No right to resist entry by LEOs

[kickbacked]

Its still illegal to search a motor vehicle without a warrant or probable cause correct? Who wants to go in on a motor home?

 

[Jake46184]

I read it. Like the OP said, the Court took this case to make a huge change of policy for the State. They did not need to do this as the case really could have been decided on much narrower grounds to get the result they wanted. The majority must have had a really burning desire to make this change.

I think they are saying, let them do their thing and then straighten out the matter later in the courts. Lawyers always think everything should be worked out later in the courts.

Essentially, this is correct. It's obvious that Shepard and the majority wanted to make a much broader statement here than what was found within Barnes. Whether it will stand if presented to the SCOTUS is another matter. There is an easy case to be made here that the rights of Hoosiers, per the 4th Amendment, and 8 centuries of case law, are being ignored. There's actually an argument on both sides. It would be a really compelling case for the SCOTUS. I suspect the Supremes would split 4-4, with Kennedy, as usual, being the swing. To crystal ball, I think that Kennedy would rule against the Indiana Supreme Court and that the SCOTUS would overturn this.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Sounds like a pre-nazi era to me. What is it going to take for folks to wake up? THIS should be your last straw. THIS should wake you up to what they are doing. We should be organizing against this RIGHT NOW! This is an open attack on all of us in this forum. I am fiercely angered over this communist garbage and I'm not standing for it. Who is with me?

LOL, I'm right behind you.

You've been fiercely angered and not standing for it for 7 hours now.

What have you done about it? What's the plan?

 

[WWIIIDefender]

LOL, I'm right behind you.

You've been fiercely angered and not standing for it for 7 hours now.

What have you done about it? What's the plan?

I say we atleast have a flash ralley saturday sometime. This isn't even being reported in Indiana yet. Heck places like Infowars has it rolling but not in Indiana.

chicargo has it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-police-unlawfulen,0,6950521.story

 

[jsharmon7]

I'll preface this by saying I may not understand the legal brief as well as some of our resident attorneys. But, my understanding from reading this decision is that the man was physically resisting the officers trying to make entry into his house to investigate a report of domestic violence. He knew they were police officers and shoved one against a wall not out of confusion but out of his desire for them not to enter his residence. If I'm the homeowner in this case I'm gonna go ahead and let them in and then lawyer up if my rights have been violated. I think this is what the decision is saying, I don't see anything about allowing searches without a warrant. If you think the officers are legally wrong to enter your home against your desire then sue the crap out of them rather than physically attacking them. Some folks here are coming up with crazy ideas about police busting down doors in the middle of the night when that clearly isn't the case here. If somebody busts down your door and you truly don't know they are LEO and fear for your life, aren't most people going to react anyway? And, again, that's not even the case with this decision.

 

[Scutter01]

Sounds like a pre-nazi era to me. What is it going to take for folks to wake up? THIS should be your last straw. THIS should wake you up to what they are doing. We should be organizing against this RIGHT NOW! This is an open attack on all of us in this forum. I am fiercely angered over this communist garbage and I'm not standing for it. Who is with me?

I'm gonna go ahead and take this opportunity to remind folks that discussions about revolution already tread a very fine line here on INGO, and actively inciting such means that you will no longer be welcome here. Your post is vague enough that we can't be sure of your intent, but clear enough that my post is necessary.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/12952-posting_about_inciting_civil_war.html

 

[CVMA544]

I'll preface this by saying I may not understand the legal brief as well as some of our resident attorneys. But, my understanding from reading this decision is that the man was physically resisting the officers trying to make entry into his house to investigate a report of domestic violence. He knew they were police officers and shoved one against a wall not out of confusion but out of his desire for them not to enter his residence. If I'm the homeowner in this case I'm gonna go ahead and let them in and then lawyer up if my rights have been violated. I think this is what the decision is saying, I don't see anything about allowing searches without a warrant. If you think the officers are legally wrong to enter your home against your desire then sue the crap out of them rather than physically attacking them. Some folks here are coming up with crazy ideas about police busting down doors in the middle of the night when that clearly isn't the case here. If somebody busts down your door and you truly don't know they are LEO and fear for your life, aren't most people going to react anyway? And, again, that's not even the case with this decision.

While I agree, I think the verbage of the decision and the thinking of the justices painting with a wide brush is what scares the hell out of folks.

 

[RockofStrength]

I'll preface this by saying I may not understand the legal brief as well as some of our resident attorneys. But, my understanding from reading this decision is that the man was physically resisting the officers trying to make entry into his house to investigate a report of domestic violence. He knew they were police officers and shoved one against a wall not out of confusion but out of his desire for them not to enter his residence. If I'm the homeowner in this case I'm gonna go ahead and let them in and then lawyer up if my rights have been violated. I think this is what the decision is saying, I don't see anything about allowing searches without a warrant. If you think the officers are legally wrong to enter your home against your desire then sue the crap out of them rather than physically attacking them. Some folks here are coming up with crazy ideas about police busting down doors in the middle of the night when that clearly isn't the case here. If somebody busts down your door and you truly don't know they are LEO and fear for your life, aren't most people going to react anyway? And, again, that's not even the case with this decision.

INAL, but from reading the link, my impression was that the issue is that while their ruling *should* have been limited to the case in question, the justices instead laid down that blanket statement: "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." If that is cited in another case, that could potentially be used as a defense in a myriad of different situations when an LEO enters...well, any property at all illegally. That is, after all, what their statement says. You can sue them later, sure, but while they are in your residence/business they own the joint and defending yourself from their unlawful entry is forbidden.

 

[jsharmon7]

While I agree, I think the verbage of the decision and the thinking of the justices painting with a wide brush is what scares the hell out of folks.

I certainly understand that concern. And it's not that I'm for or against this decision. I just look at this situation as how I would have handled it to begin with. I'd be more concerned if there was a pattern with this Court, but from what others here are saying this appears to be sort of new ground for them. We'll see how things go from here.

 

[CVMA544]

I certainly understand that concern. And it's not that I'm for or against this decision. I just look at this situation as how I would have handled it to begin with. I'd be more concerned if there was a pattern with this Court, but from what others here are saying this appears to be sort of new ground for them. We'll see how things go from here.

I only hope that some officer with a cowboy attitude doesn't abuse it and end up getting a citizen or other officers hurt.

 

[youngda9]

4th Ammendment

I don't think I've seen anyone post the 4th ammendment her, verbatim. The wording is quite easy to understand. Clearly this ruling is unconstitutional.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Clearly this ruling is unconstitutional.

How so?

 

[youngda9]

How so?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Hooked on phonics Bro !

 

[E5RANGER375]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Hooked on phonics Bro !

one of the funniest post on INGO EVAR!

 

[Hotdoger]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Hooked on phonics Bro !

LOL!

 

[nate1865]

People would stop illegally entering homes - no matter their profession - if they learned that doing so meant they were quite likely to die in the process.

The practice would stop - no matter the profession - and no matter what three supreme court justices said.

 

[XDinmyXJ]

What did the Illinois supreme court step in while the Indiana supreme court was on vacation?

 

[Redemption]

Sadly, this is going to result in some deaths. Maybe after these deaths this will be overturned.

 

[Lead Head]

Just a quick request. Would all of you that have expressed your concerns about the police illegally entering your home please tell us on the thread about your experince. It sounds like so many of you have had this happen I want to educate myself on what not to do so the police won't even come to my house. I am 38 and had several things happen that caused the police to be near or at my home. But not once have any of them forced thier way into my house. As I read through some of you are even planning on how to defeat them when they come including the use of force. What are you hiding? Anyway please tell your stories of how they forced their way in to your home in the past I am looking forward to reading them.

Personally speaking, I am hiding nothing, abide by the law and have no criminal history, and that is exactly why I am not afraid to use proper free speech on this matter. I would guess that many of the INGO members equally stand strong on this and other related topics for similar reasons.

Those that cower in fear and continue to hide in their disbelief on this and other constitutional matters are doing no one any favors. It's not about us, as much as it is about our children and their children.

I'm not directing this at the quoted poster either but some response seemed appropriate. No cop has ever entered my abode and I plan on keeping it that way. If they have a "lawful reason" to do so based on a legitimate search warrant, I will be the first one to welcome them in since there is nothing to hide. Since that is unlikely, I will never open my door to one of them.

Look at it this way - If things are half as bad as we think they are, then that is one bad half we must face. The other half is a three headed monster on steroids waiting to be released from its chains.

Also a big THANK YOU to the really smart INGO people who know the ins and outs of The Constitution of the United States of America. We need you, now more than ever and yes I have some reading to do, but I get the jist of it.

 

[Defensive Shooting Concepts]

I'll preface this by saying I may not understand the legal brief as well as some of our resident attorneys. But, my understanding from reading this decision is that the man was physically resisting the officers trying to make entry into his house to investigate a report of domestic violence. He knew they were police officers and shoved one against a wall not out of confusion but out of his desire for them not to enter his residence. If I'm the homeowner in this case I'm gonna go ahead and let them in and then lawyer up if my rights have been violated. I think this is what the decision is saying, I don't see anything about allowing searches without a warrant. If you think the officers are legally wrong to enter your home against your desire then sue the crap out of them rather than physically attacking them. Some folks here are coming up with crazy ideas about police busting down doors in the middle of the night when that clearly isn't the case here. If somebody busts down your door and you truly don't know they are LEO and fear for your life, aren't most people going to react anyway? And, again, that's not even the case with this decision.

Thank you! Logic can be brought back to this forum after all.