Indiana Court Ruling on Illegal Police Entry of Home

[Mac204]

You know...when you buy a movie or a piece of sheet music you are essentially buying the license, and data, to use for yourself. If you have the license why cant you make back-ups (copies)? It started so little old ladies couldnt take the church piano music and copy it for themselves. Now, before movies and on music labels it syays, "no copying, even for private personal use."

What I am getting at is even if this is meant exclusively for DV, you've gotta be damn ignorant and completely oblivious to history to think that this wont abused, then expanded so abuse will no longer be abuse.

What is that old saying: toss a frog in boiling water and he fights, put the frog in warm water and slowly bring to boil and theres no struggle..." This is them bringining us to a slow boil..

 

[Nolacopusmc]

You know...when you buy a movie or a piece of sheet music you are essentially buying the license, and data, to use for yourself. If you have the license why cant you make back-ups (copies)? It started so little old ladies couldnt take the church piano music and copy it for themselves. Now, before movies and on music labels it syays, "no copying, even for private personal use."

What I am getting at is even if this is meant exclusively for DV, you've gotta be damn ignorant and completely oblivious to history to think that this wont abused, then expanded so abuse will no longer be abuse.

What is that old saying: toss a frog in boiling water and he fights, put the frog in warm water and slowly bring to boil and theres no struggle..." This is them bringining us to a slow boil..

You might want to check history yourself.

What this whole article is about, has existed for many years. it is called "exigent circumstances." it is one of the few exceptions to 4th Amendment protection and has been taught in police academies for at least the last 30 years or so.

Basically, if a LEO is walking by a house, and someone yells help, he does not have to get a warrant to force entry. The DV situation is essentially the same in many circumstances. just because the husband says the police are not needed, does not mean the women does not still need help. Obviously, each situation is differently and both on the scene and in court will be judged on its merits. All this story did was specify one of MANY exigent circumstances. Then, a very ignorant judge did a very poor job of explaining it. The cops never could and still cannot go into your home for "any reason."

IF your house is on fire.
If someone yells help.
If they hear gunshots inside and people running from the residence.
If they are chasing a suspected criminal and he goes into a house, they may enter...called the hot pursuit doctrine.

These are just some examples where an entry may be made without a warrant.

 

[Mac204]

Im not saying the cops in IN did the wrong thing. What I am saying is ruling is bad. Everything, especially in law, is about wording. The wording of this ruling allows police to enter without cause, without knocking, etc. if the language was crystal clear in that it merely reinforces what police are supposed to do, then fine. But,with,the usurpation of legislatice authority by all levels of the judiciary, i'm not convinced that it was ONLY clumsy wording.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Im not saying the cops in IN did the wrong thing. What I am saying is ruling is bad. Everything, especially in law, is about wording. The wording of this ruling allows police to enter without cause, without knocking, etc. if the language was crystal clear in that it merely reinforces what police are supposed to do, then fine. But,with,the usurpation of legislatice authority by all levels of the judiciary, i'm not convinced that it was ONLY clumsy wording.

I hear you man, but the ruling means nothing. The standard f exigent circumstances has been established for MANY years.

Basically this judge talked out of his ass and is completely wrong. Furthermore, just because one judge made a ruling does not mean suddenly "ITS DA LAH"

This is a perfect example of a judge trying to legislate from the bench, and very poorly at that.

 

[Mac204]

Oh yeah, if problems do come from it it'll be fought and hopefully clarified. On the streets the police are the final authority on the law. If they are wrong there is a judicial system. I just fear judicial legislation, which no one can argue is out of control.

 

[Mac204]

Btw, im kind of passionate about this because I am originally from indiana. indiana used to be the second most conservative state in the US. then there was the presidential election and they turned into 1 of the most liberal states in the US. thankfully a lot of the damage has been moderated thus far.

 

[Pacioli]

What a second. This isn't one judge, it's the Indiana Supreme Court. So if the decision is written as reported in the story, that's bad...and binding.

What I think is important to know, and it's not clear in the story, is whether the opinion specifically affirmed exigent circumstance entry or expanded the legal authority of police to allow entry in cases instances that are not exigent, hot pursuit, etc.

 

[Mac204]

/\ +1

 

[Nolacopusmc]

The whole thing is a great read. it is current, and tells a lot of background on exigent circumstances.

Kentucky vs. King - Argued January 12, 2011—Decided May 16, 2011

Attach: View attachment 09-1272.pdf

t is well established that “exigent circumstances,”including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant. In this case, we consider whether this rule applies when police, by knocking on the door of a residence and announcing their presence, cause the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances rule does not apply in the case at hand because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence. We reject this interpretation of the exigent circumstances rule. The conduct of the police prior to their entryinto the apartment was entirely lawful. They did notviolate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rule applies.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

What a second. This isn't one judge, it's the Indiana Supreme Court. So if the decision is written as reported in the story, that's bad...and binding.

What I think is important to know, and it's not clear in the story, is whether the opinion specifically affirmed exigent circumstance entry or expanded the legal authority of police to allow entry in cases instances that are not exigent, hot pursuit, etc.

From my reading, it affirmed, but his "speech" made it appear as though it was extended. There is no way "police can enter your home at anytime for any reason" is gonna fly.

The point I THINK he was trying to make, is that when you know it is the police at your door, it is illegal for you to resist, even if you THINK they are there illegally. The time to resist is in court.

Now I do not wholly agree with that, but I also know, with the RARE exceptions that everyone likes to post about wrong address, dead dogs, and weirdos swinging golf clubs, the reality is that if the police breach your homestead, you and they both know why they are there.

 

[Mac204]

I agree, but like.I.said, I'm not toyally convinced it was poorly worded over strategically worded, but aside from that we are in agreement.

 

[James Cannon]

The point I THINK he was trying to make, is that when you know it is the police at your door, it is illegal for you to resist, even if you THINK they are there illegally. The time to resist is in court.

That's the point I thought the judges were making as well. I think it's all well and good that police should be able to intercept a crime in progress or whatever the "exigent circumstances" goes to explain. That's fine and dandy. You shouldn't be able to beat your wife in the front lawn, and just drag her inside when the cops show up after the neighbors called police, and call "SAFE!" until they can call a judge, get a warrant, and then come knock on your door and wait for you to let them inside and have the wife tell you that she just fell down some stairs. That ain't right, and victims need protecting.

However, that judicial statement still seems to be out of line with my understanding of when I have to let police into my home. If I'm a law abiding citizen who's done nothing wrong, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to resist an unlawful/mistaken entry. Not everyone here has bail money, lawyer money, and the time to take off work (assuming we have a job left to go to) to fight the ridiculous circumstances.

Additionally, a common link passed around, http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm would seem to lead people to think they -can- resist unlawful arrest to varying extents, and with that comes the thought that you could resist unlawful search/seizure for similar reasons.

Thoughts?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

That's the point I thought the judges were making as well. I think it's all well and good that police should be able to intercept a crime in progress or whatever the "exigent circumstances" goes to explain. That's fine and dandy. You shouldn't be able to beat your wife in the front lawn, and just drag her inside when the cops show up after the neighbors called police, and call "SAFE!" until they can call a judge, get a warrant, and then come knock on your door and wait for you to let them inside and have the wife tell you that she just fell down some stairs. That ain't right, and victims need protecting.

However, that judicial statement still seems to be out of line with my understanding of when I have to let police into my home. If I'm a law abiding citizen who's done nothing wrong, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to resist an unlawful/mistaken entry. Not everyone here has bail money, lawyer money, and the time to take off work (assuming we have a job left to go to) to fight the ridiculous circumstances.

Additionally, a common link passed around, http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm would seem to lead people to think they -can- resist unlawful arrest to varying extents, and with that comes the thought that you could resist unlawful search/seizure for similar reasons.

Thoughts?

You have a right to resist an unlawful arrest. A cop entering your home does not constitute an arrest.

Shooting him when you know he is the police because you THINK he does not have a right to be there in your mind is not legal.

The judges point was, or should have been, that the time to determine if it was an illegal or wrongful entry is in court, not with you fighting it out with the police physically.

For most of us, while "not fair", it makes sound sense when the consequences are increased resisting arrest charges, injury, or death, if the police happen to be right.

The reality is that while it happens, 99.9999% of the time, when the police come a knockin, it is because you should not have been a rockin.

 

[Hitman]

Shooting him when you know he is the police because you THINK he does not have a right to be there in your mind is not legal.
.

No knock warrants?

It gets tricky.

 

[James Cannon]

Absolutely. Though I don't think it's -ever- a smart idea to resist the police, even if it's an illegal arrest... I am suspicious of anyone who wants to take away my right to do so if I so choose.

In this case, I assumed I had the right to resist unlawful entry, as that was kinda the point of the 4th, and this new ruling seems to defy that completely, rather than simply in the case where police have reason to believe there's a crime in progress.

If that's not the case, than I think the problem is that I, and apparently most of the internet, did not realize that we -never- had the right to resist an unlawful entry.

Sure, 99.999% of the time police are just doing their job, and likely doing it right, but our Constitutionally protected rights aren't there for 99% of the time. They're there to protect us for those terrible 1%er times.

 

[Pacioli]

The point I THINK he was trying to make, is that when you know it is the police at your door, it is illegal for you to resist, even if you THINK they are there illegally. The time to resist is in court.

We are walking on a razor's edge here.

The law and order guy in me wants compliance, but the freedom loving American wants preservation of rights.

I think the post Katrina gun confiscations are an example of the moral delima. The aggrieved parties eventually had their day in court, but at their own expense and largely to no good effect for many because the guns had been effectively destroyed with careless storage, lackadaisical recordkeeping, etc. Notwithstanding that, there is the greater issue that the victims were left immediately defenseless. We cannot know whether that infringement caused irreparable bodily harm or even death. If it did, no day in court is possible for the latter, and is of no solace to the former.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

We are walking on a razor's edge here.

The law and order guy in me wants compliance, but the freedom loving American wants preservation of rights.

I think the post Katrina gun confiscations are an example of the moral delima. The aggrieved parties eventually had their day in court, but at their own expense and largely to no good effect for many because the guns had been effectively destroyed with careless storage, lackadaisical recordkeeping, etc. Notwithstanding that, there is the greater issue that the victims were left immediately defenseless. We cannot know whether that infringement caused irreparable bodily harm or even death. If it did, no day in court is possible for the latter, and is of no solace to the former.

No doubt the system is broken. No doubt it is plagued with errors. The system is based on a presumption of integrity...and we all know where our society as a whole stands with that. The system is based on the good guys being good, and the bad guys being bad, and everyone clearly being able to tell the difference. That also is no longer the case. However, even though all these fundamental assumption upon which the system was initially designed have changed, the system has remained the same. Therefore, the system does not work today as it was originally designed to work yesterday.

That 1% is still 99.99999999% mistakes. There will always be mistakes as long as humans are involved. As a society, and generally intelligent beings, we understand that life is not a zero sum game. Because of this, we have a criminal justice system unlike any in the world. We actually look at each individual case on its own merits and other human beings make a determination based on mind and heart. There again is a chasm of potential pitfalls that can only be crossed with the communal faith in the system.

Middle of the night, masked men break into your home and you have no idea who they are...do what you have to do.

Cops yell POLICE! POLICE! and kick in your door, you cannot start shooting because you think they have the wrong house. The penalty for getting the wrong house is not death, it is administartie or criminal depending on the nature of their mistake.

Even Katrina is a bad example, because most of the police who were taking guns were doing so under orders THEY BELIEVED to lawful based on the collective ignorance of what all was entailed or not entailed under "martial law."

I mean seriously, it is not like a bunch of cops, completely aware of the implications of their actions, conspired to intentionally deprive citizens of their rights. They acted the best they knew how under the circumstances...and they were wrong. Add to that the fact that they were being shot at, and it kind of makes sense to them in the moment.

THAT SAID...the Majority of the few cops who were taking weapons were from out of state and thus acting the ass because they were "in the NOLA" like drunken tourists...but that is a whole nother story.


Point is this. I do not want the cops kicking in my door and killing my dog more than anyone else. However, if I hear them stacking outside the door, that is not free license to whip out the home defense UZI because I "know" they do not have a legal right to be there.

Is the system ****ed that I have to finance my own defense that should be presumed? Hell yeah, but to think criminals can run onto their porch and scream "BASE" and be off limits for cops is retarded. It is almost as retarded as saying cops will no longer get involved in vehicle pursuits. Cops catch bad guys. Bad guys run from the cops. It is as old as man itself.

SOmetimes those bad guys run into houses. Sometimes they hide in houses and have to be forcefully extracted.

 

[spanky]

How do you know they are cops?

If you are a 100% legit, God-fearing, law-abiding citizen who has never done anything to warrant swat coming into your house and disrespecting your whole famiry at 0'dark:30, how do you KNOW they are cops?

 

[James Cannon]

How do you know they are cops?

If you are a 100% legit, God-fearing, law-abiding citizen who has never done anything to warrant swat coming into your house and disrespecting your whole famiry at 0'dark:30, how do you KNOW they are cops?

Don't worry, Spanky, you can ask someone later, after it's all done.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

How do you know they are cops?

If you are a 100% legit, God-fearing, law-abiding citizen who has never done anything to warrant swat coming into your house and disrespecting your whole famiry at 0'dark:30, how do you KNOW they are cops?

I don't know how you know. I said IF you KNOW, like they SCREAM POLICE! POLICE!...did you see that part? Each situation will be different of course.

My point is there is a difference between protecting from an unknown intruder who may end up being the police, and fighting the police because you do not think they have a right to be there.

If you read the OP, the guy was clear that it was the police since they announced themselves.

ALso, in the case I attached, the person was clear it was the police since he was running from them in the course of a drug deal.

I think we are crosses the streams between no-knock raids and warrantless entry, which while related, are two separate things.



There are exigent circumstances where the police may make a 4th amendment seizure without a warrant....

Off the top of my head-
Hot Pursuit
Duress
Open Field
Plain view
Destruction of evidence

There are a few more.


SOmeone kicking in the door at 0 dark thirty is a no knock warrant discussion, and I accept some of the blame for muddying the water because I think I introduced it as an example. My mistake.