No right to resist entry by LEOs

[T.Lex]

Today, by a 3-2 margin, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion that basically concluded that homeowners have no right to resist entry into their homes by police officers.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

Now, the facts of that case lend themselves to that decision. So, I am somewhat surprised, like the dissenting opinions, that the Court painted with such a broad brush. This decision basically says to accept what is happening, and if it was a mistake, make use of the civil courts.

(Not sure if this is the right sub-forum, so no complaints if it gets moved.)

 

[Mordred]

We'll the statistics say you are 80% more likely to be shot by a cop than any other person. Guess that will hold true.

 

[IndySSD]

Holy Effing Crap?!

We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

WTH?!

 

[ckcollins2003]

Wait, so if an off duty cop decides he wants to come into my house and rob my a$$, I basically have to "bend over" for him?

Does this mean we can go into police officers houses whenever we want too?

 

[E5RANGER375]

good thing i dont care what they say

 

[rmabrey]

Wait.........did they just wipe their ass with the 4th amendment?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Oh, heaven's no, let's not post any details about this case...

Not like a police officer just went up to someone's house and sauntered right in.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

Come on, people, READ the thing first, will ya?

-J-

 

[IndySSD]

Oh, heaven's no, let's not post any details about this case...

Not like a police officer just went up to someone's house and sauntered right in.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

Come on, people, READ the thing first, will ya?

-J-

The details are in the link, if you bothered to read it you'd know he had a non physical argument with his wife, he was getting his crap out of his residence to go stay somewhere else and the police tried to forcibly follow him inside.

he had already stated he's just getting his things and leaving.... why push him into a confrontation in his own home, and then arrest him for it?

 

[Expat]

Oh, heaven's no, let's not post any details about this case...

Not like a police officer just went up to someone's house and sauntered right in.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

Come on, people, READ the thing first, will ya?

-J-

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.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh, heaven's no, let's not post any details about this case...

Not like a police officer just went up to someone's house and sauntered right in.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

-J-

Well, in my defense, I wanted people to read the opinion, not just my re-telling of it.

But, yes. That's why I said that the result is the 'right' result for this case. But, as noted by the 2 respected dissenters, the Court need not have made such a broad holding. But they did.

Oh, and to answer the question about an off-duty officer... no, that's not really what it says. Absent something like exigent circumstances, an off duty officer still cannot just walk into people's houses. I think.

I am surprised Shepard concurred in this, or at least didn't write a limiting opinion.

I also don't think it addresses the nightmare situation where officers bust in on the wrong address and wake up an innocent gun-owning palace-defender and people end up dead. Or, if this opinion does address it, it seems to suggest that a civil action for money damages is the only recourse.

 

[USMC_0311]

Front page of the Anderson paper today.

Does anyone remember John Leaf or Deputy Ronald Shelnutt ?

Deputy Ronald Shelnutt

They made a mistake and it only cost taxpayers 950,000.

 

[eldirector]

Time for some signs on my doors:

This address is XXXXXX
Please verify the address on your warrant before entry.

So, are these justices elected positions, or are they on for life?

 

[Expat]

Time for some signs on my doors:
So, are these justices elected positions, or are they on for life?

elected

 

[T.Lex]

Appointed by the governor, then up for retention votes. First retention is approx. 2 years after appointment, then every 10 years thereafter. Justice David will be up next for retention, as he was just appointed last year IIRC.

 

[eldirector]

Well, time to bookmark/subscribe to this thread, then. Come next election day, we can remind ourselves who has done what.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

he had already stated he's just getting his things and leaving.... why push him into a confrontation in his own home, and then arrest him for it?

This technique is called baiting (also part of the heckler's veto). We see it on INGO when the officers yell at or spit on open carriers hoping to elicit a response so you can be arrested. Staying cool is the right thing to do.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We'll the statistics say you are 80% more likely to be shot by a cop than any other person. Guess that will hold true.

Got a reference for that claim? I'm betting more innocent people are shot by non-LEOs... unless, of course you're throwing in criminals (who aren't innocent).

 

[IndySSD]

Got a reference for that claim? I'm betting more innocent people are shot by non-LEOs... unless, of course you're throwing in criminals (who aren't innocent).

Yeah, I'd agree my BS detector is buzzing with that 80% figure. We've had more murders (with guns) in Indy this year than fatal police action shootings, and that alone puts it under 50%.

 

[UncleMike]

The details are in the link, if you bothered to read it you'd know he had a non physical argument with his wife, he was getting his crap out of his residence to go stay somewhere else and the police tried to forcibly follow him inside.

he had already stated he's just getting his things and leaving.... why push him into a confrontation in his own home, and then arrest him for it?

Here's how it works.
When the call went out as a "Domestic Disturbance in progress" the Officer was put in "protect mode" for the spouse. Anything, and everything that occurred after he arrived at the scene was geared to that end.
If the guy was being a jerk, and according to the Court Filing he was, the Officer would take whatever steps that he/she thought were necessary to;
#1 Protect the Complainant.
#2 Protect him/her self.
#3 Lock down the situation so that the possibility of violence is diminished.

The fact that he followed the Arrestee into the house is completely irrelevant. Once at the scene. and after observing the actions of the Arrestee, the Officer can follow him/her to the Gates of Hell if necessary to insure that steps 1, 2, and 3, are accomplished.
BTW
Destroying the telephone escalates the argument to a physical confrontation.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am surprised Shepard concurred in this, or at least didn't write a limiting opinion.

Really? On what basis could you be surprised by the Chief Justice's opinion given his prior rulings?