere did the judges say that it was legal forthwith for the police to enter a persons house sans warrant or PC.

The only thing it said was that you couldn't physically resist with FORCE. If you do then you can be charged with a crime IRRESPECTIVE of the legality of the officers enrtry into your home.

All of the OTHER protections against unreasonable search & siezure (except physically resisting in the moment), warrantless searches, etc are still in effect. You just have to go to court to get justice.

I'm not saying that the decision can't be abused but it in no way gave permission for the police to enter your home without a warrant or PC.

Hmmm. It makes me chuckle to see someone without a valid argument do the only thing they can: try to insult the intelligence and experience of those they disagree with. Truly humorous.

Is this directed at me?

If it is, you do know that I was just using my question to point out the silliness of Jake's assertion that we're all either idiots or instigators?

If not then, yeah, I agree.

Am I missing something?

Nope. I think you pretty much nailed it.

PS:

@Jake46184

Your advice seems to be that we should calm down and not be outraged at this unjust interpretation of the law because this interpretation is not likely to be applied against us.

I am outraged because I believe that this interpretation of the law is unjust. I believe that above all, the law must be just. If I am to follow the law, it will be because either I believe it to be just and worthy of following or because I fear the punishment that will fall on me if I do not follow it.

If I follow it out of fear of punishment, it makes me a coward. I want to live in a decent society where people get along and respect each other. I want to follow the law. I want the law to be worth following. I have no intention of being a coward.

Go ahead and make a smart comment about me watching to many Clint Eastwood movies if you want, but I was always more of a John Wayne man myself, so get it right if you're going to do it.

PPS: Pots need stirring lest the porridge becomes complacent.

QFT & an excellent post.

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.

No.

Just because you resisted it doesn't make their unlawful entry suddenly & miraculously lawful. They don't get a free pass just because you resist. You just can't get out of the charges of "resisting", "battery" etc. whether the entry was lawful or not.

If we are to maintain any credibility we have to keep what WAS done to legitimate concerns & not adopt a "sky is falling" mentality.

There ARE issues with this ruling but the court did NOT give permission for the police to enter unlawfully.

It just didn't happen.

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.

OK now I'm really confused.

You've been railing against this ruling supposedly giving the police permission to enter your house without a warrant or PC but now you're saying that you have no problem with them coming inside "to take a look inside for something" supposedly also without said warrant or PC as long as they ask nicely first.



Hey, maybe that sheriff WAS right that people wouldn't mind random house to house searches as long as they asked nicely & told them they were just trying to keep them safe.

I don't know about you but I don't think I want the cops coming into my house randomly "looking for something" without a warrant even if they say "pretty please".

As a matter of fact THAT thought process right there is just as dangerous as this court ruling, if not more so. Why do you think the judges thought they could get away with this kind of ruling in the first place? Because they knew most people have the belief that if "you've got nothing to hide" you have nothing to fear from the police. That kind of belief is the DIRECT precursor to opinions such as these.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd like to ask you what you would do if you are called to a bar fight & several people point to an individual & say "he started it"?

Are you saying that you would completely ignore the statements of several witnesses & just let the guy leave because you didn't see it? You wouldn't at least detain the person temporarily to try to ascertain what was going on?

You do know that an arrest can be made in a felony without the officer having to actually witness the crime right? All you need is PC. As far as I know that PC can be made with witness statements alone. Correct?

As a matter of fact isn't that how MOST felony arrests happen?

- Crime happens
- Cops get called
- Witnesses make statements
- If the person who "committed the crime" is there then they get "detained" or if they're not there then a warrant gets issued
- Person who is detained is investigated to ensure the facts are as the witnesses portrayed them
- etc.

It's not like we're agreeing that the police have the authority to carry out extra-judicial executions or anything. But to detain someone accused of a crime by witnesses...I don't see a problem there at all.

For the record, Battery (which typically happens at a bar fight), is a B or A misd.

 

[finity]

For the record, Battery (which typically happens at a bar fight), is a B or A misd.

Umm, Ok...

The IC says that you can arrest someone for battery without having to witness it yourself. As a matter of fact the IC specifically says you can use witness statements to give PC to arrest someone for that battery.

See section (5) below:

IC 35-33-1-1
Law enforcement officer; federal enforcement officer
Sec. 1. (a) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when the officer has:
(1) a warrant commanding that the person be arrested;
(2) probable cause to believe the person has committed or attempted to commit, or is committing or attempting to commit, a felony;
(3) probable cause to believe the person has violated the provisions of IC 9-26-1-1(1), IC 9-26-1-1(2), IC 9-26-1-2(1), IC 9-26-1-2(2), IC 9-26-1-3, IC 9-26-1-4, or IC 9-30-5;
(4) probable cause to believe the person is committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor in the officer's presence;
(5) probable cause to believe the person has committed a:
(A) battery resulting in bodily injury under IC 35-42-2-1; or
(B) domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3.
The officer may use an affidavit executed by an individual alleged to have direct knowledge of the incident alleging the elements of the offense of battery to establish probable cause;
(6) probable cause to believe that the person violated IC 35-46-1-15.1 (invasion of privacy);
(7) probable cause to believe that the person violated IC 35-47-2-1 (carrying a handgun without a license) or IC 35-47-2-22 (counterfeit handgun license);
(8) probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated an order issued under IC 35-50-7;
(9) probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated IC 35-47-6-1.1 (undisclosed transport of a dangerous device); or
(10) probable cause to believe that the person is:
(A) violating or has violated IC 35-45-2-5 (interference with the reporting of a crime); and
(B) interfering with or preventing the reporting of a crime involving domestic or family violence (as defined in IC 34-6-2-34.5).

Accordingly, per the IC above, it is perfectly legal for you to detain or even arrest someone for a bar fight based solely on witness statements.

I haven't looked at all those but there may be others in the list that are misdemeanors, as well. Carrying without a LTCH is one that pops out at me. That's a misdemeanor also, correct?

Even barring that little lesson on the what the law allows, the point I was making still stands...

 

[ckcollins2003]

OK now I'm really confused.

You've been railing against this ruling supposedly giving the police permission to enter your house without a warrant or PC but now you're saying that you have no problem with them coming inside "to take a look inside for something" supposedly also without said warrant or PC as long as they ask nicely first.



Hey, maybe that sheriff WAS right that people wouldn't mind random house to house searches as long as they asked nicely & told them they were just trying to keep them safe.

I don't know about you but I don't think I want the cops coming into my house randomly "looking for something" without a warrant even if they say "pretty please".

As a matter of fact THAT thought process right there is just as dangerous as this court ruling, if not more so. Why do you think the judges thought they could get away with this kind of ruling in the first place? Because they knew most people have the belief that if "you've got nothing to hide" you have nothing to fear from the police. That kind of belief is the DIRECT precursor to opinions such as these.

Maybe you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It's not that I want them coming inside and looking around, but I don't have anything to hide, and obviously I can't do anything about it now. The only thing I don't want is police (or criminals impersonating police) coming into my door unannounced or without me knowing. Yes, they can do it now according to some people's way of thinking and the way this ruling is stated by simply saying, "unlawful entry". The ruling did not state that they couldn't do it... it simply stated that we have no right to resist them if they do come in.

I feel it is unnecessary that we'd have to hire a lawyer if the police do come in unlawfully. Why can't the issue be addressed right then and there? If it is an unlawful act, why are the courts giving them the legal right to do it? Explain it to me please.

Yes, I'm completely against this ruling. For the major fact that it is already causing home invasions by burglars shouting, "POLICE!" while they enter the house. Before this ruling, most people would defend themselves until they seen the police in uniform, now they expect us to lay down and stop defending ourselves as soon as we hear the words, otherwise we will be prosecuted.

I think I've made my opinion clear throughout the 30 pages of this thread. If you disagree, by all means that's your right just as much as it is mine to disagree with yours. Have at it, I won't be coming back to this thread since people want to ridicule others opinions because they differ.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Umm, Ok...

The IC says that you can arrest someone for battery without having to witness it yourself. As a matter of fact the IC specifically says you can use witness statements to give PC to arrest someone for that battery.

See section (5) below:

Accordingly, per the IC above, it is perfectly legal for you to detain or even arrest someone for a bar fight based solely on witness statements.

I haven't looked at all those but there may be others in the list that are misdemeanors, as well. Carrying without a LTCH is one that pops out at me. That's a misdemeanor also, correct?

Even barring that little lesson on the what the law allows, the point I was making still stands...

It's called the Misd. Exception. Impressive. However, you just cited law, to justify detainment of an innocent individual. So you are admitting that there are situations where LE can legally detain innocent individuals and be perfectly justified, right?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

It's called the Misd. Exception. Impressive. However, you just cited law, to justify detainment of an innocent individual. So you are admitting that there are situations where LE can legally detain innocent individuals and be perfectly justified, right?

I have to admit. I've been online since '94 and you are one of the best trolls I have seen. You deserve a cookie, ribbon, plaque, plague or whatever is appropriate.

I've watched you argue both sides of several threads with ease and throw up straw men by the dozen, twisting and spinning, dodging and redirecting. Every now and then you even say something that is on topic and relevant before going back to being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

Kudos, congrats, well done. You're a gem. The internets just wouldn't be the internets without folks like you.

 

[finity]

Maybe you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It's not that I want them coming inside and looking around, but I don't have anything to hide,

Then I think I understand you perfectly.

and obviously I can't do anything about it now. The only thing I don't want is police (or criminals impersonating police) coming into my door unannounced or without me knowing. Yes, they can do it now according to some people's way of thinking and the way this ruling is stated by simply saying, "unlawful entry". The ruling did not state that they couldn't do it... it simply stated that we have no right to resist them if they do come in.

But I don't think that YOU understand what you are saying.

The ruling didn't say that police could come in illegally because that point of law is already well settled (well, I guess as "well settled" as it can be).

It is illegal for the police to enter your house without either a warrant, PC, exigent circumstances or your permission. THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

I feel it is unnecessary that we'd have to hire a lawyer if the police do come in unlawfully.

You would still have had to hire a lawyer to persue civil damages even before this ruling. THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

Why can't the issue be addressed right then and there?

It can be to a degree.

You can have a civil conversation with the police that clarifies that you do not give them permission to enter. You just can't physically prevent them from entering if they decide to anyway.

If it is an unlawful act, why are the courts giving them the legal right to do it? Explain it to me please.

They're not giving them any legal "right" to do anything. (BTW, police don't have "rights" they have "authority". Sorry, pet peeve.)

It is still unlawful but now it is also unlawful for you to resist.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer:

1. If a cop comes into your house without a warrant, PC, EC or your permission then he is doing something illegal. He can (technically) have charges brought against him. In reality, the best case scenario is you win a lawsuit against the department for civil rights violations.

2. If you resist then you are doing something illegal (according to the court decision) & you can have charges of battery, resisting etc brought against you. Because of this ruling you would not be able to use the fact that the police illegally entered as a justification for your use of force as a defense against those charges.

3. The fact that you resisted IN NO WAY excuses the police from entering into your house illegally (because of the 4A).

4. The fact that the police entered illegally IN NO WAY excuses your use of force against the police to prevent their entry (because of this decision).

5. In a perfect world (based on this decision only) both you & the police would have charges brought against them.

I need to say again that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS DECISION but not for the fact that it supposedly completely destroys the 4A like many seem to think.

Yes, I'm completely against this ruling. For the major fact that it is already causing home invasions by burglars shouting, "POLICE!" while they enter the house. Before this ruling, most people would defend themselves until they seen the police in uniform, now they expect us to lay down and stop defending ourselves as soon as we hear the words, otherwise we will be prosecuted.

Yes. I am in complete agreement on that point.

Also it does WEAKEN the 4A protections because it gives the police an "out" that could easily be abused. See the country sheriff in the links above.

I won't be coming back to this thread since people want to ridicule others opinions because they differ.

Ah, lighten up. I can't see where anybody ridiculed you.

I was simply trying to correct a GROSS misconception that you seem to be under.

If you're going to post on an internet forum then you've got to learn that people aren't going to agree with you.

It's called the Misd. Exception. Impressive. However, you just cited law, to justify detainment of an innocent individual. So you are admitting that there are situations where LE can legally detain innocent individuals and be perfectly justified, right?

Sure, but NOT KNOWINGLY.

I'm not expecting the police to have a crystal ball. You have no way of knowing (in this situation) that they are innocent before you investigate.

If you are detaining someone after a bar fight because there are witnesses that said they started it/were involved then that is reasonable.

If you look at them & see that there is no possible way that they could have just been involved in a fight because of the condition they're in & you have one guy who is swearing up & down it was him & you arrest him anyway then yeah, I'd have an issue with that.

To sum it all up:

If you are detaining someone to investigate the report of a real crime withn PC that they were involved then I'm fine with it.

If you are detaining a person who you KNOW to be innocent then you should have charges brought against you.

 

[Slapstick]

finity,

You make several good points but the fact remains that we lost a right that has been common law since the 13th century. Even the Indiana supreme Court acknowledges that by their statement , "In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.

All the different scenarios being discussed in this thread seems to miss the greater point, we lost a very big right in Indiana. If this decision stands then what's next?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If this decision stands then what's next?

The 2012 General Assembly Session.

 

[Slapstick]

The 2012 General Assembly Session.

Yes, but it looks to be a long, long summer.

 

[finity]

finity,

You make several good points but the fact remains that we lost a right that has been common law since the 13th century. Even the Indiana supreme Court acknowledges that by their statement , "In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.

All the different scenarios being discussed in this thread seems to miss the greater point, we lost a very big right in Indiana. If this decision stands then what's next?

I completely agree with you.

As I said I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS DECISION.

For the points you mention & others.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have to admit. I've been online since '94 and you are one of the best trolls I have seen. You deserve a cookie, ribbon, plaque, plague or whatever is appropriate.

I've watched you argue both sides of several threads with ease and throw up straw men by the dozen, twisting and spinning, dodging and redirecting. Every now and then you even say something that is on topic and relevant before going back to being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

Kudos, congrats, well done. You're a gem. The internets just wouldn't be the internets without folks like you.

I'm blushing... but I freely admit, I play devils advocate frequently

 

[CVMA544]

I'm blushing... but I freely admit, I play devils advocate frequently

I think to really know an issue you should be able to argue both sides.

 

[jbombelli]

When you can combine this ruling with King v. Kentucky it certainly does give then the right to make crap up and enter at their own will, with no defence on your side.

Add a little asset forfeiture to that and we have a real party.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Indiana is still miles ahead of the curve in this regard.

You want to live Truly free? Move to a country WROL. Let us know how that works out for you.

Someone will have to use REALLY small words and explain to me how living in a country "without rule of law" is any worse than living in one where you have laws that the "Authorities" are free to disregard at will.

 

[.45 Dave]

You know Indiana is still a lot better off than some of the others in the Occupied States of Amerika. Anybody for secession??

 

[88GT]

It's called the Misd. Exception. Impressive. However, you just cited law, to justify detainment of an innocent individual. So you are admitting that there are situations where LE can legally detain innocent individuals and be perfectly justified, right?

Why do you insist on introducing irrelevant aspects of police behavior into this discussion? For the umpteenth time, this is NOT ABOUT DETAINMENT, legal or otherwise.

Troll might be going a bit far, but you certainly do stir the pot with stupid inane material that has no bearing on the discussion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why do you insist on introducing irrelevant aspects of police behavior into this discussion? For the umpteenth time, this is NOT ABOUT DETAINMENT, legal or otherwise.

Troll might be going a bit far, but you certainly do stir the pot with stupid inane material that has no bearing on the discussion.

Don't just single me out, hell the second post in this thread was OT too...
Heck half the time I interject OT, its to draw parallels in thinking. That's all. I don't jump in 'til someone else says something ridiculous.

I've already stated that I believe that the ruling was b-a-d. If I'm saying it, I doubt there is anyone that is going to defend it. The question that I'm really wondering, is if people are just going to ***** and moan over the internet about this or get organized, and express their displeasure via the ballot, petition, civil protest, or a variety of other non-violent means at their disposal.