No Rights to resist Illegal Entry??

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.

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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 



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.
HereÂ’s the ruling in Kentucky v. King and hereÂ’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.”
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Archangel M said:
Destruction of evidence has ALWAYS been an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th.
Click to expand...

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...
 
elder999 said:

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 “breathtaking” erosion of the Fourth Amendment, contended there is is “simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home. ” "

"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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

How many windmills does it take to turn on a light bulb?

Previous Thread

Obama Presidency and Transparency....

Next Thread

Similar threads

Doc
self-Defense and the Law
2 3
Replies
42
Views
7K
Doc
Doc

Latest Discussions

Back
Top