Except that the actual words of the decision are much broader. They said there is no right to resist an unlawful entry. And justifying that by saying get a lawyer puts quite a burden on people unless good lawyering is free and easy to find all the time.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
No right to resist entry by LEOs
- Thread starter T.Lex
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Except that the actual words of the decision are much broader. They said there is no right to resist an unlawful entry. And justifying that by saying get a lawyer puts quite a burden on people unless good lawyering is free and easy to find all the time.
As to the first point, how is that different than what I said? As to the cost of obtaining a lawyer, I think that does have some merit. However, if you choose to resist law enforcement you're going to need a lawyer anyway.
Well, what you said didn't appear to say anything about how much broader the actual words of the decision were.
Sure, you will need a lawyer anyway but now you don't have a case even if they entered illegally because of the actual words of this decision.
I think the police may have erred in letting him re-enter or were slow enough in stopping him that their action was vunerable to counter arguments. Rather than face the music, the judges seemed more intent on not risking the guy getting off and removed his argument, caring little for how far their decision will be taken.
Defensive Shooting Concepts
Plinker
I will step out of this thread after this final thought. I believe we have rights and they should be protected. I just feel safe to say that although every profession has its bad apples including Law Enforcement I don't feel that this will cause people to have their house invaded by the Police. They are still required to follow all the same rules as before when it comes to entering someones home. They still must have a reason to be there and a right to enter even without a warrant which has always been the case. These facts will not change. Last night at work none of us entered anyones house that we did not have a reason to. And for the record every house that was visited was because we were called for some reason or another. Stand up for what you believe just don't start Police hating because those of us that are honest will remain that way.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
I've had police come to my house. Had my house broken into, cars broken into, stolen, etc. I've never had an officer force entry into my home. I did have one get stupid with me one day and lie to his chief about it. When I showed his chief the video of what really happened the officer immediately resigned.
I've had officers tell me they were going to search my car on a traffic stop. I've told them no. No one has ever searched my car.
I don't do anything feloniously illegal (I do drive little fast sometimes - you have to have a little joy in your life), and few things immoral. But that's not the point. There are rules. Those rules are binding on both the citizenry and the government. Having one branch of the government say an agent of the government can bend and break those rules to the exclusion of the citizenry happens in despot led banana republics, not in America.
Entry on a domestic violence report over the objection of one resident is one of the examples of exigent circumstances. The appeals court had no reason to even opine on the entry.
Consider the ramifications of this case, coupled with the no-knock opinion. Police execute a no-knock warrantless entry using this ruling as a justification. One of your children is killed. Police have immunity. No one goes to jail. No officer will be fined. All you can do is sue the local jurisdiction for the loss of your child. The court has ruled that is your only remedy. So now the important question: how much is a dead child that shouldn't be dead and who's death will result in no personal accountability worth?
I think the issue is that I must be reading this differently than many of you. I'm not seeing this as granting the police anything more than what the law already allows. I don't see this as restricting the rights of any citizen other than saying that you will be in legal trouble if you try to forcibly resist law enforcement officer attempting to enter your home. The police will still be held accountable for their actions and misjudgments. All that's changing is that a citizen who attempts to resist an officer by force cannot avoid charges by arguing that the police weren't legally allowed to be there to begin with. Again, I don't see this as granting the police anything or protecting them from anything. It's only taking away a defense for a citizen who decides to forcibly resist what they perceive to be an illegal entry. That's just my
. I can't explain my perception of this decision any further, and I'm sure many will disagree with my understanding of the issue.
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.
Not every police officer is crooked. I personally know 4 officers that are just plain great people, but because of ones like this Sheriff I feel us citizens should have every right to treat them like every other swinging dick off of the street when it comes to our property. If a police officer comes into my home at night, I will shoot him dead without hesitation. Unless there is some reason for him to come inside, he should keep his ass outside.
Edit:
I realize this law doesn't grant police the right to enter just anyones house at any time for no reason at all, but you can't help but wonder which ones might try it. And unfortunately the police officers who commit crimes usually get suspended WITH PAY then a little slap on the wrist.
After hearing about the multiple accounts of DUI's of ON DUTY police officers in the state, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a couple of them abused their privelages. It's unfortunate because it gives all of the others a bad name...
For what it's worth, some political and sociological info on the judges. Judges and their supporters will scream until they are red in the face that political and sociological factors never weigh on their minds when deciding cases but I think any reasonable person will agree that, as humans, 100% impartiality is impossible. All humans are flawed and their world views are shaped by both intellectual development AND experience.
I find it interesting that the dissenters where both born in Gary, one a white Republican that grew up in Hobart and the other, a black Democrat raised in Gary:
Affirm:
Steven David, Appointed by Republican (Daniels)
Supreme Court Welcomes Justice Steven David | Indiana Court Times
Born in Allen County, raised in Columbus
Randall Terry Shepard, Appointed by Republican (Orr)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard
Native of Lafayette
Frank Sullivan, Jr., Appointed by Democrat (Bayh)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.
Native of South Bend
Dissent:
Robert D. Rucker, Appointed by Democrat (O'Bannon)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Justice Robert D. Rucker
Native of Gary
Brent E. Dickson, Appointed by Republican (Orr)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Justice Brent E. Dickson
Born in Gary, raised in Hobart
I find it interesting that the dissenters where both born in Gary, one a white Republican that grew up in Hobart and the other, a black Democrat raised in Gary:
Affirm:
Steven David, Appointed by Republican (Daniels)
Supreme Court Welcomes Justice Steven David | Indiana Court Times
Born in Allen County, raised in Columbus
Randall Terry Shepard, Appointed by Republican (Orr)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard
Native of Lafayette
Frank Sullivan, Jr., Appointed by Democrat (Bayh)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.
Native of South Bend
Dissent:
Robert D. Rucker, Appointed by Democrat (O'Bannon)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Justice Robert D. Rucker
Native of Gary
Brent E. Dickson, Appointed by Republican (Orr)
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Biographies: Justice Brent E. Dickson
Born in Gary, raised in Hobart
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
I think the issue is that I must be reading this differently than many of you. I'm not seeing this as granting the police anything more than what the law already allows. I don't see this as restricting the rights of any citizen other than saying that you will be in legal trouble if you try to forcibly resist law enforcement officer attempting to enter your home. The police will still be held accountable for their actions and misjudgments. All that's changing is that a citizen who attempts to resist an officer by force cannot avoid charges by arguing that the police weren't legally allowed to be there to begin with. Again, I don't see this as granting the police anything or protecting them from anything. It's only taking away a defense for a citizen who decides to forcibly resist what they perceive to be an illegal entry. That's just my
I hear you. I wasn't clear. My concern is not so much that I think there will be a run on no-knock warrentless entries so much as the Appeals Court has declared the remedy in the event one occurs is a civil one.
If an officer executes an illegal entry (and admittedly the entry in this case was not under the exigent circumstances exception) their immunity shield should be removed as they are not acting under the true color of law. If their illegal entry results in retrieving evidence of a crime, this evidence should be suppressed (as it already is). If the illegal entry results in injury to persons or property the officer should face the same justice system anyone else without qualified immunity would face.
I reported the battery charger stolen along with my neighbors missing items. As far as catching the officer in my truck, no. I'm smart enough to know that if he says he "thought someone broke into my truck and was checking it out" then he "broke no law".
I couldn't prove he unlocked my doors and there was nothing taken because I don't leave anything valuable in my truck. Therefore in a a court of law he did nothing wrong...
Laws like this simply take away more of our freedom rights that our forefathers gave us. I just wish they would stop thinking about revenue and start thinking about safety and security of our rights as citizens. If you get hit by a drunk on duty police officer and end up dead, he gets a slap on the wrist. If you drink and drive and kill somebody, you go to jail for manslaughter or murder.
Seems a bit unfair to me, but I'm not an officer or a politician.
At the very least, I'd be pretty sure he ran afoul of SOPs. I'm assuming you were home? If so, his first duty is to notify you of the break in, not to go snooping around your property. Just for future reference...
Yes I was home. I had sensors that pointed to my driveway, they radio'd into a buzzer in my bedroom to notify me if someone or something had crossed into it. I actually went out the back door and around the house instead of out of the front door to confront him. I wanted the surprise to hit him first to see what he did. He seemed to remain the calmest he could while being surprised which actually surprised me to be honest...
I know he was wrong in his actions but there was no way to prove it... the only good thing that has come out of it is that I haven't had any problems since then (cross my fingers). And I feel the same way you do, he should have notified me before snooping around, but that's why I'm extremely skeptical that he was doing his job other than something wrong.
There's a lot of hoopla over this decision that, mostly, is born of ignorance and perhaps watching too many Clint Eastwood films.
The Barnes case was a domestic dispute. In 2010, over 90% of calls that involved LEO's going to a private residence were some sort of DD.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled, 3-2, that Hoosiers do not have a right to refuse entry to LEO's. What does this really mean? When will it be applied?
The gun forums across the Net are full of "well, if they think the cops are going to bust down by door at 2am and get away with it, their crazy!" and other such nonsense. When was the last time LE busted down your door at 2am? The answer is that they have not. Even if they did, how does the ISC ruling affect your response? Before this ruling, were you really going to engage LEO's in a gun fight?
The only thing that has really changed is the rules at DD calls. Again, because it's important for all to understand, that's almost ALL calls that involve LE going to a residence. They don't go pick out a house to kick in the door at 2am because they're bored. If you read the 2 liberal justices dissent in the Barnes case, they make clear that, if the majority had limited the decision to just domestic dispute cases, they would have joined them and made the decision unanimous.
In reality, the majority did limit it to DD's without saying it explicitly. It's the only type of LE encounter in which it will come into play. Why would they not state it in the ruling? This way, it keeps slick lawyers of the future from arguing what is and is not a domestic dispute.
This decision is actually one of the better ones from the ISC in years. In no way does it affect 35-41-3-2 (which some mistakenly think of as an Indiana "Castle Doctrine." Indiana has no such thing) because LEO's have always been excluded from the potential threats of that Indiana code anyway. It does not interfere with the 4th Amendment, as there is nothing unreasonable.
For those whose panties are all in a twist over this, try to think of a scenario, a realistic one, in which this ruling would mean a damn. The only one is going to be something pretty-much like what happened in Barnes. Virtually 100% of the remainder of reasons LE go to residences (meth labs, etc.) involve a warrant already being issued and this ISC ruling means nothing.
The sensationalist media, ever self-serving, is painting this as the Court painting with a "broad brush" and reversing 800 years of case law. Nonsense. The scenarios under which this ruling will have any effect at all are very narrow. They're domestic disputes. It's exactly what Barnes was all about. This is a victory for any law-abiding citizen.
The Barnes case was a domestic dispute. In 2010, over 90% of calls that involved LEO's going to a private residence were some sort of DD.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled, 3-2, that Hoosiers do not have a right to refuse entry to LEO's. What does this really mean? When will it be applied?
The gun forums across the Net are full of "well, if they think the cops are going to bust down by door at 2am and get away with it, their crazy!" and other such nonsense. When was the last time LE busted down your door at 2am? The answer is that they have not. Even if they did, how does the ISC ruling affect your response? Before this ruling, were you really going to engage LEO's in a gun fight?
The only thing that has really changed is the rules at DD calls. Again, because it's important for all to understand, that's almost ALL calls that involve LE going to a residence. They don't go pick out a house to kick in the door at 2am because they're bored. If you read the 2 liberal justices dissent in the Barnes case, they make clear that, if the majority had limited the decision to just domestic dispute cases, they would have joined them and made the decision unanimous.
In reality, the majority did limit it to DD's without saying it explicitly. It's the only type of LE encounter in which it will come into play. Why would they not state it in the ruling? This way, it keeps slick lawyers of the future from arguing what is and is not a domestic dispute.
This decision is actually one of the better ones from the ISC in years. In no way does it affect 35-41-3-2 (which some mistakenly think of as an Indiana "Castle Doctrine." Indiana has no such thing) because LEO's have always been excluded from the potential threats of that Indiana code anyway. It does not interfere with the 4th Amendment, as there is nothing unreasonable.
For those whose panties are all in a twist over this, try to think of a scenario, a realistic one, in which this ruling would mean a damn. The only one is going to be something pretty-much like what happened in Barnes. Virtually 100% of the remainder of reasons LE go to residences (meth labs, etc.) involve a warrant already being issued and this ISC ruling means nothing.
The sensationalist media, ever self-serving, is painting this as the Court painting with a "broad brush" and reversing 800 years of case law. Nonsense. The scenarios under which this ruling will have any effect at all are very narrow. They're domestic disputes. It's exactly what Barnes was all about. This is a victory for any law-abiding citizen.
Does anybody have a link to the actual law that was passed? I'd like to read it and know if there are any stipulations as to whether or not LEO's need a call to the home or a warrant of some kind in order to enter.
Saying they can enter willingly doesn't state that they cannot just come into someone's house because they suspect they may be needed. If there are no stipulations to say they have to have such and such in order to do it, then that means that they can in fact, enter anyones home at any time of the day or night without punishment.
Of course they haven't in the past, this law was just passed, what? 4 days ago? In reality I know of many people who would engage an officer if the officer came into their home without permission or any legal right, myself included. When it comes to my safety or my families safety I will stop at nothing. I don't hesitate to grab the closest firearm, load one up and get ready to shoot.
While this is a good law for domestic cases, such as the Barnes case, this is a terrible law which violates our rights to protect our personal property. I feel if the LEO's have any doubt they are needed inside the home for someone's safety or to gather evidence they should be allowed to enter. I don't feel they should be allowed to enter someone's home because they have a shield and a uniform.
While even I have said that there are great police officers who would still respect our property, there are still others who are crooked and could use this to their advantage and I know that here in Muncie that is what's mostly going to come from it. I've already had my truck broken into by a police officer, I don't need them coming into my home for any means. That's why I utilize my second amendment right.
Saying they can enter willingly doesn't state that they cannot just come into someone's house because they suspect they may be needed. If there are no stipulations to say they have to have such and such in order to do it, then that means that they can in fact, enter anyones home at any time of the day or night without punishment.
Of course they haven't in the past, this law was just passed, what? 4 days ago? In reality I know of many people who would engage an officer if the officer came into their home without permission or any legal right, myself included. When it comes to my safety or my families safety I will stop at nothing. I don't hesitate to grab the closest firearm, load one up and get ready to shoot.
While this is a good law for domestic cases, such as the Barnes case, this is a terrible law which violates our rights to protect our personal property. I feel if the LEO's have any doubt they are needed inside the home for someone's safety or to gather evidence they should be allowed to enter. I don't feel they should be allowed to enter someone's home because they have a shield and a uniform.
While even I have said that there are great police officers who would still respect our property, there are still others who are crooked and could use this to their advantage and I know that here in Muncie that is what's mostly going to come from it. I've already had my truck broken into by a police officer, I don't need them coming into my home for any means. That's why I utilize my second amendment right.
The above is one of the biggest issues with these arguments. I don't mean to single you out ckcollins, but you openly admit that you haven't even read the decision being discussed but you go on to give your opinions about it, at length. I'm not saying my interpretation is right or wrong, but at least take the time to read the article/legal brief/case information (which is in the OP, by the way) before giving an opinion.
I've read the case information, I know that the man was fighting with his wife, police were called, the police officer started to go into the house and the man pretty much attacked him.
That doesn't tell me the entire law briefing. I ask for the law in which it is written, not said by the news and not within terms of this one case.
I believe this law could in fact be great. Especially since a friend of mine's dad is a police officer who deals with cases involving child abuse/neglect. I think he should have every right to enter someone's home if he feels it is necessary, but we are discussing the actual law in this thread, not the case in which the law was put in place because of.
I think the whole debate over this law is the way it is stated. No right to resist UNLAWFUL entry by police officers. If it is UNLAWFUL then why are they allowed to do it? There's a knee high pile of you know what when it comes to unlawful entry, the biggest one being "breaking and entering". That is unlawful entry. This is where certain areas of the law need to be specified instead of assumed by everybody.
While the law will help police officers catch many people who need to be jailed, it may also cause issues that would have never happened had the law not been in place. I'd hate to see a veteran get life in prison for shooting a police officer as the officer got the houses mixed up and entered the wrong home. The way this law is presumingly stated is that the citizen will be charged for murder if the officer enters the wrong house, all because this law protects the officer and not the citizen.
You see, while many of us interpret the law as it is being said, others are interpreting it based on this one case. I'm more interested in what the actual law states the LEO's can do rather than what good it did in a single case.
That doesn't tell me the entire law briefing. I ask for the law in which it is written, not said by the news and not within terms of this one case.
I believe this law could in fact be great. Especially since a friend of mine's dad is a police officer who deals with cases involving child abuse/neglect. I think he should have every right to enter someone's home if he feels it is necessary, but we are discussing the actual law in this thread, not the case in which the law was put in place because of.
I think the whole debate over this law is the way it is stated. No right to resist UNLAWFUL entry by police officers. If it is UNLAWFUL then why are they allowed to do it? There's a knee high pile of you know what when it comes to unlawful entry, the biggest one being "breaking and entering". That is unlawful entry. This is where certain areas of the law need to be specified instead of assumed by everybody.
While the law will help police officers catch many people who need to be jailed, it may also cause issues that would have never happened had the law not been in place. I'd hate to see a veteran get life in prison for shooting a police officer as the officer got the houses mixed up and entered the wrong home. The way this law is presumingly stated is that the citizen will be charged for murder if the officer enters the wrong house, all because this law protects the officer and not the citizen.
You see, while many of us interpret the law as it is being said, others are interpreting it based on this one case. I'm more interested in what the actual law states the LEO's can do rather than what good it did in a single case.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere -
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Mikey1911
- Gandalf
- wtburnette
- bacon#1
- Ingomike
- tjh88
- hammerd13
- jwamplerusa
- mwg
- Romero Zombie
- stale_ranch
- xwing
- KellyinAvon
- oze
- mondoreli
- pmbiker
- nightgaunt
- nhgluff
- wwdkd
- syntax357
- 2tonic
- Bigdad_e875
- Jdubbs
- Warrior1354
- drgnrobo
- red_zr24x4
- CPE1704TKS
- tweekie1953
- bwframe
- Wolfhound
- flightsimmer
- Ethanhoosier1
- Timjoebillybob
- JettaKnight
- JayCo
- d.kaufman
- Haven
- 12many
- tjones
- rbhargan
- Defensive Shooting Concepts
- yeahbaby
- HnK
- ZachJ03
- Claddagh
- Dougie
- KG1
- indyblue
- FFJakeT
- flint stonez