Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
As a conservative I am sickened by this.
8 comments:
"...or no reason at all"
That's part that makes this unacceptable. The case mentioned that the cop had had a justifiable suspension that the wife might be in danger, but extrapolating that to "...no reason at all"? No way!
The majority opinion is horrific -- and there was really no need to reach the holding they did.
The wife actually had said that the officers were allowed in the house. The husband said no. While she could not have consented to a search if he objected, it is hard to argue that her consent to merely enter the house, combined with the fact they had come out on a domestic dispute call, made their entry a violation of any sort. They should have stopped there.
This will go to SCOTUS - 5-4 to reverse the decision.
Those pesky liberals are at it again? Successfully expanding the the reach of law enforcement? Just like they always do?
Who can forget the bongo-drum-backed chants of
"What do we want?
More rights for cops to illegally search and seize!
When do we want it?
NOW!" rising like marijuana smoke above San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury circa 1967?
Darn those cop-loving libs!
And socialmike: 5-4? Really? I'll give you a dollar if it's 5-4. Unanimous is more likely, though Scalia-Thomas could make it 7-2.
What, you think giving government more power in other areas, especially over your health and life, will *not* lead to increased police power? *Any* increase in government power almost guarantees an increase in police power, which is why I want to reduce and limit the power of government.
Slippery slopism: oxygen to bloggers. ideologues, and polemicists.
Let me guess: the invisible hand of The Market is all the regulation the banking industry needs, right? Air and water should work harder to keep themselves clean. Food safety? Caveat emptor!
Of course, believing in *any* limitations on government must mean I believe in anarchy. Sheesh, life must be simple in your little world.
So, do you *like* what was decided in this case? Or do you just want to attack me. Idiot.
Darren
Before I commented I wanted to read the actual decision and get more of the facts of the case. Now reading the PDF of the ruling here is the basic facts. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/pdf_c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb.html
On November 18, 2007, Richard Barnes argued with his wife Mary Barnes as he was moving out of their apartment. During the argument, Mary tried to call her sister but Barnes grabbed the phone from her hand and threw it against the wall. Mary called 911 from her cell phone and informed the dispatcher that Barnes was throwing things around the apartment but that he had not struck her. The 911 dispatch went out as a ―domestic violence in progress.‖
Officer Lenny Reed, the first responder, saw a man leaving an apartment with a bag and began questioning him in the parking lot. Upon identifying the man as Barnes, Reed informed him that officers were responding to a 911 call. Barnes responded that he was getting his things and leaving and that Reed was not needed. Barnes had raised his voice and yelled at Reed, prompting stares from others outside and several warnings from Reed.
Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was ―very agitated and was yelling.‖ Barnes ―continued to yell, loudly‖ and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, ―if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you‘re going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell.‖ Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes‘s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed‘s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don‘t do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖ Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital.
This is worse than you and the article say IMHO. The officers were responding to a domestic violence case where they already must determine the complainant (Mary Barnes) is safe and Mary has given her consent to enter. Sorry judge, saying “just let them in” is consent from one of the residents of the apartment. The suspect’s blocking of the officer is interfering in an inquiry and then assaulting the officer make entering the home completely legitimate for the investigation and officer safety issues (is there anyone else in the house and can they be ready to assault the officers also.). Now these idiots with are using the thereby of a “leaving and breathing” Constitution to say a legitimate investigation empowers police to conduct illegitimate investigations.
I would say this is dead on arrival at SCOTUS but after the abortion of the eminent domain case from a few years ago I don’t know.
Post a Comment