TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 29697.html

From the article:

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.

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence

How about keeping officers from performing an unlawful entry in the first place?

From one of two justices who ruled against this decision:

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Amazingly enough, I, and many of our fellow forum members, would come to the same conclusion as this court justice, despite any professional legal training or experience. I find it exceptionally disturbing that an American judge would basically give "Carte blanche" to ANY government agency to unlawfully enter the home of a citizen.



NOT a good day for the citizens of Indiana.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:From one of two justices who ruled against this decision:

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Amazingly enough, I, and many of our fellow forum members, would come to the same conclusion as this court justice, despite any professional legal training or experience. I find it exceptionally disturbing that an American judge would basically give "Carte blanche" to ANY government agency to unlawfully enter the home of a citizen.



NOT a good day for the citizens of Indiana.

But hey, like the court said, you can always spend $50,000 or more on court costs for a legal "remedy."

The magic word here is "UNLAWFUL" !
No one has the right to do something unlawful!
..and...what is an "Illegal Cop?"

Anyone who enters my house or property with force is going to receive some resistance. Logically the illegal entering should be a legal defense because a police officer wouldn't do anything illegal, thus this person is not a police officer and I have reason to fear my life. Bad guys can play dress-up too.

VMI77 wrote:But hey, like the court said, you can always spend $50,000 or more on court costs for a legal "remedy."

Is there precedent to sue the government for costs?

Whoa, whoa,

whoa!

Two things. I'm not sure which way I lean on the LEO's right to enter the home in the article that started this case. I can see both sides here, but lean towards that it was illegal. If there was actually a case of domestic abuse going on and the people involved retreated into the house I would say definitely go in, but they were only called for an argument. They didn't witness anything. I know how most of us feel here about erring on the side of safety. There is risk involved in everything we do. We cannot raise our kids nor live in a bubble. That' just absurd.

Second, since I can see the other side in this case and since the police were called they might have actually had a good enough reason to enter this home, but they probably could have handled it more tactfully than they did. However, I think these three judges decision is a very dangerous one.

a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence

This just blows me away!

GaryAdrian wrote:The magic word here is "UNLAWFUL" !
No one has the right to do something unlawful!
..and...what is an "Illegal Cop?"

Bad phrasing.

Why couldn't they have just said these officers had a reasonable doubt for the woman's safety and the entry was lawful? Why did they have to say LE could illegally enter our homes and we had no right to resist? This makes no sense at all. These same judges would probably also say we had no right to stop someone from robbing or assaulting us.

This is unbelievable.

From a Supreme Court no less.

I'm begining to think Alec Baldwin had the right idea.

Only his timing was wrong.

There is a limit where a LEO acts beyond the scope and entitlement of their job and cease to have the backing of the badge and government.

Let me use some reductio ad absurdem reasoning to take this ruling to its logical conclusion with three shocking scenarios that are only different from the story cited by the OP as a matter of degree:
- Can you resist a cop sexually assaulting your wife / mother / daughter?
- Can you resist a cop who is robbing you?
- Can you resist a cop who is attempting to murder you?
. . . in each of these situations, would the court recommend that we allow the rape / robbery / murder to be completed and simply seek legal remedy after the fact?

The naysayers will try to argue that the illegal search of your house or person is categorically different and results in no irreparable harm, but I disagree. Protection from unlawful search and seizure, namely the right to be secure in one's home, person, and possessions, are basic rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that can only be abridged through due process of law.

Cops can go bad, even though it's rare. They can go bad while in uniform. They are human beings that are staffed from the general population. When they do, they act beyond the authority of their position and no longer act as an agent of the government. A law enforcement officer illegally entering my home is indiscernible from any other actor intending ill will or harm for me or my family.

The cards are definitely stacked against any person who ever needs to use force to protect themselves from a law enforcement officer gone bad. Proving the circumstances of the situation will be a terrible uphill battle and might be impossible because we typically give all the initial weight to the testimony of the badge bearer (rightfully so in most cases).

Question 1: is entry considered a search, we have the right to unlawful search and seizure.


Question 2: based off of entry not being a search, then any mary jane plants they see growing can not be acted upon or used in court, right, because it is not a lawful search?

That paragraph mentions another ruling that I find just as distrubing:

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

suthdj wrote:Question 1: is entry considered a search, we have the right to unlawful search and seizure.


Question 2: based off of entry not being a search, then any mary jane plants they see growing can not be acted upon or used in court, right, because it is not a lawful search?

In my unlawfully educated guess I would say the answer to both of these is "no."

#1. Isn't unlawful entry trespassing? What they would find would be a search, but just the entry would not.

#2. If they could see the MJ prior to entry and it were illegal just to possess MJ then wouldn't the entry be legal since they could see the crime?

Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will, ha ha). Now, for an LEO to enter one's property, isn't it true that they need a warrant or some serious probable cause at least? Not just "because"? Isn't that what the Fourth Amendment is about? I'm a pretty conservative guy and all for law enforcement being able to do their jobs...but as others have pointed out, what about the (admittedly rare) "bad cop"? Or someone "playing cop"? This seems just like a setup for all those BATFE horror stories you always read about...kicking in the door on the wrong house, putting two into Fido cause he barked, etc. So anytime LEOs feel like it, in the state of Indiana, they can just bust on in and a citizen can't do a darn thing about it until after the fact? That is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the justices here in Texas don't get any funny ideas from this business. I like to think of myself as a pretty law-abiding individual, and as a rule, don't engage in activities that should cause an LEO to come barging in...but anyone of us could end up with a disgruntled neighbor, for instance, that makes a false call...this business does NOT set well with me, at all.