ISC: no right to resit unlawful police entry into your home

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grey_Mana

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
726
Location
EST
The Indiana supreme court issued a ruling that citizens have no right to resist police entry. Important to be aware of (both in Indiana, and any other state that might follow their lead) when thinking about your home defense plans.

See:

"a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"
"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."

This was not a good case for us on the merits. There is no reason to complain about cops (use the search function if interested).
 
So now the bad guy just has to claim to be police while kicking your door down and you have to be passive on the chance the bad guy is really a cop?

Clutch
 
What it means is that unlawful entries by police have to in EVERY case be MERCILESSLY punished, both in civil court and in the court of public opinion.

Police violations of the 4th Amendment need to be treated in civil court with utter ruthlessness, with no quarter asked or given. Citizens can no longer give police the benefit of the doubt, much less a "pass" on state protected home invasions.

If you reserve the right to enter my home UNLAWFULLY, I reserve the right to put your family on welfare.
 
You should read the case and understand what it is based on before taking a stand.

Indiana is unique in that it has a very strong Castle Doctrine which severely limited the officer's ability to protect the occupants from on-going crimes inside of homes...this was brought to their State Supreme Court based on a domestic violence case where one party said the officers could not continue their investigation as he did not grant their entry into his home.

I'm thinking this thread really belongs in Legal more than S&T...if there is an objection, the OP can PM me
 
This particular legal theory is not new.

I don't think any state - nor the Federal government - allows 'lawful resistance' to any law enforcement agent or officer in the performance of duties.

There are civil remedies for an improper entry or arrest by police acting in good faith. If police enter a dwelling or make an arrest which turns out to be in error, the victim of the erroneous search or arrest may recover damages in court.

Like it or not, to allow lawful resistance to police actions would pretty much end any sort of law enforcement anywhere. How many episodes of "COPS" shows some drunk or otherwise impaired driver failing to stop for lights and siren and later - when finally apprehended - claims in a drunken slobber, "I wasn't doing nothing wrong". I can remember many people telling me I had no right to question them in the process of entering the country. (Just for the record, that is completely erroneous and unfounded.)
 
Try Georgia

Georgia law allows a citizen to resist any unlawful arrest with corresponding force to the force being used to effect the arrest. I admit I don't know how that would apply to unlawful entry but I'm sure someone will. If I have to say it...I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, just my understanding od a law that I personally read.
Some Officers I have seen, and worked with, are overbearing to the point of oppression. There are remedies to stop them while they are involved in their acts. This nation was not founded on the principle of letting any group of people oppress any other with impunity. In many areas the roadblocks thrown in the paths of those seeking "legal" remedies for acts of oppression deny justice. With that in mind the case referred to in this posting seemed rather clearly to be one where Officers acted legally. If the actor was in the yard and attempted to flee into the domiclie to avoid them they can go right in after him.
I understand that some Officers disagree with publication of any laws pertaining to legal passive resistance. That is a point for discussion but right is right and wrong is, just that. No decision ever rendered allows Officers ultimate discretion in determining whether entry is allowed. They need to read and stay abreast of case law.
 
Last edited:
Georgia law allows a citizen to resist any unlawful arrest with corresponding force to the force being used to effect the arrest. I admit I don't know how that would apply to unlawful entry but I'm sure someone will. If I have to say it...I am not a lwayer and this is not legal advice, just my understanding od a law that I personally read.
Click to expand...

So they hold court in the street in Georgia?
 
9mmepiphany said:
Here is the case in question:

Indiana State Supreme Court:Barnes v. State

It is a PDF and will need to be downloaded

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-...pdf_c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb.html
Click to expand...

There is a saying that hard cases make bad law. The husband could have acted a bit more civil but I think I understand the level of stress in a relationship gone wrong. Wiping out the 4th Amendment over this by the courts is far worse. That was an act that wasn't in the heat of the moment.

I'd like to know the story behind the story which was not in evidence.

The dissenting Judge wrote this:

"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.

I don't understand the concurs after his name. What am I missing there? Some one mess up?

Judge Dickson needs to be re-elected if he holds an elected position. We vote of for our Supreme court justices in Michigan.

Clutch
 
That was an act that wasn't in the heat of the moment.
Click to expand...
I think they were purposely broad to make up for a Castle Doctrine that was not limiting enough...It also sounds like they were trying to head off arguments of what constituted a domestic violence situation

I don't understand the concurs after his name. What am I missing there? Some one mess up?
Click to expand...
Are you are asking what the word "concurs" means or why it is placed behind his name?

It means to accord in opinion; agree...and it is recorded in the ruling that Dickson does
 
9mmepiphany said:
Here is the case in question:

Indiana State Supreme Court:Barnes v. State

It is a PDF and will need to be downloaded

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-...pdf_c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb.html
Click to expand...
The Indiana Supreme Court ruling makes no sense (to me at least) without reading the Appelate court ruling: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04151005pdm.pdf

From the appelate ruling:
Because the jury was not properly instructed on Barnes‟s right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into his home, we reverse Barnes‟s Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting law enforcement convictions. We remand this case to the trial court for a new trial on those charges, and observe that it is within the exclusive province of the jury to determine whether Barnes “reasonably resisted” Officer Reed‟s attempt to unlawfully enter his apartment when he shoved the officer away from the threshold of his home and continued to resist after both officers attempted to arrest him.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ya'll might want to read what this is actually about instead of swallowing some regurgitated material.
On November 18, 2007, Barnes and his wife, Mary, were arguing while Barnes was moving out of their apartment. During the argument, Mary tried to call her sister, but Barnes grabbed the phone and threw it against the wall. Mary then used her cell phone to call 911. Mary told the dispatcher that Barnes was throwing things around the apartment but stated that Barnes had not struck her.
Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was ―very agitated and was yelling.‖ Barnes ―continued to yell, loudly‖ and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, ―if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you‘re going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell.‖ Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes‘s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed‘s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don‘t do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖ Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital.
Barnes was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery on a police officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime. Before the trial, Barnes tendered a jury
2
instruction on the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen‘s home.1 The trial court refused Barnes‘s instruction and did not otherwise instruct the jury as to the right to reasonably resist. The jury found Barnes guilty of battery on a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct.
Click to expand...
 
after reading the article there wasn't anything that happened that proves there needs to be a law that a LEO can enter home at any time with out a search warrant. Or did I miss something?
 
lobo9er said:
Do you believe that LEO should be able to enter in to a home at any time?
Click to expand...
That isn't what the law says, it grants no additional powers to LEOs, the law only says that it is now unlawful to resist that entry...LEOs still need to be able to justify their entry under existing case law. The opinion is overly broad for my taste, but I understand that the justices did not want to open the defense argument as to what constituted domestic violence.

This is already the law in many states and was the law when I worked as a LEO

lobo9er said:
after reading the article there wasn't anything that happened that proves there needs to be a law that a LEO can enter home at any time with out a search warrant. Or did I miss something?
Click to expand...
You did

Barnes wanted to use the IA Castle Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense for his blocking the doorway and battery on the officer. As the law stood on that day, that was his right. After the change in the law, that would have been without standing and he would have to let the officers enter to continue their investigation.

You have to remember that this was a domestic violence investigation and there is a different victim/suspect dynamic that exist there. The dissenting justices would have made the opinion unanimous if it had been limited to Domestic Violence Investigations
 
I'd jury nullify that crap. utter nonsense law there. Throw the cops in jail.

Folks, we are fast becoming a police state. I hate to say it but it's true. I have recently reversed my opinion on the war on drugs and the department of homeland security. I am now against both. My reason is these are destroying our rights as free citizens. Catching drug dealers and muslim fanatics is not as important to me as my own rights.

Here's another example of the coming police state:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_b3177522-baa0-5c9e-9f0d-d3d7da6e9e4b.html
 
converse? i ignore them entirely. if they have a warrant they'll break right in anyway, if not they can go away. i'm a big fan of self defense, and to be honest i dont care who attacks my home and my liberty if it's a drugged up burglar or a lawfully operating swat officer, both will be getting a similar response.
 
Messy...

If Barnes told LEO they may not enter his soon to be vacated Home, then, LEO ought to have backed off and stood aside.

Strategically badgering or coercing or pushing someone who is already upset, with a view of antagonizing them till they do commit some error one can exploit, while a recourse of POSs everywhere since time immemorial, is still neither reasnable or fair minded.

LEO can invent any pretext on pure BS to do just about anything.

'Smelled like Pot'...thought they maybe saw a knife...thought they saw, smelled, heard whatever...thought someone yelled for help, suspect 'Made a furtive move'...etc.

They can make up anything and with no acountability.


'law' is a bad substitute for honor and reasonableness.


LEO had no right to force the matter with Barnes in that context...no crime had been committed, untill LEO committed it by tresspass, then trying to make Barne's rebuke of their tresspass, the 'crime'.

Bad LEO conduct which anyone ought to be able to see clearly in this instance, and, with no need of any ledgislature adding to it by making it all worse.

How many times does LEO do stuff like this, then end up killing the guy?

Too many.


Barnes did not cease to be part of the Public whom LEO is supposed to serve, merely because he asserted his rights to refuse an unlawful entry.
 
converse? i ignore them entirely. if they have a warrant they'll break right in anyway, if not they can go away. i'm a big fan of self defense, and to be honest i dont care who attacks my home and my liberty if it's a drugged up burglar or a lawfully operating swat officer, both will be getting a similar response.
Click to expand...
That's a wise idea; I don't want to be seen as "resisting" or somesuch. Thanks, I will ignore from this point on. The front door cam is on a 300 gig looping DVR, I'm thinking about putting an interior cam into port 2 and splitting that into 2x150G loops. Accountability, just in case.
 
Last edited:
Barnes was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery on a police officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime. Before the trial, Barnes tendered a jury
2
instruction on the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen‘s home.1 The trial court refused Barnes‘s instruction and did not otherwise instruct the jury as to the right to reasonably resist. The jury found Barnes guilty of battery on a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct.
Click to expand...

Looks like he got arressted and charged to me so what did I miss?

I think police have plenty of power as it is. Laws didn't hinder them here.


Not being able to resist UNLAWFUL ENTRY is a bad thing. and opens meny doors for things like more no knock entries that may end up at the wrong house. Except could leead to worse outcomes
 
Last edited:
It was wrong for Barnes to refuse entry to the responding officers, and here's why:

1. Barnes had no reason to believe that Officer Henry and subsequent responding officers were not bona fide law enforcement officers.

2. Officers should be present in a potential domestic violence situation as passive observers to ensure the safety of all parties. Whether or not any blows had been thrown at the point of the arrival of the officers, they need to be able to keep both parties in sight to assure no further aggressive action is taken. This also prevents any escalation of a "he said/she said" argument and may also ease the ad hoc distribution of property that often goes along with move-out domestic situations.

That being said, we don't know how the responding officers approached the situation. If they were anything other than diplomatic then they could have made the situation worse. Personally I would have encouraged the female to stay outside, thus obviating the need for entry into the residence in the first place.

I also feel that the court ruling is too broad, and should have been more strictly applied to potential domestic violence situations.
 
I fought the law........you know the rest

Fight in court,not on the street,as gentleman,if police are wrong about their actions you can sue under the color of law statues,federal cases have been brought for deprivation of rights, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! color of law statues plainly state that a conspiracy to deprive any person of any right or privilege under any,federal or state law or custom,is an offence punishable by up to any number of years inprisonment,or death,if death occurs as a result of the conspirator's actions,these laws apply to any person who acts under color of law,these laws also pertain to a pattern and practice,of any state,local,police policy or state law that's unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
The officer in this case acted correctly, but the Supreme Court acted incorrectly.

Officer Henry hears a woman pleading with her violent husband:
she told Barnes several times, ―don‘t do this...
Click to expand...

"This" could be his acting like an idiot. "This" might have been an ongoing assault. Forced entry in this case should be allowed.

Instead of ruling against homeowners' resisting an illegal entry, the Justices should have ruled that this was a legal entry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
The Resistance Rises: Restoring the 'Castle Doctrine'
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
M
  • Locked
Indiana's Supreme court Defies Fourth Ammendment
Replies
2
Views
776
Justin
Justin
Intune
  • Locked
The gulf widens
Replies
8
Views
658
MicroBalrog
M
Warp
  • Locked
Can out of staters possess firearms or ammo in Illinois, without a carry license?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
5K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
V
  • Locked
Police searching home without warrant, with permission.
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
k_dawg
K
Back
Top