• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Baralis

Baralis

DP Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
1,552
Location
MO
Political Leaning
Independent
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

INDIANAPOLIS | 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.
Click to expand...

Wow....what are we coming to.

Papers please :shock:
 
I don't see how the alternative would be feasible. "Unlawful entry" is something that has to be decided by the courts, not a civilian on the spot. If you think the police are acting improperly you have to seek remedy through the courts, not by assaulting a police officer. I just don't see how it can work otherwise, every asshole who wants to resist arrest could just claim he thought the cops were acting unlawfully.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I don't see how the alternative would be feasible. "Unlawful entry" is something that has to be decided by the courts, not a civilian on the spot. If you think the police are acting improperly you have to seek remedy through the courts, not by assaulting a police officer. I just don't see how it can work otherwise, every asshole who wants to resist arrest could just claim he thought the cops were acting unlawfully.
Click to expand...

true but if the cop (and this has happened more times than most people would like to know about) also tries to kill someone who thinks he is under criminal attack, the homeowner should kill in self defense rather than have his estate win a big judgment against the police department
 
So a cop can just stroll in and poke around your house without any good reason? Doesn't that violate unreasonable search?
 
spud_meister said:
So a cop can just stroll in and poke around your house without any good reason? Doesn't that violate unreasonable search?
Click to expand...

of course it does

where most of the cases come from is "dynamic entries" into the wrong address, often with a warrant
 
TurtleDude said:
true but if the cop (and this has happened more times than most people would like to know about) also tries to kill someone who thinks he is under criminal attack, the homeowner should kill in self defense rather than have his estate win a big judgment against the police department
Click to expand...

You're saying the homeowner should kill the cop?
 
TurtleDude said:
of course it does

where most of the cases come from is "dynamic entries" into the wrong address, often with a warrant
Click to expand...

Oh, I guess that makes sense, but the wording of it seems a bit too vague, maybe they should make it law cops check on Google Maps to see where they're going before they get there.
 
This really never happens... most people do not resist police officers coming into houses, and this just backs up an age old unwritten rule. If an officer pulls you over, and he/she wants to search your car, and YOU, a citizen, believes he has no right to search your car, cannot do anything about it on the spot. You let him do the illegal search, then take it up with a court afterwards. Even if he finds nuclear rods in your car, if it was an illegal search, you take it up with the court, and it will be thrown out and you'll be let off. This isn't some super important legal case. Just think about it with the car metaphor.
 
the law is to prevent obstruction of an officers entry, it does not define the legality of the entry. in the case of murder in self defense, it would be up to the courts again. one must look at the nature of indianapolis and see if they suffer police corruption. if they are not notoriously corrupted, then this law serves the judicial process and confidence in law. i dont know if this will result in increased infringement on personal property, or more violence agaist law enforcement. it all comes down to you, people.
 
A little more from the article;

"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.
Click to expand...
*
 
I feel that the Supreme Court will see it differently than the way this Court did.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
 
Gargantuan said:
This really never happens... most people do not resist police officers coming into houses, and this just backs up an age old unwritten rule. If an officer pulls you over, and he/she wants to search your car, and YOU, a citizen, believes he has no right to search your car, cannot do anything about it on the spot. You let him do the illegal search, then take it up with a court afterwards. Even if he finds nuclear rods in your car, if it was an illegal search, you take it up with the court, and it will be thrown out and you'll be let off. This isn't some super important legal case. Just think about it with the car metaphor.
Click to expand...

You can resist the search.
 
jamesrage said:
If a cop is illegally in your home then he should be treated no different than any other trespasser.
Click to expand...

Shoot first and ask questions later right? Just wondering though how exactly would most people know if the intrusion is legal or not? Mistakes on warrants are made, and most people are not legally versed in this sort of thing, do you really think it's a good idea for someone to go all postal just because they THINK it's an infringement of their rights?
 
X Factor said:
Yeah, try that. Let us know how it works for you.
Click to expand...

They can't do anything, if they don't have a warrant, and you don't consent, well tough cookies.
 
Your Star said:
They can't do anything, if they don't have a warrant, and you don't consent, well tough cookies.
Click to expand...

Do not fight cops in the street. You will never, ever win and even if they're wrong you'll be lucky if they even pay your hospital bills. The only weapon you can beat a cop with is a lawyer.
 
Here's the gig, while I agree that in an average situation, resisting police entry into your home isn't such a smart move, to say that your rights as an individual, to life, liberty... are second to not causing an "undo incident rely on the courts to sort things out later" is just daft. It's erring on the side of "caution" taken to an absurd level.

No, the judges were wrong. You HAVE Rights, and they aren't something so lightly tossed away in hopes that some court will figure it out later.
 
MrVicchio said:
Here's the gig, while I agree that in an average situation, resisting police entry into your home isn't such a smart move, to say that your rights as an individual, to life, liberty... are second to not causing an "undo incident rely on the courts to sort things out later" is just daft. It's erring on the side of "caution" taken to an absurd level.
Click to expand...

Even if they are wrong, when you kill a cop they are given a hero's funeral and yours will follow shortly. If they are wrong, resisting will make them more wrong and more likely to get away with it.

Fighting cops is a good way to die, but not until I'm ready.
 
Your Star said:
They can't do anything, if they don't have a warrant, and you don't consent, well tough cookies.
Click to expand...

Yes they can. They can and will search your home if they want to. If you try to physically prevent them, you've committed a crime. If their search is unreasonable, anything they come across is inadmissible in court, but the only thing that can determine that is a court.

You can't fight the police. They get to win.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Here's the gig, while I agree that in an average situation, resisting police entry into your home isn't such a smart move, to say that your rights as an individual, to life, liberty... are second to not causing an "undo incident rely on the courts to sort things out later" is just daft. It's erring on the side of "caution" taken to an absurd level.

No, the judges were wrong. You HAVE Rights, and they aren't something so lightly tossed away in hopes that some court will figure it out later.
Click to expand...

But in the moment, is the civilian the one who determines whether the search is reasonable or the police officer?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Fighting cops is a good way to die, but not until I'm ready.
Click to expand...

Actually it's a terrible way to die if that's the goal. It's inaccurate to believe that cops want to shoot and kill people and those who elect "suicide by cop" neglect the toll it takes on the officer who's forced to take a life.

As an aside, we had an incident here where someone committed suicide by jumping off an overpass into the path of an oncoming truck. I didn't feel for the guy who died, he got what he wanted. I did feel for the driver of the truck.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom