Indiana Court says police can enter homes without warrant?

[Char. Limit]

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.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

What? What? Just... what? What?

Reading the fourth amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm pretty sure these two decisions don't work with each other...

 

[John Creighto]

I get that they are trying to avoid an escalation of conflict in the event the officer has a legitimate reason for entering the home. However, if the only recourse is civil action then I don’t think there is a sufficient deterrent in place to keep a police officer from unlawfully breaking into a person’s home. As to the case at hand a couple arguing does not seem like probably cause to me but I am not aware of all details.

 

[AlephZero]

You unilaterally declare independence, and then you whine that you aren't protected by Magna Carta? Toys, pram, throw out of ... :grin:

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how it violates the 4th amendment, Char. Could you explain what you are seeing?

Or more affirmatively:

1. Who gets to decide if the police are acting illegally?
2. How forcefully should people be allowed to resist?

 

[Char. Limit]

Entering a home without a warrant sounds like an unreasonable search to me. Especially the "any reason or no reason at all" part.

 

[Oltz]

So this says a cop can walk into your house and into your bathroom while your daughter is showering just because he feels like it and you can do nothing to resist him?

Now I doubt he will stay a cop for long but he can still do it.

These new interpretations are just great...land of the unintended consequences

 

[russ_watters]

Please see the questions I added above...

It appears to me that you are completely missing the point. The issue of what is reasonable search is not in question here. This court case is about if you can resist when the police are doing something wrong.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So, if a cop burgles my home and I resist, we both go to jail?

 

[Char. Limit]

Now this is just my opinion, and unsupported at that, but I feel that any resistance short of incapacitating force (broken bone, basically anything semi-permanent, etc.) should be allowed if a police officer is trying to enter your house without a warrant.

 

[Oltz]

Personally if I find you in my home without my permission or a legal warrant you are likely to be shot if you are not gone in the amount of time it takes me to get and load a weapon.

I believe that fake badges and uniforms do exist.

I will defend what is mine to the extent of my ability.

 

[cmb]

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.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Isn't being called to an incident 'probable cause, by affirmation'?

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215

Ah! That old chestnut! Don't we all just long for those good ol' days. I trust you practice your long bow once a week (and shoot Welshmen on sight, after the hours of sunset) for fear of otherwise being arrested by the local Magistrate for failing your civic duty!

The point of the ruling is that there is due remedy against an unlawful entry by the Police, but that remedy is not to fight back. It is clearly wrong to cause a fight at the moment of incident. Any reasonable jurisprudence allows for complaints to be made, and heard, so that the aggrieved party is given audience to argue their case and seek a remedy.

 

[Char. Limit]

The point of the ruling is that there is due remedy against an unlawful entry by the Police, but that remedy is not to fight back.

Given the apparent lack of willingness of police and courts to arrest and prosecute fellow officers of the law (at least in my hometown), what is this due remedy?

 

[cmb]

Given the apparent lack of willingness of police and courts to arrest and prosecute fellow officers of the law (at least in my hometown), what is this due remedy?

Of course, because the Police pursue criminal cases, and trespass is not [usually] a criminal action (unless there is criminal intent aforethought). If a Police officer enters your premises without probable cause then you may seek civil penalties and compensation.

 

[PAllen]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Isn't being called to an incident 'probable cause, by affirmation'?

No, the way that is supposed to read is that probable cause is needed for a warrant. As written, there is not other basis for a search except a warrant.

Of course, jurisprudence has added a lot of interpretation to this, e.g. hot pursuit doctrines.

 

[Char. Limit]

Of course, because the Police pursue criminal cases, and trespass is not [usually] a criminal action (unless there is criminal intent aforethought). If a Police officer enters your premises without probable cause then you may seek civil penalties and compensation.

Oh. Fun. Law always manages to trip me up.

 

[IMP]

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.

If the entry is unlawful you automatically have the right to resist. I am not sure who these guys think they are but that is almost comical.

 

[Oltz]

Isn't being called to an incident 'probable cause, by affirmation'?



Ah! That old chestnut! Don't we all just long for those good ol' days. I trust you practice your long bow once a week, for fear of being arrested by the local Magistrate and put in the stocks.

The point of the ruling is that there is due remedy against an unlawful entry by the Police, but that remedy is not to fight back.

If you do not have a warrant I am supposed to trust you are the police if you say so

and if you actually read the quote you posted and bolded you will see that it actually means you can not even get a warrant without probable cause granted because of sufficient evidence and that warrant is only good for the specific place items and person in question.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

, but upon is equal to without in our current language so nobody and nothing can be searched without a warrant AND that warranted has to be justified.

If showing up to every call was probable cause and I was a cop who wanted to search a suspected drug dealers house I could just have my wife call and say she heard something from out in the street and she was worried.

This has nothing to do with going into a home because somebody was screaming help.

 

[cmb]

No, the way that is supposed to read is that probable cause is needed for a warrant. As written, there is not other basis for a search except a warrant.

It is not possible to determine if any suitable affirmations in law were received for this purpose. But in any case, it is not at all material in regards the [correct] ruling made and reported in the piece.

The remedy is a civil action. It would be an uncivilised society that claims it is OK to kill someone just because they made some form of mistake that caused them to be on your property without due cause. (Nor can you please 'self-defence' against someone whom you have no reason to believe is going to cause you harm.)

I am not 'pro Police'. Far from it - the inverse, in fact. I have had my own run-ins with our locals, but I simply plodded down a correct legal route and came out the better for it (both justice-wise, and financially!). If you don't play it cool, you have already lost. It's their game. Play your hand straight and make justified claims. Claiming you have a right to beat up someone in your house whom you know is not there to do you harm is daft.

 

[PAllen]

It is not possible to determine if any suitable affirmations in law were received for this purpose. But in any case, it is not at all material in regards the [correct] ruling made and reported in the piece.

The remedy is a civil action. It would be an uncivilised society that claims it is OK to kill someone just because they made some form of mistake that caused them to be on your property without due cause. (Nor can you please 'self-defence' against someone whom you have no reason to believe is going to cause you harm.)

I am not 'pro Police'. Far from it - the inverse, in fact. I have had my own run-ins with our locals, but I simply plodded down a correct legal route and came out the better for it (both justice-wise, and financially!). If you don't play it cool, you have already lost. It's their game. Play your hand straight and make justified claims. Claiming you have a right to beat up someone in your house whom you know is not there to do you harm is daft.

I said none of the things you imply. I simply explained that you were mis-construing the language of the 4th ammentment, and you were.

 

[Oltz]

You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home. You also can shoot somebody and not kill them which would be the wise thing to do and how on Earth do you know they are not in your home to do you harm?

If you are in my home without my permission why would I believe a word you had to say without some form of proof (i.e. a warrant) and if you were a cop in my home legally and I came home and said get out of my house or I will shoot you. You would say I have a warrant I would say ok go outside I will look at it and then allow you in if you refused to comply and refused to peacefully follow my requests prior to providing legal documents I am with in my rights to use force to vacate you as I have no reasonable assurance you belong.

If I were already home you would need a warant to get through the door. If you forced entry without providing it I would defend myself.

Anyone who enters my house without my knowledge or permission is assumed to be "there to cause harm".

This is a joke and will get thrown out very quickly.

 

[IMP]

You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home. You also can shoot somebody and not kill them which would be the wise thing to do and how on Earth do you know they are not in your home to do you harm?

If you are in my home without my permission why would I believe a word you had to say without some form of proof (i.e. a warrant) and if you were a cop in my home legally and I came home and said get out of my house or I will shoot you. You would say I have a warrant I would say ok go outside I will look at it and then allow you in if you refused to comply and refused to peacefully follow my requests prior to providing legal documents I am with in my rights to use force to vacate you as I have no reasonable assurance you belong.

If I were already home you would need a warant to get through the door. If you forced entry without providing it I would defend myself.

Anyone who enters my house without my knowledge or permission is assumed to be "there to cause harm".

This is a joke and will get thrown out very quickly.

X2

It will get throw out quickly.

 

[cmb]

You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home.

That is patently absurd!

You may defend yourself against a person if you are in fear of them doing harm to you, but you are confusing retaliation with self-defence.

According to that sound-bite, you may invite into your house a door-to-door salesman, say to him 'you are in my house and I hereby rescind my invite. I hate being disturbed by you and you are now in my house', and shoot him dead.

You are a danger to society if you think you can shoot someone in your house simply because you choose to do so. You should be denied holding any guns, on the basis of a psychosis that you believe everyone you see is out to do you harm.

 

[AlephZero]

So, if a cop burgles my home and I resist, we both go to jail?

In the UK, if anybody burgles your home and you resist, you might both go to jail.

Note "might" not "will". We have this strange idea that it's better to let a judge and jury decide the outcome (for both people involved), rather than shooting first and thinking afterwards.

 

[nsaspook]

X2

It will get throw out quickly.

I'd say Officers who like our constitution should stop by that Judges house at random times on random days and enter just because they felt like it, using his ruling to say they can do so.

 

[KingNothing]

You have the right to resist anyone else entering your home unlawfully, and police shouldn't get any special privileges.

 

[OCR]

We have this strange idea

Yeah... I agree, it's a strange idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

If the entry is unlawful you automatically have the right to resist.

I agree with IMP, also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine



OCR

 

[mege]

It is illegal for a police officer to perform a search without a warrant, just as it is illegal for an individual to disobey a uniformed police officer. Basically this ruling just reaffirms that individuals can't take vigilanie justice too far. What's wrong with that? Two wrongs don't make a right.

If this was ruled the other way, I think more people would be harmed due to extreme vigilantism and "oops I didn't understand" type of situations. Something that is also important to note: the police officer, whom 'invades' your home unlawfully, is still fully liable for their actions. This ruling is basically saying 'let the system take care of them' as opposed to potential escalation on someone's doorstep.

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

What? What? Just... what? What?

Reading the fourth amendment...



I'm pretty sure these two decisions don't work with each other...

I agree. They're incompatible. And this ruling sets a dangerous precedent.

Not only that, it's just unnecessary. I'm 64 years old, and for my entire life police have not been allowed to enter a private dwelling without a warrant or just cause.

This Indiana ruling does seem to contradict the intent as well as the explicit expression (wrt the way I read it) of the fourth amendment.

We like to think that "it can't happen here". Maybe we should think again.

Of course there's the alternative view that the fourth amendment isn't so important and maybe should just be repealed.

Valuing order over liberty is the basis of fascist thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't see how it violates the 4th amendment, Char. Could you explain what you are seeing?

"Warrants ... supported by probable cause ... oaths and affirmations".

The Indiana decision, as reported in the link provided by Char., seems to me to be obviously at odds with both what I take to be the intent of and what I read as the explicit expression of the fourth amendment.

Do you really want 'officers of the law' to be 'legally' allowed to enter your home for no reason?

Remember the holocaust? All of that stuff was 'legal' wrt German law.

I suspect that the Indiana ruling will eventually be considered by the US supreme court, and be overturned.

If not, I'll be really disappointed.

 

[ThomasT]

You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home. You also can shoot somebody and not kill them which would be the wise thing to do and how on Earth do you know they are not in your home to do you harm?

If you are in my home without my permission why would I believe a word you had to say without some form of proof (i.e. a warrant) and if you were a cop in my home legally and I came home and said get out of my house or I will shoot you. You would say I have a warrant I would say ok go outside I will look at it and then allow you in if you refused to comply and refused to peacefully follow my requests prior to providing legal documents I am with in my rights to use force to vacate you as I have no reasonable assurance you belong.

If I were already home you would need a warant to get through the door. If you forced entry without providing it I would defend myself.

Anyone who enters my house without my knowledge or permission is assumed to be "there to cause harm".

I agree with what you say. Unfortunately, if you actually did that stuff wrt police officers you'd probably be spending a long time in prison.

The fact of the matter is that they are, effectively, the law. If you dispute or impair their actions, whether they're right or wrong, you're 'interfering' with the police and will be jailed and prosecuted.

If you were to kill a police officer who was in your home for whatever reason, right or wrong, then you'd probably spend the rest of your life in prison, or be executed.

This is a joke and will get thrown out very quickly.

I agree that it will be thrown out. Although it will take some time.

 

[Oltz]

With out a warrant your just some guy in a costume.

Now if you invite somebody into your home it is an entirely different case.

You may defend yourself against a person if you are in fear of them doing harm to you, but you are confusing retaliation with self-defence.

I said somebody in my home without my permission or knowledge and or somebody forcing themselves into my home. In either of those cases I would be perfectly right in assuming intent to do harm as they are already unlawfully in or entering my home.

And again you can shoot people without killing htme quite effectivly with small calliber weapons.

I see no connection to vigilantism as this rulling effects warrants and lawful entry. Things regular citizens did not and still do not have. It does allow some vigilantism on the part of police. Since now an officer can enter your home without a legal document.

 

[AlephZero]

Yeah... I agree, it's a strange idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

You can't generalize from one example, even if that example was a miscarriage of justice (and I have an open mind about that so far as Martin was concerned).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3954033.stm

The Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

It is up to the courts to decide what may be considered reasonable force.

 

[cmb]

The comments show how easy it is to take such a situation and pervert it for one's own political purposes. No-one has suggested the Police entered the premises lawfully. That has simply not been disputed here, nor reported in the piece on the Judges' ruling.

The key is - what is a person permitted to do in the event that they observe another doing something they suspect as unlawful...

I'll give you a clue - it isn't permitted to beat them up for it! That is what the Judges ruled, and nothing further. That is all that can be gleaned authoritatively from the piece presented here.

 

[russ_watters]

"Warrants ... supported by probable cause ... oaths and affirmations".

The Indiana decision, as reported in the link provided by Char., seems to me to be obviously at odds with both what I take to be the intent of and what I read as the explicit expression of the fourth amendment.

Do you really want 'officers of the law' to be 'legally' allowed to enter your home for no reason?

Remember the holocaust? All of that stuff was 'legal' wrt German law.

I suspect that the Indiana ruling will eventually be considered by the US supreme court, and be overturned.

If not, I'll be really disappointed.

Even though I already pointed it out, you and virtually everyone else have completely missed the point of the ruling. Again:

This ruling does has nothing to do with what constitutes a legal search.

 

[russ_watters]

The comments show how easy it is to take such a situation and pervert it for one's own political purposes. No-one has suggested the Police entered the premises lawfully. That has simply not been disputed here, nor reported in the piece on the Judges' ruling.

The key is - what is a person permitted to do in the event that they observe another doing something they suspect as unlawful...

I'll give you a clue - it isn't permitted to beat them up for it! That is what the Judges ruled, and nothing further. That is all that can be gleaned authoritatively from the piece presented here.

Yes!