Last night, my husband brought to my attention a recent ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court allowing police to enter someone's home - illegally - with no right to resist an officer's attempt to enter.
No knocking, no warrants, no permission required.
Not wanting to believe such a thing, I went to teh Google. Imagine my horror in discovering he was absolutely correct.
According to our local paper, the Northwest Indiana Times, and by ruling of the Supreme Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home. (PDF version of the ruling)
Now, I'm no attorney, but my first reaction was a very loud, "That's unconstitutional!" And sure enough, the Fourth Amendment's intent - arguably dating back the the Magna Carta in 1215 and certainly as old as our history as a country - explicitly prohibits this kind of 'enforcement'.
The reasoning behind this decision, in my layman's opinion, is ridiculous:
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." [ed:diarist's bolding}
So do the citizens of the Hoosier State have any recourse? Well, I'll let you make the call:
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
I wonder if he means the same courts that came up with this cockeyed conclusion? And, who's word do you think will carry more weight - the citizen or the cop?
Granted, this case evolved from a domestic disturbance situation and in no way do I want to appear as defending assault on an officer, but the broad perspective taken by the Court could apply to a plethora of scenarios. I could see this being abused by law enforcement all too easily
For the record, I tried to read the ruling, but the legalese was a bit much for me. Perhaps one of our many legal minds could peruse the 11 page document and offer an opinion as to whether this is as serious and scary as it sounds or if I'm overreacting out of ignorance. If, indeed, this ruling is as horrendous as it appears, what can be done to reverse it?
Updated by HoosierDeb at Sat May 14, 2011 at 08:49 PM CDT
Wow! Rec List that fast...? Must've hit a nerve.
It's this kind of stuff that makes me ashamed to be a Hoosier.
Updated by HoosierDeb at Sat May 14, 2011 at 09:27 PM CDT
For more perspectives I offer a h/t to Praxxus and dmhlt 66 for some related reading:
Masson's Blog - http://www.masson.us/...
The Volokh Conspiracy - http://volokh.com/...