Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warrants no longer necessary Indiana

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warrants no longer necessary Indiana

    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.
    http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

    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.

    "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.
    Please, come on in and don't forget to wipe your feet on the constitution doormat.

    The resistance part is just fluff, that always turns out badly for everyone. The wholesale removal of the constitutional rights without even a pretense of needing to have exigent circumstance is mind boggling.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Originally posted by jcioccke
    After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

  • #2
    Just 2 words Double-barreled Shotgun.

    IndianaGuy
    So your going to kill a cop for entering your home?
    MDRDEP:

    There are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by IndianaGuy
      Just 2 words Double-barreled Shotgun.

      IndianaGuy
      Unbelievable.... just wow.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by IndianaGuy
        Just 2 words Double-barreled Shotgun.

        IndianaGuy
        There are a few two word responses for you if you go that route.

        body bag
        paupers grave
        convicted felon
        Code 6-Charles
        Code 2 or Code 3
        Code 4-Adam
        The beatings will continue until morale improves.

        Originally posted by jcioccke
        After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

        Comment


        • #5
          dont fight the Po-leece at your house...IF you are wronged, then fight in court....

          The case they referenced doesnt sound like a horrible 4th Amend violation....man and woman fighting, see cops, go inside..hubby comes to door and says everything is fine so go away, then blocks the door...the Police now need to verify that and check womans welfare prior to leaving...dont see a problem with that.
          "I don't go on "I'maworthlesscumdumpster.com" and post negative **** about cum dumpsters."
          The Tick

          "Are you referring to the secret headquarters of a fictional crime fighter or penal complex slang for a-$$hole, anus or rectum?"
          sanitizer

          "and we all know you are a poser and a p*ssy.... "
          Bearcat357 to Dinner Portion/buck8/long relief

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by IndianaGuy
            Just 2 words Double-barreled Shotgun.

            IndianaGuy
            Figure a guy that thinks Double Barreled Shotgun is two words would say something as stupid as that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by crass cop View Post
              dont fight the Po-leece at your house...IF you are wronged, then fight in court....

              The case they referenced doesnt sound like a horrible 4th Amend violation....man and woman fighting, see cops, go inside..hubby comes to door and says everything is fine so go away, then blocks the door...the Police now need to verify that and check womans welfare prior to leaving...dont see a problem with that.
              All of this..

              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.


              Totally falls under United States v. Turner and exigent circumstance. There is no issue.

              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.

              That language is off by a mile.
              The beatings will continue until morale improves.

              Originally posted by jcioccke
              After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                Just 2 words Double-barreled Shotgun.

                IndianaGuy
                I also have the opinion that this ruling is far too broad, and completely unnecessary. As was pointed out, this case revolves around the necessity to investigate a report of domestic violence and the woman's welfare MUST be determined under these circumstances. This is absolutely a valid use of the "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement, and thus there was absolutely no need for this ruling in the first place.

                That said, you my friend belong in prison. Your repeated statements on this forum have revealed you to be anti-government, anti-police, a bigot, and a racist, however, this comment goes way too far over the line.

                You plan on shooting/killing Police Officers for doing their job as laid out by the Courts. As I said, I don't agree with the Court but that is NO reason to threaten the death of Police Officers who are acting in accordance with said ruling (however wrong said ruling may later found to be - and I fully expect that a higher Court will weigh in on this one).

                People like you should be removed from our society; Citizenship revoked, and shipped out of our Country and I don't really care where to. I say this as a Police Officer and a Citizen. There is no room in this Country for your kind. Scumbag.

                Hopefully this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and finally gets you banned from this site.

                -V

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 10-7Alpha View Post
                  All of this..

                  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.


                  Totally falls under United States v. Turner and exigent circumstance. There is no issue.

                  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.

                  That language is off by a mile.

                  indeed, very poor wording
                  "I don't go on "I'maworthlesscumdumpster.com" and post negative **** about cum dumpsters."
                  The Tick

                  "Are you referring to the secret headquarters of a fictional crime fighter or penal complex slang for a-$$hole, anus or rectum?"
                  sanitizer

                  "and we all know you are a poser and a p*ssy.... "
                  Bearcat357 to Dinner Portion/buck8/long relief

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Iowa #1603
                    There are certain posters who need to be reported each and every time they even remotely violate the TOS.

                    EVERY TIME, by EVERYONE
                    Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                    My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                      Someone kicks in my door I am opening up with my shotgun, plain and simple. As I have stated before I am not a criminal, I dont house criminals, and I dont associate with criminals. So the only reason someone is kicking in my front door is to do me or my family harm, and I am going to do what it takes to stop the threat.

                      As for the comment about 2 words, that is correct, the hyphen between the double and barreled joins the word into a single word, so the term double-barreled shotgun would be 2 words and not 3.

                      IndianaGuy
                      There are NUMEROUS instances in which you can be as lawful as you just spelled out above, and in which the Police would still be forced to legally enter your home without a warrant.

                      One such that immediately comes to mind is the "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement should an Officer be chasing a criminal suspect who enters your home in an attempt to escape or possibly take hostages.

                      While you would be completely justified in shooting such a criminal suspect, your comments leave absolutely no doubt in my mind that you would also not hesitate to shoot the Officers as well who were just doing their job.

                      And before you spout that this type of situation is unlikely, be advised that I've been involved in this EXACT situation many times, and I'm sure the other LEOs on this forum have as well. It is more common than you would imagine.

                      You should be banned.

                      -V

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Your repeated statements on this forum have revealed you to be anti-government, anti-police, a bigot, and a racist, however, this comment goes way too far over the line.
                        +1

                        Originally Posted by Iowa #1603
                        There are certain posters who need to be reported each and every time they even remotely violate the TOS.

                        EVERY TIME, by EVERYONE
                        +1
                        MDRDEP:

                        There are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                          And as you say, Poor wording, will put many people in jail for no reason other than the scumbag's that came up with that Unconstitutional ruling.

                          IndianaGuy
                          I doubt it, I dont think some states court ruling will over shadow the whole "need a warrant" thing and Im sure we will see something with better wording soon. Those poor innocet people who will be put in jail will be out just as fast...
                          "I don't go on "I'maworthlesscumdumpster.com" and post negative **** about cum dumpsters."
                          The Tick

                          "Are you referring to the secret headquarters of a fictional crime fighter or penal complex slang for a-$$hole, anus or rectum?"
                          sanitizer

                          "and we all know you are a poser and a p*ssy.... "
                          Bearcat357 to Dinner Portion/buck8/long relief

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                            So in the middle of the night during a botched raid, how I am supposed to know it is the police and not some damn gangbangers? Yea I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, we dont have problems like that, but there are plenty of instances where the information is wrong, and the police go kicking in the wrong door. I am NOT saying that if an officer were at my door and I KNEW who they were that I would open up with my home defense weapon. What I AM saying, is that a homeowner still has the right to defend their home against an illegal entry. Also if some POS bad guy comes smashing thru my door, then he will be dispatched and the police will not need to come in, only to pick up the dead carcass off the foyer floor.

                            IndianaGuy
                            Your first response to this thread was way over the top. The issue of the ruling was law enforcement entry, not criminals. Maybe you should actually take a step back and think about your response so you don't come off the way you did.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                              So in the middle of the night during a botched raid, how I am supposed to know it is the police and not some damn gangbangers? Yea I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, we dont have problems like that, but there are plenty of instances where the information is wrong, and the police go kicking in the wrong door. I am NOT saying that if an officer were at my door and I KNEW who they were that I would open up with my home defense weapon. What I AM saying, is that a homeowner still has the right to defend their home against an illegal entry. Also if some POS bad guy comes smashing thru my door, then he will be dispatched and the police will not need to come in, only to pick up the dead carcass off the foyer floor.

                              IndianaGuy
                              It's far too late to try and back-pedal.

                              Your

                              Just 2 words Double-barreled Shotgun.

                              IndianaGuy
                              comment was directly aimed at a situation where a POLICE OFFICER was LEGALLY entering your home.

                              Regardless of how most of us feel about this ruling (I think the grand consensus even from Cops is that it is wrong and completely unnecessary), you have threatened to KILL Police Officers who are simply following the Court's direction.

                              Here's hoping that Frank swoops in with the Black Helo's and finally puts an end to your ridiculous crap.

                              You're a would-be Cop killer. Period.

                              -V
                              Last edited by vincelli; 05-13-2011, 10:25 AM. Reason: typo

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6433 users online. 349 members and 6084 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X