http://www.facebook.com/protectthefourth

http://www.in.gov/...nions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf


Basically, Indiana courts have disagreed with a law that has existed for about 300 years, allowing citizens to apply the physical force necessary to keep a police officer from unlawfully entering their home.

why is that a good thing, or am i missing some sarcasm?

It means that an officer can enter any house, without cause, and the only recourse you have is to sue the police afterwards. They don't need a reason and you can't stop them.

don't worry, it's a good bet that scalia, thomas and alito are just chomping at the bit to convince a couple of their brethren to overturn the Indiana court's decision.

Even if the cops are out of line, you don't fight them right there (on the road, in your house, out in public) - you fight them in court.

A durrrrr

Its actually a reasonably safe bet that the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling 9-0.

it's probably not a wise thing to do in breaking down my door and come streaming in like a bunch of thugs. i might not be in a right state of mind to be gracious and hospitable enough to keep from blowing their heads off.

not sure why they mention unlawful entry. it seems to me that the police had reasonable cause to enter the premises because the wife dialed 911.

reading through that, they were within their rights. part of the definitiobn as to the ruling was that the police were in pursuit of the suspect. basically, you can't turn round and run into your house and go "nya nya you can't arrest me".
further, it was a 911 call which means the police are ALSO required to think on their feet and act according to the situation. Given that the defendant in this case was in a seemingly agitated and abusive state, for the safety of all involved, the police were in the right to act as they did.
further note that in the addendums of the two dissenting judges on this case, that this was tried back in 1974. "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)." So the court in this case is simply following the precedent set previously. also from his dissenting note "Indeed a respectable argument could be made that police response to a report of domestic violence is an exigent circumstance justifying entry into a home without a search warrant."
I think the two dissenting judges have the right of it in this case, and that the defendantwas pushing his luck too far in trying to claim he was within his rights.

basically the two dissenting judges, in their appended notes, that they felt the application was too liberal that the court ruled in this case, and that in certain circumstances this right should be legally able to be ignored.

irrespective of anything else, here's the nail in the coffin of the guy's defence. "Exigent circumstance
Main article: Exigent circumstances

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.[65]"
911 call qualifies as an emergency.

Personally, I don't care about the guy's defense being tossed. I care about the fact that since the case was able to reach a court, that that one court could use the case to apply a very broad interpretation that "This guy's defense was crap because of certain circumstances; therefore, NOBODY (in the state of Indiana) has the right to defend themselves from an unlawful entry into their homes from law enforcement". Of course, one or both the dissenting judges (justices?) mentioned that.

The .pdf reads about fears of disease-ridden jail cells, slow bail posting, I think they even mentioned the possibility of not seeing a court after being arrested in such a fashion. That's why the common law thing and the 4th amendment was put in place, to keep innocent civilians from legally having to suffer those scenarios with no recourse. To take the first step in taking that right away because of the fact we live in "different times" and better technology is kinda dangerous, IMO. We're still the same species of human that caused the need for a 4th amendment in the first place.

hehe. ok, but if it was a lawful entry, then why are they stating that police have the right to unlawfully enter? police are basically criminals if they break the law, and people have the right to defend themselves against criminals whether they're wearing a badge or not.

because irrespective the case was not about that. thwe court outright refused to recognise the common law of right of entry. I believe the precedent they use in this case is in regard to the application of the term "reasonable search or seizure"
either way, this could be put to the test again. and it's irrelevant regardless because the same result was reached 30 years ago :p

fluff it happened again. seen spreading and i thought it was something else..

i don't know what you just said, but even if there are 2 judgements specifying that the police can do unlawful entry, i doubt that the police departments are going to change their policies regarding unlawful entry. though i still reserve my right to blow their dang heads off, if they decide to change that policy. assuming i can yank the gun out of their hands. meh, i'd rather shoot them in the foot anyway.