PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home


teedubya
05-13-2011, 03:59 PM
Par for the course, right Sheeple? Police State, FTW!!

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

NDIANAPOLIS | 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."

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.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"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."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

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.

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:08 PM
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.

I can't really say that bothers me at all. It bothers you that they don't have to knock on the door?

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:22 PM
That is the 2nd issue in this article.

Please STFU and read it instead of skimming.

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:24 PM
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.


Donger, does this part bother you? It does me...A lot. No reason at all???

AndChiefs
05-13-2011, 04:25 PM
They're arguing outside an apartment and then they go inside. If the police reasonably think there might be domestic violence going on I have no problem with them entering.

The guy attacking them for entering only furthers that belief.

It's not like they walked up to a random apartment, knocked on the door, and walked in.

AndChiefs
05-13-2011, 04:27 PM
Donger, does this part bother you? It does me...A lot. No reason at all???

No reason at all bothers me. Them entering in this situation does not bother me in the least (especially if they believed it was a case of domestic violence, I can't stand a "man" that beats up on a woman).

Police should reasonably be able to do their job.

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:27 PM
They're arguing outside an apartment and then they go inside. If the police reasonably think there might be domestic violence going on I have no problem with them entering.

The guy attacking them for entering only furthers that belief.

It's not like they walked up to a random apartment, knocked on the door, and walked in.

I agree. In this case they HAD a reason to enter. But the part that allows them to go into your home with no reason at all is unacceptable.

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:28 PM
It's not like they walked up to a random apartment, knocked on the door, and walked in.

Well, they can do it now. They'll face legal repercussions, but it's illegal for you to deny them entry.

Jaric
05-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Good to know that warrants are now rendered useless in my state...

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:30 PM
Good to know that warrants are now rendered useless in my state...

You can sue the police after they enter your home. Good luck with all that.

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:31 PM
That is the 2nd issue in this article.

Please STFU and read it instead of skimming.

Sorry, I presumed that you bolded that part for some purpose.

This is the other part that bothers you?

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

AndChiefs
05-13-2011, 04:31 PM
Well, they can do it now. They'll face legal repercussions, but it's illegal for you to deny them entry.

Like I said I agree that they should need a reason to enter. But the main thing is, this situation should never have been brought to court (according to the facts I'm reading).

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:32 PM
Sorry, I presumed that you bolded that part for some purpose.

This is the other part that bothers you?

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

The other part that bothers him is that it's illegal for you to deny the police entry to your home even if they don't have a warrant, Dong.

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:32 PM
Dang, I'm thinking if I can get a badge and uniform I may never have to use my own toilet again...

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:33 PM
Good to know that warrants are now rendered useless in my state...

If I'm reading it correctly, warrants are still usually required. However, if they are already there responding to a disturbance and the naughty people decide to go inside their homes, the police can enter without a warrant.

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:33 PM
The other part that bothers him is that it's illegal for you to deny the police entry to your home even if they don't have a warrant, Dong.

Only if they are already there for some reason and you decide to retreat into your home to avoid them, right?

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:34 PM
If I'm reading it correctly, warrants are still usually required. However, if they are already there responding to a disturbance and the naughty people decide to go inside their homes, the police can enter without a warrant.

The way I'm reading it is that they can go into your home for no reason at all...

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:37 PM
The way I'm reading it is that they can go into your home for no reason at all...

How did you reach that conclusion?

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:37 PM
Only if they are already there for some reason and you decide to retreat into your home to avoid them, right?

I don't see how you can infer that from the article.

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Because he is Donger, and he works for the US Govt, and spreads disinfo on behalf of his overlords.

It is useless talking with him most of the time.

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:38 PM
I don't see how you can infer that from the article.

Because that is the precise scenario mentioned in the article.

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:39 PM
Because he is Donger, and he works for the US Govt, and spreads disinfo on behalf of his overlords.

It is useless talking with him most of the time.

Talking to you is a lot more useless than talking to him, teedub.

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:39 PM
How did you reach that conclusion?

In the article. Justice Steven David writes it...apparently.

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Because that is the precise scenario mentioned in the article.

The scenario led to the new ruling, which didn't get limited to the situation you described judging by the comments of Justice Robert Rucker.

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Because he is Donger, and he works for the US Govt, and spreads disinfo on behalf of his overlords.

It is useless talking with him most of the time.

I have no idea why you think I work for the US government, or any other government. I don't.

They couldn't afford me.

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:42 PM
The scenario led to the new ruling, which didn't get limited to the situation you described judging by the comments of Justice Robert Rucker.

Yes, I realize that. I'd like to read the actual ruling, not a rather fantastic article about it. I seriously doubt that a cop can just randomly pick a house and enter without a warrant.

If that IS the case, this is an abomination.

Pants
05-13-2011, 04:44 PM
Yes, I realize that. I'd like to read the actual ruling, not a rather fantastic article about it. I seriously doubt that a cop can just randomly pick a house and enter without a warrant.

If that IS the case, this is an abomination.

I agree. The way the article is worded, it's possible that you're correct and Justice Rucker wanted it to be even more limited to a much more specific circumstance (domestic violence).

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:45 PM
Yes, I realize that. I'd like to read the actual ruling, not a rather fantastic article about it. I seriously doubt that a cop can just randomly pick a house and enter without a warrant.

If that IS the case, this is an abomination.

:thumb:

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:45 PM
Talking to you is a lot more useless than talking to him, teedub.

LMAO. Good thing I'm independent of the good or bad opinions of others.

Garcia Bronco
05-13-2011, 04:45 PM
They're arguing outside an apartment and then they go inside. If the police reasonably think there might be domestic violence going on I have no problem with them entering.

The guy attacking them for entering only furthers that belief.

It's not like they walked up to a random apartment, knocked on the door, and walked in.

That's probable cause and covered under the 4th. Entering a dwelling without propable cause should have been declared illegal by this court.

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:46 PM
Yes, I realize that. I'd like to read the actual ruling, not a rather fantastic article about it. I seriously doubt that a cop can just randomly pick a house and enter without a warrant.

If that IS the case, this is an abomination.

I'm speechless.

listopencil
05-13-2011, 04:46 PM
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said...


"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."


Bullshit. **** you, Indiana. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

Jaric
05-13-2011, 04:47 PM
If I'm reading it correctly, warrants are still usually required. However, if they are already there responding to a disturbance and the naughty people decide to go inside their homes, the police can enter without a warrant.

Well, based on : 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. They've basically removed the warrant requirement. Assuming of course this is accurate. If it is accurate, my state's supreme court effectively repealed the 4th amendment.

I sincerely hope that is not accurate.

Jaric
05-13-2011, 04:49 PM
"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."


Bullshit. **** you, Indiana. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

I have to believe that if the decision as portrayed in the article is accurate there is no chance in hell this would hold up on appeal.

Otherwise it's time to move the fuck out of this state (and that would suck because I like it here)

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:49 PM
Well, based on : They've basically removed the warrant requirement. Assuming of course this is accurate. If it is accurate, my state's supreme court effectively repealed the 4th amendment.

I sincerely hope that is not accurate.

Yeah, that's why I'm skeptical. I'd like to see the actual language. I somehow doubt the ruling says that.

If so, it's yet another example of teedubya falling for scare tactics.

Earthling
05-13-2011, 04:53 PM
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said...


"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."


Bullshit. **** you, Indiana. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

:thumb:Totally.

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:54 PM
Here is the whole case.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/c/82/cdb/c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb-revisions/4dcc5c97c31bf.pdf.pdf

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:54 PM
Bullshit. **** you, Indiana. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

But, by the time that happens, black-shirted Indian police state goons will have illegally entered all the homes in the country!!!!W#113

LMAO

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:57 PM
Yeah, that's why I'm skeptical. I'd like to see the actual language. I somehow doubt the ruling says that.

If so, it's yet another example of teedubya falling for scare tactics.

Apathy runs wild in this world... it's not scare tactics. It's letting people know what the fuck is really going on.

teedubya
05-13-2011, 04:58 PM
But, by the time that happens, black-shirted Indian police state goons will have illegally entered all the homes in the country!!!!W#113

LMAO

Close.

<iframe width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Klqv9t1zVww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
05-13-2011, 04:59 PM
Here is the whole case.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/c/82/cdb/c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb-revisions/4dcc5c97c31bf.pdf.pdf

Awesome. Thanks.

So, where do you see in that ruling that cops may now enter your home for no reason at all?

Donger
05-13-2011, 05:00 PM
Apathy runs wild in this world... it's not scare tactics. It's letting people know what the **** is really going on.

So, you really think that cops are now going to just randomly enter peoples' homes for no reason at all?

Donger
05-13-2011, 05:03 PM
Close.

<iframe width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Klqv9t1zVww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LMAO

Brock
05-13-2011, 05:20 PM
Have you ever been legally entitled to physically resist policemen when they are attempting to enter your domicile? I honestly do not know.

Donger
05-13-2011, 05:23 PM
Have you ever been legally entitled to physically resist policemen when they are attempting to enter your domicile? I honestly do not know.

From the ruling above, from 1974. But this time, it's a police state:

The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion over three decades ago. ―[A] private citizen may not use force in resisting a peaceful arrest by an individual who he knows, or has reason to know, is a police officer performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest in question is lawful or unlawful.‖ Williams v. State, 311 N.E.2d 619, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) (emphasis added).

The_Doctor10
05-13-2011, 05:37 PM
If I'm reading it correctly, warrants are still usually required. However, if they are already there responding to a disturbance and the naughty people decide to go inside their homes, the police can enter without a warrant.

I thought that was already provided for with a little thing called 'probable cause'. This ruling seems completely unnecessary and unconstitutional at that.

There is always the age-old argument that if you don't want to deal with cops, don't do shit to require them being called, but this is one of those things that just doesn't sit well with me, and I don't even live in America. It's just weird; the police don't need to be in your house. If they REALLY need to get inside your house for whatever reason, the aforementioned 'probable cause' has served law enforcement well enough for how many hundreds of years? What was wrong with it, exactly?

teedubya
05-13-2011, 05:44 PM
Cops just need to start dressing like stormtroopers. Heh

The_Doctor10
05-13-2011, 05:50 PM
Cops just need to start dressing like stormtroopers. Heh

I think the logical alternative is to legalize weed and have everyone just chill the fuck out. Can that possibly hurt?

BigChiefFan
05-13-2011, 08:30 PM
Some of us, have been trying to you all this shit is happening for a long time. I'm glad to see the average Joe is starting to recognize the trampling of our constitution is alive and well in the fascist empire we live in. It's sickening that incompetents have final say on court cases without applying our God given rights to the equation.

AndChiefs
05-13-2011, 08:57 PM
That's probable cause and covered under the 4th. Entering a dwelling without propable cause should have been declared illegal by this court.

I realize that's probable cause...but this whole situation seems to be probably cause to me. I'm not sure how court case supposedly is talking about going in with no reason. Either the article is misrepresenting it or the wording on this decision is poor.

I sincerely doubt anyone is advocating randomly going into houses.

Jaric
05-13-2011, 09:36 PM
Some parts of this decision I find somewhat unnerving.

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.The fact that I can sue the police for "unlawful police entry" afterwards doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzy. I'm sure that would be a wonderful consolation to the wife of that Marine in Arizona who appears to have been gunned down by a swat team who just decided to kick in his door to see if there was a meth lab there.

In other words if you find yourself in the worst possible situation, a police officer abusing his power and physically assaulting you for no reason whatsoever, you just have to hope he doesn't kill you and then you can sue him afterwards. But if you resist and defend yourself, even if it's justified, the way these seems to read is that you would have still technically committed a crime. I'm sure the government wouldn't hold that against you when you threaten to take legal action against them.

This is bullshit.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-13-2011, 09:49 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWF4x01MkzE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWF4x01MkzE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Mr. Kotter
05-13-2011, 09:55 PM
Keep on smokin', Cheech. It's all good. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
05-13-2011, 09:57 PM
You got nothin' to hide, you have no reason not to cooperate. Unless you are a Marley fan. Heh.

The_Doctor10
05-13-2011, 10:07 PM
So nobody can tell me why 'probable cause' is no longer sufficient, hey?

crazycoffey
05-13-2011, 10:16 PM
So nobody can tell me why 'probable cause' is no longer sufficient, hey?


I don't think it's taking away probable cause. If it's a bad search/seizure, you have the right to legal recourse against the police. So if they enter illegally, you sue the shit out of them. I'm reading the nature of this is more two negatives don't make a positive.

BigChiefFan
05-13-2011, 10:21 PM
You got nothin' to hide, you have no reason not to cooperate. Unless you are a Marley fan. Heh.
Bullshit. There's plenty of law abiding citizens that don't want their privacy invaded. That's not an excuse, that's a clutching a straws narrative the mass delusionalists have created, justifying taking a shit on our rights.

Justifying trampling our rights is blashemphy to the republic. You want your rights violated, fine, by all means, let it be known. For the rest of us, we'll take the Bill of Rights and Constitution as our mantra. Don't tread on me, Jack and quit supporting the excercise of our freedoms being trampled. The ruling is on this case is bogus. The Supreme Law of the Land clearly states so.

Jaric
05-13-2011, 10:24 PM
I don't think it's taking away probable cause. If it's a bad search/seizure, you have the right to legal recourse against the police. So if they enter illegally, you sue the shit out of them. I'm reading the nature of this is more two negatives don't make a positive.

And in most circumstances I would agree with them.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be out resisting arrest. However, creating a system where you are unable to defend yourself with justification is dangerous.

In other words, if in the process of arresting you, a police officer just decides to beat the everliving shit out of you, you are now required, by law to sit there and take it. And hope he doesn't kill you.

And who knows. Perhaps we get a little bit creative with the definition of "resisting arrest." Perhaps we decide that putting your hands up to protect your face from the nightstick constitutes trying to grab it. Yeah you can sue us. But after you get out of the hospital we can just throw you in jail for a couple years

And the ****ed up thing is that case in question, the officers actually had probable cause to enter the residence. But then they slipped this bullshit about not being able to resist an unlawful arrest in like it was a god damn rider on a spending bill.

listopencil
05-13-2011, 11:16 PM
But, by the time that happens, black-shirted Indian police state goons will have illegally entered all the homes in the country!!!!W#113

LMAO

It's OK. Don't worry about it. Go back to sleep. I'm sure no courts in this country use precedents to decide cases. And it's OK if people who work for your local government don't have to honor the Constitution. It's just a piece of paper, right? Shoot, rules are for losers. Just because we are forced by our local government to pay for armed people to enter our homes illegally doesn't mean we are entertaining tendencies of a police state. I mean...it's not like this country was built upon it's sacred founding documents or anything.

Dave Lane
05-13-2011, 11:32 PM
I feel there is a complete loss of comprehension of this decision and what it means. Seriously this is a good common sense law.

Chiefspants
05-13-2011, 11:36 PM
Close.

<iframe width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Klqv9t1zVww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Let me guess, Alex Jones again?

alnorth
05-13-2011, 11:46 PM
Have you ever been legally entitled to physically resist policemen when they are attempting to enter your domicile? I honestly do not know.

I seriously doubt it. The 4th amendment does not entitle you to "man up" and bar the door, or pull a gun and forbid the cop from violating your rights, or any nonsense like that. The 4th amendment allows you to sue the crap out of the cops after they have violated your rights.

I don't understand why this decision is controversial. Do you really think you can cross your arms and tell a cop "you have no right to enter my home, and if you try I'll punch you" or some such nonsense? If the cop violates your rights, sue him.

BigChiefFan
05-13-2011, 11:51 PM
I seriously doubt it. The 4th amendment does not entitle you to "man up" and bar the door, or pull a gun and forbid the cop from violating your rights, or any nonsense like that. The 4th amendment allows you to sue the crap out of the cops after they have violated your rights.

I don't understand why this decision is controversial. Do you really think you can cross your arms and tell a cop "you have no right to enter my home, and if you try I'll punch you" or some such nonsense? If the cop violates your rights, sue him. That's exactly what it means. In other words, it's the citizens choice OVER the servant of the citizen. The Police are supposed to be SERVANTS to the citizenry. To SERVE and to PROTECT. Remember?

Here it is...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.

blaise
05-14-2011, 12:22 AM
Oh my God. The police are going to be out tonight just shoving into people's houses and eating all their food and tasing them all.

BigChiefFan
05-14-2011, 12:42 AM
Oh my God. The police are going to be out tonight just shoving into people's houses and eating all their food and tasing them all.Oh no, don't steal my Cheetos, copper. LMAO

Dude, I know, it is funny, at this moment in time, but big picture, this is the beginning or ground floor for setting the precedent that's it's okay to not use the Bill of Rights as the ultimate authority on our laws. The mass media pumps out these stories, weekly, trying to plant the seed, that we have no rights. After a while, some actually start believe it's okay, because after all, it's the norm, right?

I wish I could joke about that, but given the current state of the union, it's no laughing matter when you apply some thought to it. They slowly EASE the masses into thinking this is all okay, because afterall, it's all about safety, right?

Trampling the bill of rights is never acceptable.

teedubya
05-14-2011, 03:27 AM
Oh no, don't steal my Cheetos, copper. LMAO

Dude, I know, it is funny, at this moment in time, but big picture, this is the beginning or ground floor for setting the precedent that's it's okay to not use the Bill of Rights as the ultimate authority on our laws. The mass media pumps out these stories, weekly, trying to plant the seed, that we have no rights. After a while, some actually start believe it's okay, because after all, it's the norm, right?

I wish I could joke about that, but given the current state of the union, it's no laughing matter when you apply some thought to it. They slowly EASE the masses into thinking this is all okay, because afterall, it's all about safety, right?

Trampling the bill of rights is never acceptable.

Exactly, we are being conditioned like Pavlov's dog to obey and to not question authority.

banyon
05-14-2011, 07:05 AM
Well, based on : They've basically removed the warrant requirement. Assuming of course this is accurate. If it is accurate, my state's supreme court effectively repealed the 4th amendment.

I sincerely hope that is not accurate.

Not really true at all, since the remedy for a 4th amendment violation has always been application of the exclusionary rule to any evidence seized and/or civil redress in the event of injury.

I don't know of any court decision where the Court has held if the police go in the wrong house that you get to waste them for fun.

notorious
05-14-2011, 07:28 AM
Isn't this how it's always been?


Probable cause?

They will still need probable cause or any evidence they find will be thrown out and/or you can sue them. Of course, they can still make up probable cause, but I have a some faith in law enforcement (even though I have seen first hand bullshit probable cause).

Brock
05-14-2011, 09:19 AM
That's exactly what it means. In other words, it's the citizens choice OVER the servant of the citizen. The Police are supposed to be SERVANTS to the citizenry. To SERVE and to PROTECT. Remember?

Here it is...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.

And you take that to mean that you can physically resist them if they choose to conduct an unlawful entry and search?

alnorth
05-14-2011, 09:40 AM
That's exactly what it means. In other words, it's the citizens choice OVER the servant of the citizen. The Police are supposed to be SERVANTS to the citizenry. To SERVE and to PROTECT. Remember?

Here it is...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.

Don't be silly. What you quoted and bolded does not, in any way, shape, or form, support your argument whatsoever. The fourth amendment is silent on what you can do to enforce those rights and what the penalty for violating the right is.

It applies in every right. You have a freedom of speech, subject to some reasonable restrictions. If after you pulled a permit to protest, the cops come by to throw you into their van to haul you off because they didn't like your politics, you cant pull out guns and start shooting to defend your right to speak. You can absolutely assert your rights in a non-violent way (telling them they are wrong, sitting down and refusing to budge, threatening a civil rights lawsuit, etc) but no amendment in the constitution says "if the cops lose their minds and decide to violate your rights, feel free to start punchin' and shootin'"

alnorth
05-14-2011, 09:43 AM
I don't know of any court decision where the Court has held if the police go in the wrong house that you get to waste them for fun.

exactly, and why stop at the 4th amendment? You have many rights. The lunatics on the other side of this argument argue that if the police screw up and violate your rights, whether on purpose or by dumb negligence, the cops lose their right to not get beaten and shot at.

Saul Good
05-14-2011, 09:59 AM
I'm surprised that so many people seem to feel that a man and woman arguing constitutes probable cause for the police to enter the home.

banyon
05-14-2011, 10:10 AM
I'm surprised that so many people seem to feel that a man and woman arguing constitutes probable cause for the police to enter the home.

I don't know that it did in this case. But I do know that the legally prescribed remedy isn't beating the hell out of those cops and/or shooting them.

Brock
05-14-2011, 10:12 AM
I'm surprised that so many people seem to feel that a man and woman arguing constitutes probable cause for the police to enter the home.

I'm surprised you think that's the question.

blaise
05-14-2011, 10:15 AM
I'm surprised that so many people seem to feel that a man and woman arguing constitutes probable cause for the police to enter the home.

Well, it says the husband said the police were no longer needed. It didn't say the wife did. For all they knew he had kicked the crap out of her and they wanted to find out what was going on.
I think it depends on the situation. If they were arguing to the point that the police were called it would seem to me the argument was pretty heated and could have involved a physical confrontation.
And I don't even know if they knew she was the wife when they went inside. For all the knew she was under duress, and then the next day they're the cops that showed up at an apartment and walked away without helping some lady who had been killed or something.

Simplex3
05-14-2011, 10:50 AM
I can't really say that bothers me at all. It bothers you that they don't have to knock on the door?

I'll bet it bothers the people the police kill every year who just think someone is breaking into their home.

Bump
05-14-2011, 11:42 AM
anyone who doesn't have a shit ton of weapons, drugs or whatever should have no need to worry. Now, if they want to come in a search for an 1/8 of weed, now that's a different story.

BigChiefFan
05-14-2011, 11:53 AM
And you take that to mean that you can physically resist them if they choose to conduct an unlawful entry and search?I take it, as I have the right to protect my family and my possessions. If I choose for someone not to be in my house, I have the final say in that matter, as the 4th amendment states. Does that mean, I believe it's a good idea to get into a physical altercation? Absolutely not, but let's not forget, police officers are supposed to serve and protect citizens, not trample their rights. You enter my house without a search warrant or an invitation, then you are infringing on my 4th amendment rights. PERIOD. The physical altercation, is the secondary part of the story, not the overall point.

Earthling
05-14-2011, 12:07 PM
anyone who doesn't have a shit ton of weapons, drugs or whatever should have no need to worry. Now, if they want to come in a search for an 1/8 of weed, now that's a different story.

Its not about having anything illegal in your home that would make you worry. Its the part that would allow such an intrusion "with no reason", as the article indicated, that is worrisome to me.

Radar Chief
05-14-2011, 12:23 PM
Well, it says the husband said the police were no longer needed. It didn't say the wife did. For all they knew he had kicked the crap out of her and they wanted to find out what was going on.
I think it depends on the situation. If they were arguing to the point that the police were called it would seem to me the argument was pretty heated and could have involved a physical confrontation.
And I don't even know if they knew she was the wife when they went inside. For all the knew she was under duress, and then the next day they're the cops that showed up at an apartment and walked away without helping some lady who had been killed or something.

Around here if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance someone is spending the night in the pokey. Even if no charges are pressed, it diffuses the situation and gives a cooling off period.

|Zach|
05-14-2011, 03:49 PM
Well, it says the husband said the police were no longer needed. It didn't say the wife did. For all they knew he had kicked the crap out of her and they wanted to find out what was going on.
I think it depends on the situation. If they were arguing to the point that the police were called it would seem to me the argument was pretty heated and could have involved a physical confrontation.
And I don't even know if they knew she was the wife when they went inside. For all the knew she was under duress, and then the next day they're the cops that showed up at an apartment and walked away without helping some lady who had been killed or something.
Yea, being a police officer...its like there are a million ways to do something wrong and one way to do it right...if they are lucky.

Simplex3
05-14-2011, 03:57 PM
anyone who doesn't have a shit ton of weapons, drugs or whatever should have no need to worry. Now, if they want to come in a search for an 1/8 of weed, now that's a different story.

I can't believe people keep spouting this line of crap. It's happening to people, but you don't care because it hasn't happened to you.

Maybe it just hasn't happened to you YET. But don't worry, none of the rest of your peers will give a crap then either since it didn't happen to them.

Brock
05-14-2011, 06:25 PM
I take it, as I have the right to protect my family and my possessions. If I choose for someone not to be in my house, I have the final say in that matter, as the 4th amendment states. Does that mean, I believe it's a good idea to get into a physical altercation? Absolutely not, but let's not forget, police officers are supposed to serve and protect citizens, not trample their rights. You enter my house without a search warrant or an invitation, then you are infringing on my 4th amendment rights. PERIOD. The physical altercation, is the secondary part of the story, not the overall point.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. This decision is about whether or not you have the right to resist officers entering your home if you feel that they are doing so illegally. You seem to espousing the viewpoint you should be able to fight them or even kill them.

notorious
05-14-2011, 06:58 PM
What would happen if a PO entered my house and I shot him?


I obviously am not doing anything illegal, and if he appeared to present a threat, how could I be in the wrong?


If you knew it was a cop, that's a different ballgame.

BigChiefFan
05-14-2011, 08:16 PM
I'm sorry, you are wrong. This decision is about whether or not you have the right to resist officers entering your home if you feel that they are doing so illegally. You seem to espousing the viewpoint you should be able to fight them or even kill them.

Wow, you totally reached a conclusion, that wasn't even presented anywhere close to what you claim. I never once condoned violence. In fact, I said it wasn't a good idea to get into an altercation. You can resist without being violent. You're connecting dots that aren't there.

Brock
05-14-2011, 09:20 PM
Wow, you totally reached a conclusion, that wasn't even presented anywhere close to what you claim. I never once condoned violence. In fact, I said it wasn't a good idea to get into an altercation. You can resist without being violent. You're connecting dots that aren't there.

Do you agree with the ruling, then?

banyon
05-15-2011, 08:12 AM
OMG! This guy was so wronged!! Our constitution is no more if this guy gets treated like this!

_____

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.
Barnes was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery on a police officer,

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/pdf_c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb.html

Dave Lane
05-15-2011, 08:19 AM
Do you agree with the ruling, then?

Sounds like he is in total agreement to me. Seriously it would be an interesting concept that somehow if the cop didn't have a warrant and went into a wrong house that it was open season on cops without repercussions.

alnorth
05-15-2011, 11:04 AM
What would happen if a PO entered my house and I shot him?

I obviously am not doing anything illegal, and if he appeared to present a threat, how could I be in the wrong?

If you knew it was a cop, that's a different ballgame.

You'd probably go to trial regardless of the circumstances. I doubt the prosecutor would say "Welp, the cop screwed up, his fault he died, so no charges"

If you could convince a jury that the cop did not announce himself as a cop and you honestly thought he was a burglar, then depending on what the laws in your state say you could do when someone breaks into your house, you might get off. If the cops decide to lie in court, or if they did announce their entry and you didn't hear it, you could be screwed.

Obviously if the police break into a home but stay completely silent and make no attempt to announce who they are, then that would be an incredibly stupid lapse in judgment on their part and the shooter would seem to have a reasonable defense to mitigate or avoid any punishment he may face.

mlyonsd
05-15-2011, 04:30 PM
So I'm just supposed to assume when someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and yells POLICE DOWN ON THE FLOOR it's the cops?

Earthling
05-15-2011, 04:30 PM
I wonder how hard it would be to have an audio pick-up with a receiver/recorder device nearby to have real audio recordings of any and all raids that take place? It would certainly answer the all important question of whether or not an announcement had indeed been given before/during entry of a residence. Seems like a pretty practical way of dealing with most of these issues.

go bowe
05-15-2011, 05:14 PM
So I'm just supposed to assume when someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and yells POLICE DOWN ON THE FLOOR it's the cops?well, if it's not the cops, maybe they won't kill you...

if it is the cops and you shoot one, they will kill you for sure...

i guess i'd lay down on the floor and hope it was the cops...

banyon
05-15-2011, 05:46 PM
So I'm just supposed to assume when someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and yells POLICE DOWN ON THE FLOOR it's the cops?

I guess I don't understand where all of this paranoia is coming from. People I normally think are reasonable all of a sudden think we are in a totalitarian state where everyone's door will get kicked in.

It won't. The civil liability repercussions are too massive If they did this in an intentionally incompetent or irresponsible way.

If it is a genuine case of mistaken identity, what is the alternative, exactly?

Either allow them to be gunned down indiscriminately by trigger happy homeowners or ask cops to politely knock on the door of Mexican Mafia and Cartel members so they can get blasted?

AndChiefs
05-15-2011, 05:52 PM
I wonder how hard it would be to have an audio pick-up with a receiver/recorder device nearby to have real audio recordings of any and all raids that take place? It would certainly answer the all important question of whether or not an announcement had indeed been given before/during entry of a residence. Seems like a pretty practical way of dealing with most of these issues.

Don't be rational about this. The cops are going to be coming into your home, shooting your kids, and raping your wife. And there's nothing you can do about it because of this ruling.

teedubya
05-15-2011, 07:19 PM
So I'm just supposed to assume when someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and yells POLICE DOWN ON THE FLOOR it's the cops?

Yes. Stop questioning. Drink more fluoride. o:-)

alnorth
05-15-2011, 07:41 PM
So I'm just supposed to assume when someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and yells POLICE DOWN ON THE FLOOR it's the cops?

at the very least, you should then abandon any policy of "shoot first, ask questions later", and at least verify who is there.

If the cops announce themselves, you think "bullcrap, those aren't cops, those are thieves", and gun everyone down, you'll be facing either life in prison or the needle, even if it was a case of "oops, wrong house." Assuming the cops didn't kill you first, anyway.

kstater
05-15-2011, 07:50 PM
So I'm just supposed to assume when someone breaks into my house in the dead of night and yells POLICE DOWN ON THE FLOOR it's the cops?

You don't have to assume. But, police or not, I'm getting down on the floor to the screaming man with a gun every time. I'll sort things out later.

banyon
05-15-2011, 08:20 PM
Yes. Stop questioning. Drink more fluoride. o:-)

Also, I believe that your signature quote is a misattribution. That sounds like a paraphrase of Edmund Burke not Thomas Jefferson. Where do you think it came from?

It does not appear on the Monticello Site for his collected quotations:

http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/guide-to-finding-thomas-jefferson-quotes

The Monticello site's explanation:

http://www.monticello.org/site/blog-and-community/posts/hunting-wily-jefferson-quotation-episode-1

Hunting the Wily Jefferson Quotation (Episode 1)
February 20, 2007 by Anna Berkes Posted in: A Summary View

The Internet, it seems, is a breeding ground for spurious Jefferson quotations. I suppose I shouldn't complain about this, since I secretly (okay, it's not a secret now) enjoy hunting the wily Jefferson Quotation. Most of the time they turn out not to be Jefferson quotations at all. I will ruminate on that at some future point, but for now I want to highlight an interesting case in point.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."Someone sent me this quotation yesterday, saying they had seen it attributed to Jefferson and asking me to confirm that. I thought I had this one all wrapped up before I even started, having seen this quotation (or one very much like it) at the end of the movie Tears of the Sun, attributed to Edmund Burke. The lesson here, of course, is that one should never look to movies for accurate citations, because on closer examination it seems that no one so far has managed to prove that Edmund Burke said this either. Respectfully Quoted at Bartleby.com has an interesting note on this quotation, suggesting that it is a paraphrase of Burke's comment, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle,” from Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, April 23, 1770. That is all very well and good, but to anyone interested in this quotation, I direct your attention to the following essay by one Martin Porter: "'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' (or words to that effect): A Study of a Web Quotation" Mr. Porter has done an exhaustive survey of occurences of this quote, in all its glorious forms, on the Internet and has some fascinating things to say about its misattribution and quotation misattributions in general. His follow-up essay criticizes the suggestion that the snappy quotation being proliferated around the globe is a paraphrase of the somewhat-less-exciting sentiment from Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, arguing that the two quotations are really not analogous at all, and the latter is taken out of context to boot.

I've got lots more Quotation Mysteries in Ye Olde Reference Question Queue, so stay tuned...

teedubya
05-15-2011, 08:27 PM
Banyon, I googled Jefferson quotes and other early American patriots from time to time.

That particular quote is all over the place. It could be mis-attributed, certainly. It's words ring true, regardless. Thanks for the headsup.

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 09:00 AM
I guess I don't understand where all of this paranoia is coming from. People I normally think are reasonable all of a sudden think we are in a totalitarian state where everyone's door will get kicked in.

It won't. The civil liability repercussions are too massive If they did this in an intentionally incompetent or irresponsible way.

If it is a genuine case of mistaken identity, what is the alternative, exactly?

Either allow them to be gunned down indiscriminately by trigger happy homeowners or ask cops to politely knock on the door of Mexican Mafia and Cartel members so they can get blasted?

I'm not paranoid. Just thinking outside the box. If I were a criminal I'd get a fake badge and a used cop uniform.

go bowe
05-16-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm not paranoid. Just thinking outside the box. If I were a criminal I'd get a fake badge and a used cop uniform.
that worked for the valentine's day massacre...

vailpass
05-16-2011, 10:36 AM
I guess I don't understand where all of this paranoia is coming from. People I normally think are reasonable all of a sudden think we are in a totalitarian state where everyone's door will get kicked in.

It won't. The civil liability repercussions are too massive If they did this in an intentionally incompetent or irresponsible way.

If it is a genuine case of mistaken identity, what is the alternative, exactly?

Either allow them to be gunned down indiscriminately by trigger happy homeowners or ask cops to politely knock on the door of Mexican Mafia and Cartel members so they can get blasted?

End of thread.

FishingRod
05-16-2011, 01:41 PM
“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”.


This opinion bothers me a great deal more than what the ruling actually means. This kind of attitude IMO runs contrary to the principals this country is supposed to operate under, the idea that a Man’s home is his castle and that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The ruling itself while grating on my Libertarian beliefs has some understandable logic in that one can’t say it is ok to assault an officer because they ”believe” the officer doesn’t have a legal right to enter the home. I also do not understand where the judge says he would have voted for it if it were restricted to suspected cases of Domestic Violence. What does the relationship between the alleged victim and the alleged criminal have to do with if a crime is believed to have occurred? Why are some lives more valuable than others?

orange
05-16-2011, 04:18 PM
[COLOR="Blue"]Also, I believe that your signature quote is a misattribution.

That particular quote is all over the place. It could be mis-attributed, certainly. It's words ring true, regardless. Thanks for the headsup.

SNR's longtime signature quote is the only one I believe.

"I love Internet. I can write anything I want and attribute it to someone famous. - Thomas Jefferson"

banyon
05-16-2011, 05:13 PM
I'm not paranoid. Just thinking outside the box. If I were a criminal I'd get a fake badge and a used cop uniform.

What about this ruling changes that possibility?

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 05:37 PM
What about this ruling changes that possibility?Nothing other than the fact there might be some dim bulb out there thinking to himself that's a great idea.

You're way too serious these days.

Dave Lane
05-16-2011, 05:47 PM
I'm not paranoid. Just thinking outside the box. If I were a criminal I'd get a fake badge and a used cop uniform.

Or how about robbing a house where the people aren't home. I know, I know maybe too far outside the box

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 05:54 PM
Or how about robbing a house where the people aren't home. I know, I know maybe too far outside the box
Who is going to open the safe in the wall hidden behind the picture?

Brock
05-16-2011, 05:54 PM
Who is going to open the safe in the wall hidden behind the picture?

lol