Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home (Indiana)

[thundley4]

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.

Wow!!

[Mike220]

Note to self: Don't move to Indiana.

[DefiantSix]

Note to self: Don't move to Indiana.

Pima County Arizona may be another place to avoid, given the way I think Dumpdik's latest ****-up is going to finally unravel.

[Mike220]

Pima County Arizona may be another place to avoid, given the way I think Dumpdik's latest ****-up is going to finally unravel.

Yup. I was reading up on that today at TAH. Is it too much to hope for indictments and jail time for those involved in the cover up?

[DefiantSix]

Yup. I was reading up on that today at TAH. Is it too much to hope for indictments and jail time for those involved in the cover up?

I think if this was anything even remotely resembling a clean bust on PCSO's part, we'd have heard about the undercover investigative work and the suspicions that led them to draw up a warrant on a 2-tour Iraq vet.  We'd hear specifics about how the warrant yielded x amount of y drug with a street value of z dollars.

We've heard nothing like that, which tells me that Dipstick's deputies probably filled out a specious warrant on the word of a "Confidential Informant" who figured it'd be fun to watch the Marine get frog-marched.  No corroboration of what they were investigating; hell, I'll give you no better than even money that Jose Guerena's address was even the correct addy they wrote down for the warrant.

**** Dumpdik and his hit squad.  I hope Guerena's widow winds up owning their asses, big time.

[Eupher]

I think if this was anything even remotely resembling a clean bust on PCSO's part, we'd have heard about the undercover investigative work and the suspicions that led them to draw up a warrant on a 2-tour Iraq vet.  We'd hear specifics about how the warrant yielded x amount of y drug with a street value of z dollars.

We've heard nothing like that, which tells me that Dipstick's deputies probably filled out a specious warrant on the word of a "Confidential Informant" who figured it'd be fun to watch the Marine get frog-marched.  No corroboration of what they were investigating; hell, I'll give you no better than even money that Jose Guerena's address was even the correct addy they wrote down for the warrant.

**** Dumpdik and his hit squad.  I hope Guerena's widow winds up owning their asses, big time.

 

Sheriff Chumpflump isn't the kind of LO that inspires people to do much more than show up, clock in, and cash the paycheck.

[DefiantSix]

"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."

Note that this ****stick doesn't elaborate on HOW exactly protecting your person and property from unlawful search and seizure at the hands of a jack-booted government thug isn't in harmony with the 4th Amendment (and "modern jurisprudence" thereon).  We just have to take his word that it does.

[Eupher]

Note that this ****stick doesn't elaborate on HOW exactly protecting your person and property from unlawful search and seizure at the hands of a jack-booted government thug isn't in harmony with the 4th Amendment (and "modern jurisprudence" thereon).  We just have to take his word that it does.

I think it's a safe bet this one isn't over yet. SCOTUS anyone?

[DefiantSix]

I think it's a safe bet this one isn't over yet. SCOTUS anyone?

What avenue does this guy have for involving the Federal court system in a ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court?

Edited to add:

Under American federalism, the interpretation of a state supreme court on a matter of state law is normally final and binding and must be accepted in both state and federal courts.

Federal courts may only overrule a state court when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Rulings of state supreme courts on such matters may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Eupher]

What avenue does this guy have for involving the Federal court system in a ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court?

I'm not sure, but I can't imagine an Indiana State Supreme Court ruling like this wouldn't be challenged at the federal level.

I'd say the DOiJ, but we all know Holder is a sham and an outrage, so that's out.

[rich_t]

Federal courts may only overrule a state court when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction.

This ruling flies in the face of consistency with the Federal Constitution does it not?

[formerlurker]

I think it's a safe bet this one isn't over yet. SCOTUS anyone?

I don't think so.    Read the actual order -- there is nothing that annoys me more than articles which cherry pick quotes from orders that are taken out of context, and then the subsequent hysteria that ensues.

In this specific case the police were called to the resident by the wife who claims husband is throwing things around the house in anger.  They arrive, yada yada yada they enter the house on a welfare check in the heat of the moment as it is their belief the wife is in danger.     The husband assaults the police officer.    That is what the illegal entry comments refer to.   The Court finds that while it may have been an unlawful entry, it sure as hell does not give the resident open season rights on the police officer to assault him.   That is what they are referring to when they state "right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."  Resident has civil rights case against police officer for unlawful entry.   Period.  

The charges against the police officer therefore stand.    That all said, this case sure has hell does not grant law enforcement right to unlawfully enter premises.   It is very specific to the extenuating circumstances in which these police officers thought they were responding to a domestic violence case.  

Unlawful entrance and any evidence produced during that entrance will still be thrown out going forward.   This case is certainly not any incentive to disregard the law.

[NHSparky]

This ruling flies in the face of consistency with the Federal Constitution does it not?

It flies in the face of nearly 800 years of black letter law.

[Eupher]

I don't think so.    Read the actual order -- there is nothing that annoys me more than articles which cherry pick quotes from orders that are taken out of context, and then the subsequent hysteria that ensues.

In this specific case the police were called to the resident by the wife who claims husband is throwing things around the house in anger.  They arrive, yada yada yada they enter the house on a welfare check in the heat of the moment as it is their belief the wife is in danger.     The husband assaults the police officer.    That is what the illegal entry comments refer to.   The Court finds that while it may have been an unlawful entry, it sure as hell does not give the resident open season rights on the police officer to assault him.   That is what they are referring to when they state "right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."  Resident has civil rights case against police officer for unlawful entry.   Period.  

The charges against the police officer therefore stand.    That all said, this case sure has hell does not grant law enforcement right to unlawfully enter premises.   It is very specific to the extenuating circumstances in which these police officers thought they were responding to a domestic violence case.  

Unlawful entrance and any evidence produced during that entrance will still be thrown out going forward.   This case is certainly not any incentive to disregard the law.

Well, I'm not sure if my offhand comment above qualifies as "hysteria", but assuming that it does and ensuring that you aren't further "annoyed" by sensationalist media frenzied stories such as this one, my comment stands.

I'm wondering if this opinion -- not "order", as you have it above -- is the end of the line.

The jury seems to be out on that question. Here's another example of cherry-picking quotes (your terminology) to breed the hysteria that evidently is so painfully annoying for you:

This case may not get to the Supreme Court of the United States; that requires time and money. It should get there because it purports to abrogate — in Indiana — prior Supreme Court rulings on the Fourth Amendment and because cases embodying bad law tend to breed and multiply. They seem to enjoy higher fertility rates than do cases embodying good law.

PJ Media

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no matter how you spin it, the interpretation within the media suggests that 300-year-old common law has been usurped and, more importantly, the opinion that the Indiana Supreme Court has on this issue flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

That's still noteworthy, and, despite your insistence to the contrary, this issue may not be quite over yet. It bears watching.

[BattleHymn]

Eupher's response in one word:  Incrementalism.  H5 for beating me to it.

[formerlurker]

Well, I'm not sure if my offhand comment above qualifies as "hysteria", but assuming that it does and ensuring that you aren't further "annoyed" by sensationalist media frenzied stories such as this one, my comment stands.

I'm wondering if this opinion -- not "order", as you have it above -- is the end of the line.

The jury seems to be out on that question. Here's another example of cherry-picking quotes (your terminology) to breed the hysteria that evidently is so painfully annoying for you:

PJ Media

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no matter how you spin it, the interpretation within the media suggests that 300-year-old common law has been usurped and, more importantly, the opinion that the Indiana Supreme Court has on this issue flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

That's still noteworthy, and, despite your insistence to the contrary, this issue may not be quite over yet. It bears watching.

My insistence?   I said I don't think so.   Insistence is a reach.  My comments were referring to the article -- you took them personally as I chose your post to comment that I don't believe it will go to SCOTUS because of the facts of the case. 

The dissent agrees the assault stands, they just wanted the Court to narrow their finding to this instance and circumstances, which I believe they have.  I can't see this setting precedence anymore than the cases before it that found for the officer in such circumstances.  I believe any competent counsel could argue this case is unique to the circumstances.   

[Thor]

Speaking from the policeman's perspective, here's the rub: The police were called to a domestic dispute. (Domestic disputes are the worst because either party can and have turned on the responding officer.) Once called, they have probable cause to enter the house or apartment. By blocking the police from entering the apartment, he prevented them from following up on their call and talking to both parties. The key is right here: "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." 

That said, I think that the Indiana Supreme Court worded their decision very poorly.

"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."

I don't believe that their entry into the apartment was "unlawful", as they did have probable cause to enter and insure the safety of both parties. Had the couple remained outside, allowed the police to question them, I think things would have gone very differently. Once the couple entered the apartment and the husband blocked the door, the police needed to follow up with the wife to insure that there wasn't a domestic violence case. There was also another remedy and that would have been for one of the officers to stay at the apartment, while the other called in for a warrant. I don't like the decision that the Indiana Supreme Court made or at least how they worded it. After all, people argue and sometimes those arguments are heated, but there isn't always any level of violence attached. Sometimes there is. As Eupher stated, this does bear watching because it's a fine line between probable cause and unreasonable searches & seizures.

[Eupher]

My insistence?   I said I don't think so.   Insistence is a reach.  My comments were referring to the article -- you took them personally as I chose your post to comment that I don't believe it will go to SCOTUS because of the facts of the case. 

The dissent agrees the assault stands, they just wanted the Court to narrow their finding to this instance and circumstances, which I believe they have.  I can't see this setting precedence anymore than the cases before it that found for the officer in such circumstances.  I believe any competent counsel could argue this case is unique to the circumstances.   

Pick nits if you like, your choice of words like "hysteria" are not entirely complimentary, so yeah, you're absolutely right I took your comment personally.

"Hysterical" doesn't even enter into the realm of reality regarding my first post on this issue. But you don't see the arrogance and antagonism in your post, evidently, so whatever. 

The fact is, in your opinion, you don't think this will go to SCOTUS. You may well be right. And you may well be wrong.

[Eupher]

Speaking from the policeman's perspective, here's the rub: The police were called to a domestic dispute. (Domestic disputes are the worst because either party can and have turned on the responding officer.) Once called, they have probable cause to enter the house or apartment. By blocking the police from entering the apartment, he prevented them from following up on their call and talking to both parties. The key is right here: "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." 

That said, I think that the Indiana Supreme Court worded their decision very poorly.
I don't believe that their entry into the apartment was "unlawful", as they did have probable cause to enter and insure the safety of both parties. Had the couple remained outside, allowed the police to question them, I think things would have gone very differently. Once the couple entered the apartment and the husband blocked the door, the police needed to follow up with the wife to insure that there wasn't a domestic violence case. There was also another remedy and that would have been for one of the officers to stay at the apartment, while the other called in for a warrant. I don't like the decision that the Indiana Supreme Court made or at least how they worded it. After all, people argue and sometimes those arguments are heated, but there isn't always any level of violence attached. Sometimes there is. As Eupher stated, this does bear watching because it's a fine line between probable cause and unreasonable searches & seizures.

I'm no cop and I'm no attorney, but I agree with Thor's assessment here. A cop worth his salt is not going to permit a citizen to prevent him from doing what he feels he needs to do. The cop clearly felt he was on solid legal ground, most likely due to the "probable cause" element, and things escalated from there.

I read the opinion (scanned it at the beginning, but read it more thoroughly later on), and I confess I can't get past most of the legal mumbo-jumbo. I guess that's why those guys get paid the big bucks -- write legal opinions that make no sense to anybody but legal scholars. 

[thundley4]

Speaking from the policeman's perspective, here's the rub: The police were called to a domestic dispute. (Domestic disputes are the worst because either party can and have turned on the responding officer.) Once called, they have probable cause to enter the house or apartment. By blocking the police from entering the apartment, he prevented them from following up on their call and talking to both parties. The key is right here: "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." 

That said, I think that the Indiana Supreme Court worded their decision very poorly.
I don't believe that their entry into the apartment was "unlawful", as they did have probable cause to enter and insure the safety of both parties. Had the couple remained outside, allowed the police to question them, I think things would have gone very differently. Once the couple entered the apartment and the husband blocked the door, the police needed to follow up with the wife to insure that there wasn't a domestic violence case. There was also another remedy and that would have been for one of the officers to stay at the apartment, while the other called in for a warrant. I don't like the decision that the Indiana Supreme Court made or at least how they worded it. After all, people argue and sometimes those arguments are heated, but there isn't always any level of violence attached. Sometimes there is. As Eupher stated, this does bear watching because it's a fine line between probable cause and unreasonable searches & seizures.

After reading this apart again it makes me think differently.

"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."

It seems to me that he is saying that even though the police may enter without "cause", anything they may find as evidence of any crime not pertaining to their entry would still be excluded from evidence.  In this case if they entered as a response to the domestic violence call and found drugs or weapons, those would be excluded under the unreasonable search and seizure defense.

[Thor]

After reading this apart again it makes me think differently.

It seems to me that he is saying that even though the police may enter without "cause", anything they may find as evidence of any crime not pertaining to their entry would still be excluded from evidence.  In this case if they entered as a response to the domestic violence call and found drugs or weapons, those would be excluded under the unreasonable search and seizure defense.

You may be right. Pretty much as I understood the law, (before this ruling), anything in plain sight was fair game. That said, they can't just go arbitrarily rummaging through people's things without a warrant.  I still don't like how they worded their statement. That "without cause" clause really bugs me and opens the door for jack booted thuggery.

[rich_t]

I found the dissenting opinions to be rather interesting.

Dickson, Justice, dissenting.
Acknowledging the historic common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers, the majority tethers its abrogation of this right on (a) modern developments that have diminished the dangers of arrest at common law (e.g., indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture), (b) the desire to minimize the risk of the level of violence and risk of injuries, and (c) the rights of police to enter a home even without a warrant under certain circumstances. But the consistent existence of and adherence to many of these factors unfortunately remains less than ideal. Courts continue to see claims alleging excessive preliminary detention, failure to promptly set bail, and excessive use of force by police.

In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad. The case before us involves police action in response to a report of domestic violence in progress. Such events present a heightened urgency for police presence for the protection of the dwelling's occupants and to diffuse enraged emotions and animosity. It would have been preferable, in my view, for the Court today to have taken a more narrow approach, construing the right to resist unlawful police entry, which extends only to reasonable resistance, by deeming unreasonable a person's resistance to police entry in the course of investigating reports of domestic violence. Such a formulation would have been more appropriate for the facts presented and more consistent with principles of judicial restraint. Such a more cautious revision of the common law would have, in cases not involving domestic violence, left in place the historic right of people to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into their dwellings.

Rucker, Justice, dissenting.
The majority has made a respectable case supporting the proposition that the common law rule entitling a person to resist an unlawful arrest is outmoded in our modern society. But this proposition is not new. 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). A product of the English common law, the rule permitting resistance to unlawful arrest was based on the premise that everyone should be privileged to use reasonable force to prevent an unlawful invasion of his physical integrity and personal liberty. Fields v. State, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975-76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978). And the rule arose during a time when self-help was a more necessary remedy to resist intrusions upon one‘s freedom. As the Fields court explained, ―[it] was developed largely during a period when most arrests were made by private citizens, when bail for felonies was usually unattainable, and when years might pass before the royal judges arrived for a jail delivery.‖ Id. at 976 (quoting Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 315 (1942)). However, ―[t]he common law right of forceful resistance to an unlawful arrest tends to promote violence and increases the chances of someone getting injured or killed.‖ Id. at 975. Thus, largely for the reasons the majority explains the considerations underlying the right to resist arrest are no longer applicable for the twenty-first century or, for that matter, the twentieth century.

But the common law rule supporting a citizen‘s right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, ―the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.‖ Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.

In Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313-14 (1958) the United States Supreme Court held that it was unlawful to arrest the defendant on criminal charges when a warrantless arrest was conducted by police officers breaking and entering the defendant‘s apartment without expressly announcing the purpose of their presence or demanding admission. In recounting the historical perspective for its holding the Court quoted eighteenth century remarks attributed to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the occasion of a debate in Parliament:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

Id. at 307. The same is no less true today and applies equally to forces of the State.
At issue in this case is not whether Barnes had the right to resist unlawful police entry into his home – a proposition that the State does not even contest – but rather whether the entry was illegal in the first place, and if so, whether and to what extent Barnes could resist entry without committing a battery upon the officer. Federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is equal to the task of resolving these issues.2 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. And that their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena. I disagree and therefore respectfully dissent.

Dickson, J., concurs.

[rich_t]

In my opinion the court majority is setting a bad precedent.  Unlawful entry is just that, unlawful entry.  I don't care if the person doing it has a badge and a gun or not.

People have been, and are continuing to be "conditioned" to not resist regardless of how egregious the actions of a representative of the government might be.

Not only does this ruling potentially open the door for jack booted thuggery.  It blows the door right off it's hinges IMO.

[Thor]

Personally, I agree with the dissenters.

[thundley4]

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house."

Link

It doesn't look like the USSC would overturn that Indiana ruling.