# No Rights to resist Illegal Entry??



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

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



> "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 bullcrap.
this country is going down fast. If this kind of stuff continues to happen the escalation will become insane.
I think its coming to a point where people are going to actively be taking an aggressive stand against authority sooner then later.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2011)

IMO, if theres no legit reason for them to come in, then, and I may be wrong, but I dont see why a homeowner would have to allow them in.

However, in the case that we see in the link, the police were there investigating a legit case, which sounds like it was a domestic issue.  Just because the parties involved went inside, doesnt mean that its no longer an issue.  Imagine now, if the husband told the cops to leave, the cops do so, and the guys wife turns up dead or beaten severely?  Now she, or her family could open a suit against the cops, for failing to protect the woman.

I've taken calls on 911 for people who're having a medical issue.  Half way thru getting the info, the caller tells me the victim is being transported by private vehicle so they no longer need anyone.  I still send a cop to make sure that everything is ok.  Its called CYA and in these types of jobs, covering your ***, needs to be done on a daily basis.  Imagine now, if I simply said "Ok" and didn't send anyone.  For some unknown reason, the person was never taken to the ER, and ends up dead.  In the end, it'll be my fault for not making sure the person got help.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

MJS said:


> IMO, if theres no legit reason for them to come in, then, and I may be wrong, but I dont see why a homeowner would have to allow them in.
> 
> However, in the case that we see in the link, the police were there investigating a legit case, which sounds like it was a domestic issue. Just because the parties involved went inside, doesnt mean that its no longer an issue. Imagine now, if the husband told the cops to leave, the cops do so, and the guys wife turns up dead or beaten severely? Now she, or her family could open a suit against the cops, for failing to protect the woman.
> 
> I've taken calls on 911 for people who're having a medical issue. Half way thru getting the info, the caller tells me the victim is being transported by private vehicle so they no longer need anyone. I still send a cop to make sure that everything is ok. Its called CYA and in these types of jobs, covering your ***, needs to be done on a daily basis. Imagine now, if I simply said "Ok" and didn't send anyone. For some unknown reason, the person was never taken to the ER, and ends up dead. In the end, it'll be my fault for not making sure the person got help.


 
that specific issue has nothing to do with the ruling.
My problem is with the ruling, I have no interest in addressing that specific incident of the husband and wife, because that does not address the ruling itself.


> 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.


 
this is my problem. 
be assured Anyone trying to illegally break into my house will be assumed to be coming to kill me and my family and will be met with appropriate force.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> that specific issue has nothing to do with the ruling.
> My problem is with the ruling, I have no interest in addressing that specific
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, and if you read what I said in my initial paragraph, you'd see that I clearly stated that I dont see why, they should be allowed in as long as there is no issue currently going on that would require them to be there, ie: a domestic, etc. 

So, that being said, I agree.  Again, for them to have the OK to just waltz in, while you're in the middle of dinner or taking a crap, isn't right, IMHO.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

MJS said:


> Yup, and if you read what I said in my initial paragraph, you'd see that I clearly stated that I dont see why, they should be allowed in as long as there is no issue currently going on that would require them to be there, ie: a domestic, etc.
> 
> So, that being said, I agree. Again, for them to have the OK to just waltz in, while you're in the middle of dinner or taking a crap, isn't right, IMHO.


 
so I guess my question is.. to you or anyone.. why are we coming to this point? Is this trickledown from 9/11? Is this an ongoing byproduct of the fear of terrorism, and bad guys, and the government wanting to protect us at all costs?
Or is this something much worse. Is this a sign of whats coming? Is this a shift that our government is making to become something new, something different then what it has been? Is the change Obama promised? I don't know about everyone else, but all I have seen sicne this administration has taken over is huge leaps and bounds into bigger government, more intrusion in our lives and our rights, and an outright attack on our freedoms. 
I do not understand how this story is not the biggest story on news right now.
literally this one decision as it stands has turned that state into a police state, where the government under the guise of law enforcement can pretty much do what they want, when they want, and you have no rights to protect you. I find this horrifying. I am not so worried about terrorists anymore. My own government is scaring me more then they are at the moment.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> so I guess my question is.. to you or anyone.. why are we coming to this point? Is this trickledown from 9/11? Is this an ongoing byproduct of the fear of terrorism, and bad guys, and the government wanting to protect us at all costs?
> Or is this something much worse. Is this a sign of whats coming? Is this a shift that our government is making to become something new, something different then what it has been? Is the change Obama promised? I don't know about everyone else, but all I have seen sicne this administration has taken over is huge leaps and bounds into bigger government, more intrusion in our lives and our rights, and an outright attack on our freedoms.
> I do not understand how this story is not the biggest story on news right now.
> literally this one decision as it stands has turned that state into a police state, where the government under the guise of law enforcement can pretty much do what they want, when they want, and you have no rights to protect you. I find this horrifying. I am not so worried about terrorists anymore. My own government is scaring me more then they are at the moment.


 
I have no solid answer...all I can do is speculate.  IMO, alot of the time, when rules, policies, laws, etc are made, they're made by people who have no clue what they're doing.  What I find interesting about this whole thing, is while the courts made a ruling, all they're saying is this:

"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."

But looking at this, I'm not seeing a clear cut reason as to WHY they'd have to be allowed in, for no good reason.  Hmm..I dont know...but it sounds to me like they're trying to circumvent the 4th Amendment.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

MJS said:


> I have no solid answer...all I can do is speculate. IMO, alot of the time, when rules, policies, laws, etc are made, they're made by people who have no clue what they're doing. What I find interesting about this whole thing, is while the courts made a ruling, all they're saying is this:
> 
> "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."
> ...


 

it almost sounds like they are saying.... if the rape is going to happen, do not fight back, allow it to happen and then pursue the rapist in the court of law.....
ummm no I think I would fight a rapist before I am violated thank you very much.
wierd.


----------



## WC_lun (May 16, 2011)

Officers still need either probable cause or a warrant to enter a private residence.  Is that 100% adhered to?  No, or criminals would never get off for illegal search and siezure.  However it is still the law. Now attacking an officer making an illegal entry into your home is more often than not going to get you in hot water. There is a time and place for everything.  At that moment with a gun is not it.

You ask how such rulings can happen.  It is a good question, but I don't think there is a simple answer.  First, more than likely we aren't privvy to all the facts of the case. Second is more and more we expect more from our officers.  With that expectation is naturally going to result in more power to get the job done, rightly or wrongly.  Thirs is the simplist reason, fear.  People are fearful and they are willing to give up thier rights in order to feel safe.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Officers still need either probable cause or a warrant to enter a private residence. Is that 100% adhered to? No, or criminals would never get off for illegal search and siezure. However it is still the law. Now attacking an officer making an illegal entry into your home is more often than not going to get you in hot water. There is a time and place for everything. At that moment with a gun is not it.
> 
> You ask how such rulings can happen. It is a good question, but I don't think there is a simple answer. First, more than likely we aren't privvy to all the facts of the case. Second is more and more we expect more from our officers. With that expectation is naturally going to result in more power to get the job done, rightly or wrongly. Thirs is the simplist reason, fear. People are fearful and they are willing to give up thier rights in order to feel safe.


 
well apparantly in Illinois police no longer need a warrant to enter a private residence. Or do you read that ruling differently then I do?
Once again, If someone is breaking into my home, or trying to force themselves into my home I am going to assume they are trying to kill me and my family and I will not be waiting after the fact for the courts to sort it out. I do not recommend anyone do that. Law enforcement working against my rights are not law enforcement but criminals, armed to the teeth.

also I am not expecting more from law enforcement, I want less from them to be honest.
I also am not willing to give up any bit of my rights to help law enforcement in any way shape or form.


----------



## K831 (May 16, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> .  With that expectation is naturally going to result in more power to get the job done, rightly or wrongly.  Thirs is the simplist reason, fear.  People are fearful and they are willing to give up thier rights in order to feel safe.



Correct, and it is pervasive. 

People are afraid... of responsibility. 

People are afraid of the responsibility to provide for themselves and their family = welfare state

 People are afraid of taking the responsibility to provide for their own healthcare = Obama care

People are afraid to take responsibility for their own self protection and protection of their families = increasing police state, restrictive gun laws etc. 

People are afraid to take responsibility for their sexual choices = the abortion of millions of innocent babies in the name of convenience. 

People are afraid to take responsibility for their own education or research = a gov run public education indoctrination machine and a gov run media indoctrination machine. 

Peoples fear of responsibility in general is leading to a massive and invasive government to whom we are granting control of every aspect of our lives, in the name of momentary convenience and displacing responsibility.


----------



## WC_lun (May 16, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> well apparantly in Illinois police no longer need a warrant to enter a private residence. Or do you read that ruling differently then I do?
> Once again, If someone is breaking into my home, or trying to force themselves into my home I am going to assume they are trying to kill me and my family and I will not be waiting after the fact for the courts to sort it out. I do not recommend anyone do that. Law enforcement working against my rights are not law enforcement but criminals, armed to the teeth.
> 
> also I am not expecting more from law enforcement, I want less from them to be honest.
> I also am not willing to give up any bit of my rights to help law enforcement in any way shape or form.


 
I read that a homeowner does not have the right to resist a police officer, even if they are making illegal entry.  This much is true.  It seems to be a public safety and officer safety issue.  However, I did not see anything that states legal action could not be taken after the fact, making illegal entry expensive for cops and juristictions that would make a habit of it.

You are not expecting more from law enforcement, but you aren't the only peson law enforcement serves.  I know you don't want to give up any of your rights, but i believe you are in a minority at this time.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't contnue to highlight the issues you believe in.  Just realize in some things you might be in the minority.


----------



## K831 (May 16, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Law enforcement working against my rights are not law enforcement but criminals, armed to the teeth.



And highly trained.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I read that a homeowner does not have the right to resist a police officer, even if they are making illegal entry. This much is true. It seems to be a public safety and officer safety issue. However, I did not see anything that states legal action could not be taken after the fact, making illegal entry expensive for cops and juristictions that would make a habit of it.
> 
> You are not expecting more from law enforcement, but you aren't the only peson law enforcement serves. I know you don't want to give up any of your rights, but i believe you are in a minority at this time. That doesn't mean you shouldn't contnue to highlight the issues you believe in. Just realize in some things you might be in the minority.


 
fair enough. we will agree to disagree here. I hope you never have to illegal enter a house with some of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans who believe like I do.

Actually let me ask you this.
would you chose to illegally enter a house if you knew you could get away with it, knowing you are trampling all over a person rights?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2011)

I think this "ruling" is being given more weight than it merits.

When the courts make a ruling, it is based on circumstances of a case. In this case, the police were called in response to a domestic disturbance. They showed up to investigate, and the parties moved inside. That doesn't end the situation, and the police, having responded to a call, need to complete the investigation. I suspect this gives them probable cause to enter the home, even tho the husband tried to stop them. 

the ruling that the court made is based on this particular situation. It does not suddenly change Indiana law to give police free reign to enter one's home on a whim. Actually going thru the legislature is how that would need to happen. Context is everything.

Caselaw is an important issue in arguing cases, as how the courts have decided in the past does influence how the courts may decide in the future, on similar issues. But again, there needs to be some similarity when citing caselaw. In this particular case, circumstances merited the entry. If this case gets cited as caselaw in the future, it will be based on the circumstances of the future case having some fundamental similarity to this original case. It would not be supportable caselaw to cite this case if a police officer randomly walked into someone's house with no probable cause and no warrant. It would be shot down quickly as an argument.

In addition, not all cases are published and if they are not published I believe they are not citeable as caselaw. This case may be overturned, or challenged in some way that makes it not good caselaw in the future. Just because this ruling came down in this particular case in no way means it will fundamentally change the rules around whether or not an officer can enter your home.

As far as the police actually trying to enter your home, I think it's a stretch to live in fear of this, if you are not giving them probable cause. Very unlikely. But IF it ever happens, taking the position that they are criminals and violently resisting them will guarantee that you are the corpse on the floor when the smoke settles. That doesn't "protect" your family in any way.

If the police are trying to enter and you believe it is unlawful, your remedy does lie in legal pursuit after the fact. Trying to resist in what may be rapidly becoming a chaotic situation is asking for trouble. There's nothing like climbing into a lion's den and acting like a piece of meat. I think the folly in that course of action should be clear to all who reflect on it for even a moment.

Once again, context is everything.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 16, 2011)

I do know that officers cannot enter without permission sans warrant... unless they have probable cause. That being someone's life is in danger within or without the building/house/wherever. If they suspect illegal activity i.e. drug/bomb manufacturing or drug dealing, then I think they have to get a warrant before entering.


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2011)

As seen in this thread:



> *2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights :*
> *Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.*
> 
> 
> ...


 
...and it doesn't matter who's in office, or who's sitting on the bench. This is the direction we've been heading in for years-what we're seeing now is an acceleration towards the endgame.


----------



## Archangel M (May 16, 2011)

First off it's a State decision. Second, I don't know how that case even made it that high. That situation... "the abuser slams the door on you when responding to a domestic abuse call"...happens ALL the time. The male is Obstructing an investigation, he's going to be arrested, he can't avoid it by running back into his house. Plus (depending on the situation) the risk to the victim of the domestic abuse can qualify as an exigent circumstances exemption to the 4th amendment warrant requirement. I have a hard time believing that there is no case law on that situation already.

While I cant come barging into your home without cause, YOU can't avoid a lawfull arrest of something you did in my presence by running from me and locking your door either. 

However.

While I think I understand what the justices are trying to get at here...no judge is going to say "yeah we think that the homeowner can use force against persons whom he KNOWS are the police (vs. say a no-knock where the homeowner can say he didn't know who was coming) based on the homeowners *assumption* that the police have no right to enter." I don't know that I agree the broad legal statement that they made in this case.

The bottom line is, while some people like to claim that they are going to fight the police, all that it will accomplish is either them or their loved ones getting hurt or killed, regardless of if the police were in the wrong. You can get much better justice (and money) via a lawsuit than you will from a shootout.


----------



## Archangel M (May 16, 2011)

flying crane said:


> i think this "ruling" is being given more weight than it merits.
> 
> When the courts make a ruling, it is based on circumstances of a case. In this case, the police were called in response to a domestic disturbance. They showed up to investigate, and the parties moved inside. That doesn't end the situation, and the police, having responded to a call, need to complete the investigation. I suspect this gives them probable cause to enter the home, even tho the husband tried to stop them.
> 
> ...


 
qft!


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 16, 2011)

It seems like the legislation is putting into law what's been the defacto truth for decades.

It doesn't give cops the right to enter your home without justifiable cause. It just makes it an offense to try to kill them for doing so.

For as long as I've been alive, going with the police flow has been the safest and smartest course of action in 90 percent of the scenarios. Cop decides to illegally search your car, maybe smack you around? Live through it, take his job and enjoy early retirement from the court settlement. 

If I beat on or kill that cop, all I've done is brought down a SWAT team who now have legal reason to put a bullet in me. 

If that law were making it so that police could enter my home with _no consequences_, I'd be worried. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.


----------



## Archangel M (May 16, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> If that law were making it so that police could enter my home with _no consequences_, I'd be worried.


 
Bingo.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 16, 2011)

Am I reading it wrong? Does it remove the consequences to police who make an illegal entry? I didn't see that part?


----------



## Archangel M (May 16, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Am I reading it wrong? Does it remove the consequences to police who make an illegal entry? I didn't see that part?


 
No. You are reading it right. I am agreeing with your insight.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 16, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> First off it's a State decision. Second, I don't know how that case even made it that high. That situation... "the abuser slams the door on you when responding to a domestic abuse call"...happens ALL the time. The male is Obstructing an investigation, he's going to be arrested, he can't avoid it by running back into his house. Plus (depending on the situation) the risk to the victim of the domestic abuse can qualify as an exigent circumstances exemption to the 4th amendment warrant requirement. I have a hard time believing that there is no case law on that situation already.
> 
> While I cant come barging into your home without cause, YOU can't avoid a lawfull arrest of something you did in my presence by running from me and locking your door either.
> 
> ...


 

I decided that regardless of what I think of your posts, the comparison I made was enough to cause a big stir, so instead of doing that I am chosing to put you on ignore for a while instead.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 16, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Am I reading it wrong? Does it remove the consequences to police who make an illegal entry? I didn't see that part?


 
Part of flying_crane's post needs to be reiterated here.  This is a court decision, not new or amended legislation.  The court decision is case-specific, and while search-and-seizure case decisions can certainly affect the ways and means by which police investigate crimes (Miranda anyone?), there's a whole bunch of other dots that need connecting before we jump to the conclusion that police can now barge in to any house without probable cause.  

With some exceptions such as hot pursuit or evidence loss, police require either a resident's consent or probable cause to enter a home.  Even when they have probable cause, they usually require a warrant first or a damned good reason for not getting one before going in.  Until either the Supreme Court or Congress says otherwise, this one decision isn't going to change that.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2011)

Well, after 2 pages, I think we've pretty much established what I said back on page 1....that they need a solid reason to enter, ie: a domestic, someone who committed a crime, ran into a building and locked the door, etc.  

What I havent seen, unless I've missed it, is why would they need to enter your house without a legit reason?  Because some group of people, a judge, the state, decide to make a rule that says so?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 16, 2011)

I think the point is that they don't need to....but it sometimes does happen. Most of the time, it's because the cop makes a bad decision in a stress situation. The rest of the time, the cop is actively up to no good.

This decision doesn't take away consequences for police in either of those scenarios -- it just suggests that, in our society, private citizens don't need to be physically resisting just because the cop enters illegally. 

Given the recourses in our legal system, it seems correct.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2011)

MJS said:


> What I havent seen, unless I've missed it, is why would they need to enter your house without a legit reason? Because some group of people, a judge, the state, decide to make a rule that says so?


 
I agree.  Just because a judge made a ruling in a particular case, doesn't mean every cop is going to waltz in thru your front door and start demanding that you make him dinner while he rummages around in your underwear drawer.  That particular ruling doesn't give them that freedom, and even if it did, why would anyone assume they will start doing that on a whim, or whenever they feel like it without good reason?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I think the point is that they don't need to....but it sometimes does happen. Most of the time, it's because the cop makes a bad decision in a stress situation. The rest of the time, the cop is actively up to no good.
> 
> This decision doesn't take away consequences for police in either of those scenarios -- it just suggests that, in our society, private citizens don't need to be physically resisting just because the cop enters illegally.
> 
> Given the recourses in our legal system, it seems correct.


 
aye, and I've heard of cases where the cops actually entered the wrong address by mistake, looking to make a bust and arrest the bad guys.  It gets sorted out, they look stupid for going to the wrong address, whatever appropriate reparations are made and life goes on.  But engaging them in a physical confrontation over it is not going to help your situation, esp. when they are tense and stressed because they believe they are confronting bad guys.


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2011)

*SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope*




> "Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
> Heres the ruling in Kentucky v. King and heres an overview of the ruling from the ABA Journal.
> In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg said, _the Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant_.


----------



## Archangel M (May 16, 2011)

Destruction of evidence has ALWAYS been an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th.

This latest decision is really nothing new.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ircumstances_search_of_apartment_that_smelle/



> Police had entered the apartment building while following a suspect who had sold drugs to an undercover informant. A door slammed, indicating the suspect had entered one of two apartments. Police assumed (wrongly, it turns out) that the suspect was in the apartment that smelled of marijuana. They knocked and announced themselves, and kicked in the door when they heard sounds of things being moved in the apartment. Once inside, they found marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia.


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Destruction of evidence has ALWAYS been an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th.


 
Yes, but now you can knock on a door, and if no one answers quickly enough, and you _*think*_ you hear someone destroying evidence, you can knock down the door.

In fact, now, you can just _*say*_ that you thought you heard someone destroying evidence......another thing you guys can just_ *say *_to make a case...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 17, 2011)

So who else is taking bets on how soon home-invasion criminals start dressing in stolen cop uniforms.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2011)

Andy Moynihan said:


> So who else is taking bets on how soon home-invasion criminals start dressing in stolen cop uniforms.


 
I suspect that may already happen.  Impersonating a police officer is old-hat. 

As a result of this particular ruling?  No.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2011)

You come into my house uninvited, you get the cold steel.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 17, 2011)

Never mind. Deleted.


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> *SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope*


 
Its interesting, because in this article, it states that they were chasing after someone.

"In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants."

So yes, again, IMO, perfectly legal.  Much like the guy who's in a domestic with his wife, and slams the door or the guy who's fleeing from the cops in a stolen car, pulls into his driveway, runs in and tries to hide, the cops are investigating a legit crime.  

I have to wonder though....if someone calls the cops to report the apt. next to them smells of pot, the cops come, smell pot as well, knock on the door, but get no answer, could they just kick in the door?  Again, the call is that the occupants are smoking.  The occupants were not fleeing from the police initially.  IMO, I'd say no.  Now, what they could do, is hand this off to the narcotics guys, and have them go thru the process, ie: staking out the apt, doing controlled buys, etc.


----------



## Archangel M (May 17, 2011)

I think it depends on the severity of the marijuana offense in a particular state. In my state simple possession isnt criminal (a misdemeanor or felony) so I don't think that the odor of marijuana alone would be enough for me to force entry.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 17, 2011)

I'd just like to put it out there that I think it would be wonderful if there are any Indiana cops left with balls who might do me this favor: Break into the homes of those 3 jackass "judges", without warrants, during their dinner with their families, and if THEY "resist", arrest them and tell THEM they have to "seek recourse through the courts". Oh, and please take care that you use ANY and ALL necessary force to effect said arrests and gain compliance. Thank you.


----------



## David43515 (May 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Yes, but now you can knock on a door, and if no one answers quickly enough, and you _*think*_ you hear someone destroying evidence, you can knock down the door.
> 
> In fact, now, you can just _*say*_ that you thought you heard someone destroying evidence......another thing you guys can just_ *say *_to make a case...


 
There`s even a term for it among cops, "testilying". This reminds me of back during the Clinton administration when there was a move to change the wording in leases for public housing so that you waived your right to refuse searches when you signed the lease. Don`t know if it ever went through or not.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jun 25, 2011)

The problem with this ruling is that since it's the Indiana supreme court, it's used to set police policy and laws in the state.  

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/18/t...rth-amendment/

At this link you can see a response from a sheriff "Newton County Sheriff Department head, Don Hartman Sr., contends the   ruling means that random house to house searches are now possible"  http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html  (*IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will*)

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...5121101shd.pdf  Actual legal documents, 

" 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."

"Justice Rucker who called the decision a &#8220;breathtaking&#8221; erosion of the   Fourth Amendment, contended there is is &#8220;simply no reason to abrogate   the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry   into his or her home. &#8221; "

"Because we decline to recognize the right of a homeowner to reasonably  resist unlawful entry, Barnes is not entitled to batter Reed,  irrespective as to the legality of Reed's entry"

Somewhat convoluted as it was a domestic disturbance call, however the  ruling specifically states that officers can enter your home for any or  no reason and you as a homeowner can do nothing legally to protect your  self, family or home at the time of the invasion.  While this would seem to leave them open to civil liability and lawsuits, since the State Supreme Court has given the OK to execute warrantless searches without probable cause, how likely are you to get anywhere with a lawsuit?  

Add in this:  http://www.theindychannel.com/news/19493077/detail.html  A police officer who murdered someone in their home, and you get a rather chilly view of things in my state.  With this current ISC ruling, if something like the above link were to happen again, except the ex wife shot the officer, would she face criminal charges for defending herself in her home from a police officer since she has no legal right to defend herself from a police officer illegally entering her home?


----------



## Skpotamus (Mar 23, 2012)

Somewhat of a necro thread, but this is relevant.  http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012203220345  The governor signed in a law giving private citizens the right to resist a police officers illegal actions, with measures specifically for deadly force.


----------

