I have to say, I'm not a fan of this ruling. As the dissenting judges said, it's too broad and sweeping. It entirely changes the relationship between the homeowner and the government/police. And that's a relationship that has been weakened in far too many ways in favor of the government for a very long time.
Your home is your castle -- unless some rich developers want to build a mall there, or you don't pay your rent (property taxes), or the police decide they really want to force their way inside without a warrant and they'll damn well worry about coming up with a good reason later.
I like this blame-the-victim line: "...allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation."
Really? Sounds to me like the police entering illegally into your home are the ones increasing the risk of violent confrontation.
Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner told The Times that 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."
Civil actions are a punishment in themselves against the citizens who have to bring them. Not only has your home been violated, but now you are forced to spend days away from work and thousands of dollars of your own money on the hopes that you might get a favorable ruling. For many citizens, the fear of losing the civil suit or the time involved to press one will serve as a chilling affect against most suits ever being brought in the first place.
And, quite obviously, this effect will hit the poor and most vulnerable the hardest. The government's lawyers are on salary forever. If you work at McDonald's and struggle to make your rent every month, what is the chance that you'll get justice when police decide to barge into your home illegally?
This ruling ensures that all the onus is on the citizen for anything that happens during the confrontation -- try to bar the officer and get tazed, cuffed, humiliated? Well, you shouldn't have been resisting, you uppity peasant! Go hire a lawyer. Can't afford one? Hahahahahahahaha!
Set aside that if a home owner is assaulted while an officer is in commission of an illegal act, that isn't a civil offense, that's a criminal offense -- assault, maybe battery! But, hey, you were resisting and you don't have a "right" to resist, so now the officer is empowered to cause you to cease your resistance, so tough luck.
Are we citizens, or are we subjects?
Indiana High Court Rules People Cannot Resist Illegal Entry by Police Into Homes
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...le+Feedfetcher
INDIANAPOLIS -- People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.
"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."
Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.
"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.
Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.
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."
The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.
Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner told The Times that 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."
Thursday's decision was the court's second 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. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
I also like how they made every warrant a no-knock warrant. I'm sure there's no chance
that will end up causing some violence that the homeowner will inevitably come out on the losing end of.
Linear Mode
