Indiana Court Rules That You Cannot Prevent Illegal Entry By Policel

[blackpup]

Quote
"Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home"

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home


jimmy

 

[Brisco]

Read the article..........

It is clearly an "OPINION" piece of misinformation.

No, Police in Indiana CANNOT enter a house illegally, and that is exactly what the Court in Indiana clearly said too.

In this case that was brought to the Courts, the author, Dan Carden, did not like the outcome of the Courts ruling against this idiot who was in a domestic squabble with his wife when the Cops showed up. While the Cops were trying to investigate the Domestic Disturbance complaint, the guy told his wife to go inside, went inside himself, and then slammed the door on the Cops. This clearly falls under "exigent circumstances", which allowed those Officers to force their way into that idiots home.

Now, for the ruling that was published in the 3-2 Vote, I'd like to see an actual copy of that Courts Ruling.

I cannot believe ANY Judge in America would actually say something like this:

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

I feel that this quote here has probably been misinterpreted of what Justice David actually said by the author of the article and has been spun with his own worded opinion.

If not, clear case to be heard in front of the Supreme Court.

What truly chaps my assh is the way this guys Attorneys tried to use the English Magna Carta of 1215 for his defense.

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Truth is, Guy was beating his wife. Cops showed up to investigate. Guy tells wife to get inside. He then scurries off inside like ****roaches do when lights come on and they go under the fridge. Cops know there's an act of Domestic Violence taking place so they force their way into the house, of which they are allowed to do under exigent circumstances. Guy then attacks Cops, thus adding even more charges to his rap sheet.

Now his Attorney brings up centurys old Law Causes in his defense.

Finally, a "Political Opinion Writer/Pundit" writes an opinionated OP ED piece about it.

Waste of time.

 

[blackpup]

Quote

""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" quote

This supposedly a quote from Justice Steven David, referred to by the article

jimmy

 

[Turtle]

The court ruling is pretty clear, that while police are not supposed to illegally enter your home, you do not have the right to prevent them from doing so, as retarded as that sounds. If they do enter your home illegally, you must then resort to the courts for remedy by filing a civil or criminal complaint.

 

[layoutshooter]

The court ruling is pretty clear, that while police are not supposed to illegally enter your home, you do not have the right to prevent them from doing so, as retarded as that sounds. If they do enter your home illegally, you must then resort to the courts for remedy by filing a civil or criminal complaint.

When my house is broken into I will treat who ever that person is as a threat and act accordingly. What that court, or any court says, is of no matter. At ANY time my home is broken into, entered without my permission, by the police without a warrant or by ANYONE I will drop them in their tracks. Period. End of sked. My home is MINE. It is my refuge. No man nor government has ANY legal authority to enter unless I ALLOW them too. That IS freedom.

 

[LDB]

You can stop anyone from illegally entering your home if you are properly equipped, trained and willing.

 

[paullud]

Cops entering your house illegally are no longer law abiding and have become a criminal since they are breaking the law and could be treated the same. I get that they don't want somebody deciding that the police don't have a right to enter his house based on his limited legal knowledge and then incorrectly handling the situation.

 

[greg334]

I would suggest that before anyone makes asinine statements about rights and openly admitting that they will 'defend' their property, read the entire case file from the Indiana SC -

Barnes v. Indiana

 

[layoutshooter]

I would suggest that before anyone makes asinine statements about rights and openly admitting that they will 'defend' their property, read the entire case file from the Indiana SC -

Barnes v. Indiana

You seem to think that I give a flip about what the courts say, I don't any more. I can say, with 100% conviction, that I WILL drop ANYONE in their tracks that tries to enter MY HOME, without permission, and if they are law enforcement, without a LEGAL WARRANT. That is a promise. That is how I defend MY freedom. It is NOT an asinine statement, it is cold, hard, fact. It IS my home and I WILL defend it. If there is ANY government official or judge who does not like that, he, she or it, can come speak to me in private or on TV for that matter and they will hear EXACTLY the same thing.

I have the means and the know how. What's mine IS mine and it WILL stay that way. That includes protecting my family, my home AND my property from ANYTHING that threatens it.

 

[greg334]

Sorry Layout, read the case file to understand what went on and what the issues were. Warrants are needed to enter to find things but the SC has ruled a few times that they can enter for a number of reasons without a warrant. In this case, the officers were conduction an investigation and the guy they eventually arrested told his wife to get back into the house and then followed, shutting the door on them ... not a wise move. It was a domestic abuse investigation, which seems to be something that most of us would want to actually be investigated and the person who did the abuse to be arrested ... right?

But as one of the biker/lawyers I know advised a client a while ago on something like this;

"...man the cops have a right to go into your house because you beat your old lady and others called them ...

so don't be an *** and let them in ... "

So yep defend your house after you beat your wife up and than see what happens. I would venture to guess that you would have lost the right to own a firearm because of the felony conviction you have acquired.

Outside of that, they do need a warrant and the knee jerk reaction that happened here, and at another site played into the original article writer's intent by stirring the pot.

 

[layoutshooter]

Sorry Layout, read the case file to understand what went on and what the issues were. Warrants are needed to enter to find things but the SC has ruled a few times that they can enter for a number of reasons without a warrant. In this case, the officers were conduction an investigation and the guy they eventually arrested told his wife to get back into the house and then followed, shutting the door on them ... not a wise move. It was a domestic abuse investigation, which seems to be something that most of us would want to actually be investigated and the person who did the abuse to be arrested ... right?

But as one of the biker/lawyers I know advised a client a while ago on something like this;

"...man the cops have a right to go into your house because you beat your old lady and others called them ...

so don't be an *** and let them in ... "

So yep defend your house after you beat your wife up and than see what happens. I would venture to guess that you would have lost the right to own a firearm because of the felony conviction you have acquired.

Outside of that, they do need a warrant and the knee jerk reaction that happened here, and at another site played into the original article writer's intent by stirring the pot.

Well, since I have NEVER beaten my wife, when she was young, or middle aged and she is NOT an old lady, yet, I will NOT beat her then either. They can STAY OUT, KEEP OUT, GET LOST or GET FOUGHT! THEY are committing a felony IF they even TRY to enter MY home without a warrant, AND, I suggest that they knock and ASK to entire even IF they have one. I will ALWAYS assume that if ANYONE busts down my door that they are there for NO other reason than to do me harm and I WILL fire. This is really simple.

I don't have any "pot" to stir either, don't do drugs.

I was not commenting on this case or ruling as much as I was just making it clear. I WILL do as I please to defend my family and property no matter who says what. It is my RIGHT to do so.

 

[greg334]

But see you miss the point completely and it is what others have pointed out, the problem isn't with the original issue but with those who want to stir the pot on a national scale, a lot like the race baiters and trump has done in the past.

AND beside all of this, there was no illegal entry in this case and in most of the cases that there is a crime committed that the cops can see there is one going on.

SO I assume that you would rather have no law enforcement officer enter any location when any crime is committed when they are there or see out in the public regardless what happens to the victim, including at your home with your family.

 

[layoutshooter]

But see you miss the point completely and it is what others have pointed out, the problem isn't with the original issue but with those who want to stir the pot on a national scale, a lot like the race baiters and trump has done in the past.

AND beside all of this, there was no illegal entry in this case and in most of the cases that there is a crime committed that the cops can see there is one going on.

SO I assume that you would rather have no law enforcement officer enter any location when any crime is committed when they are there or see out in the public regardless what happens to the victim, including at your home with your family.

They can knock and ASK to enter my home. I will then ask them the reason that they wish too. IF I decide there is good reason, they may enter. IF I call them, I will allow entry. If I do not like the reason they give to enter they will not be allowed to enter without my lawyer present. Again. We are speaking of MY home. You can do as you chose. I don't care about this case. Just stating what will happen at MY house. Period. It has nothing to do with racing or bait.

 

[greg334]

OK then ... read what happened to understand that the title of the thread seems to stir the pot to get everyone emotional about the subject.

 

[layoutshooter]

OK then ... read what happened to understand that the title of the thread seems to stir the pot to get everyone emotional about the subject.

Stirring the pot keeps post counts up, good for the site. Just so it does not get personal. It also keeps the cheese from sticking.

 

[blackpup]

There were two dissenting opinions in that Indiana Supreme court ruling. Who seemed to be concerned about the abrogating of rights confirmed by the fourth amendment.

Pots do need stirring.

jimmy

 

[x06col]

The court ruling is pretty clear, that while police are not supposed to illegally enter your home, you do not have the right to prevent them from doing so, as retarded as that sounds. If they do enter your home illegally, you must then resort to the courts for remedy by filing a civil or criminal complaint.

Actually, I have a personnal court (er. colt) to remedy any complaint I may have of this manner. Unless you get a young fool (read 8ft tall and bullet proof) you won't have this problem anyway.