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

[Rail Driver]

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.

It can be quite difficult to fight for your rights from prison. "Innocent until proven guilty" is enough of a fairy tale on the outside, but if you're in prison you're obviously guilty (in the eyes of the courts anyway), whether or not you did anything wrong.

I don't believe that resisting unlawful entry to your home, vehicle or business should be against the law anywhere in this country. Freedom is becoming a joke... It already is a joke to our "ruling body".

 

[Neverwinter]

This ruling is a necessity of the current trend of no-knock warrants. Lawful citizens whose home is being invaded could respond with lethal force in their defense based on the knowledge available to them at the time. This ruling protects the lives of officers by ensuring that those law abiding citizens do not take arms against someone who could be law enforcement performing a lawful entry.

 

[Deanimator]

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

...which at the same time severely limited the officer's ability to unlawfully force his way into someone's home on a fishing (or worse) expedition.

 

[9mmepiphany]

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.

LEO had no right to force the matter with Barnes in that context...no crime had been committed

..except that once contact has been made, there is a duty to protect.

If the officers had stood outside, training would have taught them that this situation could have easily turned this into a
1. hostage situation
2. murder/homicide situation

Training that I have attended has taught that once you make lawful contact outside the home, you do not break that contact just because the subjects enter the home.

Bear in mind that many folks involved in a domestic violence situation don't think they have violated any laws through their actions...it is like drunk drivers who don't think they have done anything wrong by having a few drinks and driving.

I can't speak for IA and I won't speak to your state laws , as you don't give a location, but there are states where the vandalism/destruction of the phone line/equipment is a felony and others where preventing a person from contacting the police is also a crime

 

[9mmepiphany]

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

He was convicted and appealed to a higher court because he felt that he was denied his Affrimative Defense of legally resisting entry into his home.

Barnes is the one who took it to the higher court which resulted in this ruling

 

[Deanimator]

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

Of course that costs the VICTIMS time and money which they may not have, while THEY as taxpayers are paying for the defense of their victimizers. And if they win or settle, they pay THEMSELVES.

This decision protects not just lawful police action, or even inadvertent police action, but intentionally malicious ILLEGAL police action.

This sort of decision, (which goes WAY past the extant situation) along with the attempts to punish those who record police interactions points to a profound contempt for the average citizen by law enforcement and the courts.

 

[Remo223]

..except that once contact has been made, there is a duty to protect.

If the officers had stood outside, training would have taught them that this situation could have easily turned this into a
1. hostage situation
2. murder/homicide situation

Training that I have attended has taught that once you make lawful contact outside the home, you do not break that contact just because the subjects enter the home.

Bear in mind that many folks involved in a domestic violence situation don't think they have violated any laws through their actions...it is like drunk drivers who don't think they have done anything wrong by having a few drinks and driving.

I can't speak for IA and I won't speak to your state laws , as you don't give a location, but there are states where the vandalism/destruction of the phone line/equipment is a felony and others where preventing a person from contacting the police is also a crime

"...except that once contact has been made, there is a duty to protect."

That's as far as I read. That is pure nonsense. No police officer anywhere is responsible for anyone's safety. NOt legally and not via any professional code of conduct. If they see a crime being committed they are required to respond. That is all. They are not required to protect any one or any thing.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I gather that you are referring to the 2005 US Supreme Court case: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.

While it may be a local/State case law, I received training that that liability protection only extended until contact with the party was made...this may differ in your locale

 

[armoredman]

Nope, no duty to protect the public at large, I believe several court rulings agree; the burden of defense of self is on the individual, which is why CCW laws are so dadgum important.
The appelate court ruled in favor of the homeowner, who I personally believe was at fault - the woman was the potential victim of a crime, and in this case, since the officers were CALLED to the residence by a legal occupant of that residence, I think they had the right to ensure the safety of all know participants.
But saying I have no right to stop a criminal, (someone who breaks the law), from completing a known criminal act, (unlawfully entering my home), simply because they happen to work for the city/county/state as a law enforcement officer is a bucket of hogwash. Rampart, anyone?
Here's the same question I asked on another board - officer demands entry into my home without a warrant, with no articulable reason whatsoever, so I stand back. He seizes items of my lawfully held property and arrests me for no crimes, (nothing illegal in this house!), how long will it be before I get back my stuff? C'mon, street cops, how long does it take stuff that has been ruled inadmissable in a trial back to the original owner? Months? Years? Tell me I have to take it to court - I can barely afford the gas to get to the grocery store, and the officers will have FREE union lawyers assisting them, this is a fair and equitable action?
The burden of acting within the law at all times should be laid squarely on those who swore to uphold it, held to a higher standard, NOT a lower one.

 

[Remo223]

Most of you probably are not aware of John Semmens or his humorous writings. He likes to take news events such as the one this thread is about and write a pretend newspaper article about them with such a preposterously extreme pro-government, anti-libertarian point of view it becomes humorous.

He wrote such a pretend newspaper article about the indiana ruling. Enjoy:

http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/court-rules-police-may-enter-any-home-anytime/

 

[Deanimator]

Here's the same question I asked on another board - officer demands entry into my home without a warrant, with no articulable reason whatsoever, so I stand back. He seizes items of my lawfully held property and arrests me for no crimes, (nothing illegal in this house!), how long will it be before I get back my stuff? C'mon, street cops, how long does it take stuff that has been ruled inadmissable in a trial back to the original owner? Months? Years? Tell me I have to take it to court - I can barely afford the gas to get to the grocery store, and the officers will have FREE union lawyers assisting them, this is a fair and equitable action?

This is the EXACT analog to the spate of "legal" carjackings which took place on Louisiana highways where local LEOs stopped motorists and confiscated cash and vehicles without one IOTA of proof of criminal acts related to either the money or the vehicles.

Not coincidentally, these sorts of activities are directed toward those unlikely to be able to successfully contest them, such as the less well to do and those with a poor command of the English language.

This ruling sets up the opportunity for corrupt LEOs to commit home invasion thefts of the sort engaged in by the S.O.S. unit in Chicago.

It MIGHT have been about domestic violence, but it's going to go way past that sooner rather than later. I guarantee that there will clones of Jerome Finnegan waiting for the opportunity.

 

[lobo9er]

I ask again

9mmepiphany are you for the new laws? Do you believe that LEO should be able to enter in to a home at any time?

with out quoting case law, do you agree with this ruling? do you believe a LEO should be able to gain UNLAWFUL ENTRY into any home.

To me its the same as ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, its wrong, and for some reason its up for debate.

 

[avs11054]

Allowing people to resist searches or arrests, lawful or unlawful, is dangerous territory. It is obvious from reading this thread, along with many other threads in the Legal section of THR, that many people here do not know all the exceptions to the search warrant requirement under the fourth amendment, let alone every law which one can be arrested for. LEO's deal with both of these every day, and they probably know many more laws for which one person can be arrested.

I would like to know if some of you who are advocating being able to resist arrest know EVERY law in your jurisdiction that you can be arrested for. The Arizona book that list all the state laws is approximately three inches thick. In addition to that, there are also the municipal codes, which have arrestable offenses.

I can tell you that I see police officers, attorneys, and judges looking up different statutes on a regular basis because there are so many that nobody can possibly know every one, and people in these three professions deal with them every single day.

 

[avs11054]

I ask again


with out quoting case law, do you agree with this ruling? do you believe a LEO should be able to gain UNLAWFUL ENTRY into any home.

To me its the same as ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, its wrong, and for some reason its up for debate.

I do not see anywhere in this ruling that gives LEO's the right to enter any home at any time. Please reference where in the ruling it says that.

 

[Remo223]

avs11054, you are not getting it, clearly. People here are not desiring a chance to resist an unlawful entry. There is legitimate consternation when the OPTION of resisting unlawful entry is not even on the table.

Now do you get it?

 

[Deanimator]

"I can tell you that I see police officers, attorneys, and judges looking up different statutes on a regular basis because there are so many that nobody can possibly know every one, and people in these three professions deal with them every single day."
That's the standard excuse given whenever an LEO violates somebody's rights. Strangely, no citizen gets to use that excuse when he violates the law.

 

[LouCap]

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.

Awesome. So, under your system, no one would EVER want to risk serving a warrant, so the real BG's remain free to prey on you and your family. If given your way, our Police would be totally ineffective due to a paralyzing fear of litigation. But hey, at least you'll be able to put their families on welfare, so there's that...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

 

[Remo223]

^and you would prefer every thug with a badge be untouchable.

 

[avs11054]

avs11054, you are not getting it, clearly. People here are not desiring a chance to resist an unlawful entry. There is legitimate consternation when the OPTION of resisting unlawful entry is not even on the table.

Now do you get it?

Read all the posts on the legal section that deal with search and seizure issues. It is obvious that a large majority of people do not understand every instance in which a police officer may lawfully make a search. I have said it before, and I'll say it again...Just because YOU do not think a search or arrest is lawful, does not mean that it is not lawful. This is why the courts make a ruling like this. Nobody wants to have the police come into their house, and when the police do, emotions run high and everyone, police included, do not always think rationally. The courts would rather see the legality of the search taken up in court than decided at the scene.

 

[avs11054]

"I can tell you that I see police officers, attorneys, and judges looking up different statutes on a regular basis because there are so many that nobody can possibly know every one, and people in these three professions deal with them every single day."
That's the standard excuse given whenever an LEO violates somebody's rights. Strangely, no citizen gets to use that excuse when he violates the law.

I'm not exactly sure what excuse you are referring to. Are you saying that you know every single law on the books in your jurisdiction?

 

[TCB in TN]

Allowing people to resist searches or arrests, lawful or unlawful, is dangerous territory. It is obvious from reading this thread, along with many other threads in the Legal section of THR, that many people here do not know all the exceptions to the search warrant requirement under the fourth amendment, let alone every law which one can be arrested for. LEO's deal with both of these every day, and they probably know many more laws for which one person can be arrested.

I would like to know if some of you who are advocating being able to resist arrest know EVERY law in your jurisdiction that you can be arrested for. The Arizona book that list all the state laws is approximately three inches thick. In addition to that, there are also the municipal codes, which have arrestable offenses.

I can tell you that I see police officers, attorneys, and judges looking up different statutes on a regular basis because there are so many that nobody can possibly know every one, and people in these three professions deal with them every single day.

If a law such as you are talking about is broken, then the LEO in question should get a warrant. Unless there is a life/death situation then taking the time to actually get a warrant to get into someone's home doesn't seem to be to much to ask or expect.

BTW it is interesting that in so many threads we are told time and time how we should cut LEOs some slack because no one can know all of the laws on the books, and yet here we are being told that we should just submit to whatever any LEO tells or does to us because they know so much more about the laws than we do. Interesting situation to see the conflict in those two positions.............

 

[avs11054]

If a law such as you are talking about is broken, then the LEO in question should get a warrant. Unless there is a life/death situation then taking the time to actually get a warrant to get into someone's home doesn't seem to be to much to ask or expect.

BTW it is interesting that in so many threads we are told time and time how we should cut LEOs some slack because no one can know all of the laws on the books, and yet here we are being told that we should just submit to whatever any LEO tells or does to us because they know so much more about the laws than we do. Interesting situation to see the conflict in those two positions.............

"If a law such as you are talking about is broken, then the LEO in question should get a warrant. Unless there is a life/death situation then taking the time to actually get a warrant to get into someone's home doesn't seem to be to much to ask or expect."

My point is proven.

I would encourage you to start some research on search and seizure. While I do not usually advocate wikipedia, start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#Exceptions) for a very bried explanation of a few different exceptions to the search warrant requirement. You can then use google if you would like further information, as there is plenty of it on the internet.

 

[Deanimator]

Awesome. So, under your system, no one would EVER want to risk serving a warrant, so the real BG's remain free to prey on you and your family. If given your way, our Police would be totally ineffective due to a paralyzing fear of litigation. But hey, at least you'll be able to put their families on welfare, so there's that...

If I can't resist an unlawful invasion of my home I reserve the right to hound the perpetrators to their graves in criminal court, civil court, and the court of public opinion.

Don't like that? Then don't do it.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not exactly sure what excuse you are referring to. Are you saying that you know every single law on the books in your jurisdiction?

Virtually EVERY time an LEO violates somebody's rights through alleged ignorance of the law, I'm told by their defenders that there are "too many laws for the cops to know".

Conversely, walk into a Chipotle in Ohio and let a cop discover that you are otherwise lawfully carrying a concealed firearm. When he arrests you for carrying in a liquor serving establishment, see how far you get with him, or with the court, claiming that "there are too many laws for the citizen to know" and that you "didn't know" that carrying in a Class D establishment was unlawful.

_I_ have an unqualified duty to know and obey EVERY law. Any claim of ignorance on my part will be viewed with scorn and contempt by an LEO.

A cop doesn't need to know "every law". He needs to know EVERY law he's ENFORCING, RIGHT NOW. If through sloth and arrogance, his so-called "ignorance" of the law deprives someone of their liberty and or property, he needs to be hammered into the ground like a tent peg in civil court.

The idea that the average citizen has a GREATER duty to know the law than a supposedly "trained" cop is utterly despicable.

 

[avs11054]

Virtually EVERY time an LEO violates somebody's rights through alleged ignorance of the law, I'm told by their defenders that there are "too many laws for the cops to know".

Conversely, walk into a Chipotle in Ohio and let a cop discover that you are otherwise lawfully carrying a concealed firearm. When he arrests you for carrying in a liquor serving establishment, see how far you get with him, or with the court, claiming that "there are too many laws for the citizen to know" and that you "didn't know" that carrying in a Class D establishment was unlawful.

_I_ have an unqualified duty to know and obey EVERY law. Any claim of ignorance on my part will be viewed with scorn and contempt by an LEO.

A cop doesn't need to know "every law". He needs to know EVERY law he's ENFORCING, RIGHT NOW. If through sloth and arrogance, his so-called "ignorance" of the law deprives someone of their liberty and or property, he needs to be hammered into the ground like a tent peg in civil court.

The idea that the average citizen has a GREATER duty to know the law than a supposedly "trained" cop is utterly despicable.

Please reference some cases where a police officer was not held accountable because of lack of knowledge of the law.

If that is the case where you are from, and you don't like it, then move. That is not the case where I am from. Ignorance is not a defense. Even for cops. If carrying concealed into a liquor serving establishment in your state is a crime, and you choose to do so anyways, then yes, your can be arrested. You seem to know that.

I am not saying that citizens should know the law better than cops do. What I am saying is that I agree with the Indiana Supreme Court's decision that a person cannot resist an arrest or a search. While no officer should ever make an unlawful arrest or an unlawful search, allowing resistance to searches or arrests opens the door to both police officers and citizens unnecissarily risking injury and death. Again...Just because you do not think the search or arrest is lawful, does not mean that it is not. The court is trying to prevent confusion from escalating to violence.