Indiana Supreme Court; No Right To Resist Unlawful Entry.

[ak-51]

An unlawful police entry is unlawful, and no officer of the law can (and maintain his status) operate out side of the law.

I think our understanding of this law is fundamentally different. I think it makes clear that citizens are not qualified to determine the legality of police action without bias, and therefor may not resist police action merely by claiming that they thought it was illegal. You feel that it give police free reign to run all over your rights. There is a body which was formed to interpret laws, and that is the Judicial branch.

He becomes, in absence of process, just another armed invader.

Without process, if I kick in your door yelling "Police", and you have no way of establishing the veracity of the claim, your response in self defense has merit.

If a 'cop' illegally kicks in your door, yelling 'Police', and you have no way of establishing the veracity of the claim, your response in self-defense has merit.

This is the kinda shit that never ends well. For anyone. Anywhere.

This is a valid concern, and one that I think must be decided on a case by case basis. I don't think the idea of whether or not you should be liable for shooting somebody entering your home that yells "police" should be decided by one broad case. Obviously there are many other factors to consider.

Wrong. I should say, your rationale that it is lawful is wrong.

Are you talking about your interpretation of Natural Law, or Indiana State Law? We can debate constitutional law and whether current legislation and case law is compatible with it, but I can't argue with you if you claim that a set of unwritten rules makes something legal or illegal. Hopefully we can limit this to either legislation or case law, otherwise it would get too subjective.

You are free to have a problem, or no problem, with any ruling you want. But it is only within the context that this ruling is without merit that you have that option.

Please expand on this. I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying I only have the option to voice my opinion on the merit of this case?

Wrong. Reread something. Anything. This history of the country. The intent of its founding. Jefferson.

We don't have to be condescending, or maybe I'm misreading your tone. In any case at least by saying "Reread" you have given me credit for reading it at least once already!

Anyway, without going into that too deep, I feel like the founding fathers structured our democracy to be malleable. We are suppose to work within the system to change it as much as we can, it was set up that way. I, and I think you agree, believe that they also strongly implied and laid the groundwork for the possibility of having to overthrow the government should it become too overbearing. IMO, revolution is the sole context in which the 2nd Amendment was written.

Presuming the courts are operating in the interest of the population is evidence that you have not been in the system, or ever met anyone in the system, or read a newspaper article about the system, or watched a TV show about the system.

That would be an incorrect assumption full of hyperbole. I am aware that once you're in there is the assumption of guilt, even though it suppose to be the other way around. I understand the bias that is inherent in the people who work in the system. I think the difference is you feel that the court structure itself is flawed. I feel that it may be slightly flawed, but it is mostly the people that work in it that causes the problems, not it's inherent design. You'll always have assholes, restructuring the legal system isn't going to make them disappear.

The structure of the courts precludes our repair of them. The intent of this country's founding laws is designed to guarantee a possibility of what you just prohibit... namely the discharge of a government that no longer serves the people by force of arms if legal means are exhausted.

I don't think that legal means have been anywhere near exhausted. I would like to know why you do though. Can you cite an election where the population has overwhelmingly voice their opinion in opposition to the kind of legislation that we're talking about?

Wrong. Home invasion, on the spot, is not legal. It is not something that is being decided, but Natural Law.

Natural law is quite different than Indiana's judicial and legislative laws. Marijuana cultivation is also 100% legal... under natural law. I didn't think that's what we were talking about here since it's not really applicable.

They should always use them (reference to no-knock SWAT team raids). If they presume their purpose is so precarious that they cannot give notice to occupants, they should go it under full armor, shock and awe the fuck out of the situation, and hopefully no one dies. It

I think that there are situations in which the police are needed at a residence that does not necessitate full scale SWAT team action.

It takes the judges role out of the picture, consolidates power in the hands of those who have not been chosen for it. No one can steal the liberty of anyone without cause under any fucking circumstances. Expedited law enforcement is not an exception to Natural Law.

If police report to a residence for something benign like a noise complaint and then at the door and something leads them to believe that a more serious, more urgent crime being committed inside I think they should have the ability to enter. A ruling like that does not take judges out of the picture, it still allows you reprisal in court should you feel that their reasons for entry were not sufficient, or maybe just completely fabricated. What this removes is the possibility that a police officer can witness a crime through a window and be unable to stop it without contacting a judge first. The police are still required to be able to show that they had probable cause (or reasonable suspicion) to enter the home without a warrant at trial.

The government is at the service of the people and at the convenience of the people. It cannot put it's own needs ahead of the people. It is limited in its actions by its role as servant.

And it's the responsibility of the citizens to shape their government into what they want it to be. The problem is that generally "the people" don't really care as long as they have TV, alcohol and cheap gasoline. If the voting population allows injustices to go on then it's not tyranny, it's apathy, and I have no desire to initiate a revolution in which thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people would likely die just because most of them were too lazy to vote and too complacent to care.

 

[inquest]

What ever you guys do, just dont start hiding Jewish people..... much too dangerous in this day and age.

Fuck it. I'm moving to a post nazi occupied country. At least they understand the importance of privacy laws.

 

[ak-51]

The bigger picture is all our basic freedoms are being stripped. Few people challenge this and it just makes it easier to strip the next Constitutional Right.

...

Our Country and core beliefs are based on the Constitution. Slowly but surely those rights and beliefs are being tossed to the wayside.

I agree with this for the most part, just not in this particular situation.

If we keep going in the direction we are. In another 10 years the US will be no different than Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think that's a little extreme. (pun!.. no, but really)

We will have no rights whatsoever and our decisions will ultimately be made for us.

I think most people already allow all of their decisions to be made for them by the media and societal norms. Maybe two kinds of people allow themselves to be controlled: those who just can't comprehend or don't know what's going on, I have some sympathy for them; and those who have a subconscious desire to be controlled and to be complacent because it makes for an easier life, I have no sympathy for them.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

I think it makes clear that citizens are not qualified to determine the legality of police action without bias, and therefor may not resist police action merely by claiming that they thought it was illegal.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David: "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."

Restating Justice Davids statement: We believe that the right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and modern legal theory as related to unlawful search.

Any public policy or theory of search that permits or postulates resistances to unlawful action is self-contradictory. It has no merit. It is shit.

Any defense of home in an unlawful invasion is protected by an individuals right to defend himself. Arguably, any action taken in a home invasion--regardless of the paperwork--is justifiable. Hence SWAT's body armor.

And a man pushing an officer who tried to invade his home.

Such an invasion constituents violence. The immediate response to violence is defense, not civil action.

I don't think the idea of whether or not you should be liable for shooting somebody entering your home that yells "police" should be decided by one broad case. Obviously there are many other factors to consider.

Okay. I'd rather no one shoot anyone. But the notion of unlawful entry cannot be endorsed, regardless, by anyone. When the Justice names it unlawful, and says it's okay, we have a problem.

"I have no problem with this ruling."

"Wrong. I should say, your rationale that it is lawful is wrong. You are free to have a problem, or no problem, with any ruling you want. But it is only within the context that this ruling is without merit that you have that option."

"Are you talking about your interpretation of Natural Law, or Indiana State Law? We can debate constitutional law and whether current legislation and case law is compatible with it, but I can't argue with you if you claim that a set of unwritten rules makes something legal or illegal. Hopefully we can limit this to either legislation or case law, otherwise it would get too subjective."

In this silly instance, I made a failed attempt to emphasize the fact that your right to agree or disagree with the rulings-of-the-judicial-system/actions-of-police-force is founded on their limitations of powers. To agree with a ruling that takes another small step in the dismantling of those limitations--i.e. the attempt to Alienate Natural and Unalienable Rights through statutes, is internally flawed. Maybe it was a good point, maybe mediocre, maybe poor. But that was my point.

I suggest that attempting to limit the field of jurisprudence to State Law, or Constitutional Law, in this discussion is a fundamental mistake.

This nation is founded on principles of Natural Law, not on statute or constitution. For reference, I remind:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Moreover, the government is limited:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But now I'm just getting a little quote happy. But I do love that declaration. Concise bit of work. Packs a real punch.

I feel like the founding fathers structured our democracy to be malleable. We are suppose to work within the system to change it as much as we can, it was set up that way. I, and I think you agree, believe that they also strongly implied and laid the groundwork for the possibility of having to overthrow the government should it become too overbearing. IMO, revolution is the sole context in which the 2nd Amendment was written.

Yep. The also structured it with clearly limited powers granted to the branches of the government. Privacy--that is, the limitation of governmental knowledge into the private affairs of the people--further limit's their scope. This ruling stands in gross and ugly contrast to the principles of this nation.

[Natural Law]'s not really applicable.

Natural Law is always applicable. It is the foundation upon which all lesser laws are built. One can always choose to stand on Natural Law, unless these Rights have been knowingly disavowed (contract), or if one acts in such a manner (a de facto subject of merit-less statute).

...leads them to believe that a more serious, more urgent crime being committed inside I think they should have the ability to enter.

Benjamin Franklin replies, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What this removes is the possibility that a police officer can witness a crime through a window and be unable to stop it without contacting a judge first. The police are still required to be able to show that they had probable cause (or reasonable suspicion) to enter the home without a warrant at trial.

The warrant process is the mechanism of the Fourth Amendment. A lawful warrant defines the scope and target of search. Anything discovered, outside the color of the warrant is inadmissible in court. Thus limiting the reach of the government into private lives. This should not be compromised.

And it's the responsibility of the citizens to shape their government into what they want it to be. The problem is that generally "the people" don't really care as long as they have TV, alcohol and cheap gasoline. If the voting population allows injustices to go on then it's not tyranny, it's apathy, and I have no desire to initiate a revolution in which thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people would likely die just because most of them were too lazy to vote and too complacent to care.

Firstly, to be nit picky, this nation is structured as a representative democracy, not a popular democracy. The de facto structure under which it operates is not constitutional.

Within the context of this structure, when the people vote, the votes are not counted. And when they are counted, and the results are unfavorable to the courts (as the powers-that-be/agents-thereof), they simply overrule them. Think W. vs. Enviroman, FL.

 

[ak-51]

Nice response! I think we're reaching consensus on some broader points, we'll probably continue to differ on the finer ones though.

Note that I responded to this over the course of several hours, walking away and doing other things in between writing and reading. Some of it may be redundant, I'll probably edit it down later.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David: "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." Any public policy or theory of search that permits or postulates resistances to unlawful action is self-contradictory. It has no merit. It is shit.

I concede that I have a big problem with the way the way the Justice worded that. Ideally, for me to be more accepting of the ruling, they would have stated it as "what appears to be an unlawful police entry". What is or isn't a lawful entry can only be determined by the Judiciary. Neither the police executing the entry nor the citizen possibly defending against it has the authority to make that call. So without either party being able to determine whether police entry is lawful or not, wording it as if they do know is unnecessary. Still from a practical perspective I find it hard to accept the idea of allowing citizens to resist (I think the connotation here is violently, even if in self defense) the police. I can only imagine that allowance leading to more fatalities. If we could somehow determine, chaos of the moment aside, judicial qualifications aside, that a raid was illegal I think that ideally we should have a right to resist. My problem is that I can't see that ever being applied to our law in a practical and beneficial way for reasons I have already stated. This is where concept and theories conflict with pragmatic policy-making and overall public good. It's always a hard line to draw, wherever you think that line is.

Any defense of home in an unlawful invasion is protected by an individuals right to defend himself. Arguably, any action taken in a home invasion--regardless of the paperwork--is justifiable. Hence SWAT's body armor. And a man pushing an officer who tried to invade his home. Such an invasion constituents violence. The immediate response to violence is defense, not civil action.

We should have the right to defend ourselves in our homes in a broad sense. I would defer this again to individual cases though. It is in the public interest to allow our law enforcement officials to go into private residences against the occupants will when investigating certain crimes. When, how, and under what circumstances we should let them do that is a matter of debate.

Okay. I'd rather no one shoot anyone. But the notion of unlawful entry cannot be endorsed, regardless, by anyone. When the Justice names it unlawful, and says it's okay, we have a problem.

Like I said, I do take issue with the way he worded that. As a matter of policy I see how the government cannot allow violence against our public officials, it would only create more violence.

I suggest that attempting to limit the field of jurisprudence to State Law, or Constitutional Law, in this discussion is a fundamental mistake. This nation is founded on principles of Natural Law, not on statute or constitution. For reference, I remind: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Moreover, the government is limited: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This ruling stands in gross and ugly contrast to the principles of this nation.

In theory, we should not have to endure anything from our government that we know to be illegal or unconstitutional. In practice though, that idea presents several problems. The first problem is that what is illegal or unconstitutional is somewhat subjective. The second is that by human nature, the government will make mistakes, some will be innocent and others malicious. It is in our interest, and our governments interest to have in place policy to deal with these mistakes without violence. Thirdly, as I have stated before, only the Judiciary should be allowed to determine what is legal or constitutional. There are, and should be, exceptions to the framework of our law that are there for practical reasons. Shooting someone in self defense may be murder, you would be breaking a law to shoot somebody, but we allow people this extra-judicial action as long as it can be proven that they had sufficient justification and they are absolved. Oppositely police too have the ability to act out of urgency and there is a need for such unsanctioned action frequently, what is important is that they are still held accountable by the Judicial branch. They, like the citizen, must prove that their circumvention was necessary and reasonable.

Natural Law is always applicable. It is the foundation upon which all lesser laws are built. One can always choose to stand on Natural Law, unless these Rights have been knowingly disavowed (contract), or if one acts in such a manner (a de facto subject of merit-less statute).

I will say that we can look back to it for guidance, but it should not without further reason overrule what legal framework has been laid already.

Benjamin Franklin replies, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

A great quote, and one which I would reference in my opposition to a lot of other modern legislation (a lot of Patriot Act stuff). I think the quote can be taken to an extreme though. Although it may be an oversimplification, any government can be put onto a sliding scale between total anarchy and absolute totalitarianism. The subjective part is how much of what do we relinquish to the government to provide us with the things that government can? I would argue that to allow any involuntary tax would be to relinquish some freedom, and having law enforcement at all is also relinquishing some freedom. A government will always have to balance liberty and safety, perfection is impossible, but I think the extremes in either direction are sure failures.

The warrant process is the mechanism of the Fourth Amendment. A lawful warrant defines the scope and target of search. Anything discovered, outside the color of the warrant is inadmissible in court. Thus limiting the reach of the government into private lives. This should not be compromised.

There are countless instances where the police are not required to obtain a warrant to search your "persons, houses, papers and effects". We should indeed look to the 4th Amendment to determine how to enact law enforcement policy. The difficulty of doing so stems from the fact that much of the language they used is so subjective. The Amendment states "unreasonable searches and seizures". I don't think they are barring all unwarranted searches or seizures, just unreasonable ones.

Firstly, to be nit picky, this nation is structured as a representative democracy, not a popular democracy. The de facto structure under which it operates is not constitutional.

True, but even so it is still a government by the people, for the people (widespread contamination by the influences of corporate and oligarchical power aside...). It is unfortunate that I don't see such change happening in any meaningful way due to such widespread apathy.

 

[Stress_test]

So...Say you have an illegal grow going. The cops show up without a warrant and attempt to gain entry to your house.

You would then shoot at them? You're willing to go down, not only for the illegal grow but also for murdering/attempting to murder a LEO?

Not only would that seal your fate of life imprisonment/the death penalty. It also adds credence to their illogical propaganda and adds ammo to their altering reality and gaining the public's trust that growers are barbaric, ruthless individuals with no regard for anyone else's lives.

Your fear is the reason that they continue taking your rights and freedoms.
I don't grow or do anything else illegally and they aren't taking my rights or freedoms because I AM willing to defend mine, no matter the consequences.
They will need a warrant to enter my home or property, regardless of any ruling to the contrary.

And yes. If Leo attempts to enter my home without a warrant they will be met will sufficient resistance to repel them.

If I go down in the process then I reckon I'll be another American casualty. But I'll remain American despite the unconstitutional and illegal actions of Leo.

 

[SmokinErb]

Indiana supreme court states 4th amendment "null and void"

Indiana supreme court states 4th amendment "null and void"

This isn't exactly about cannabis, so I just decided to put it here. But long story short, the Indiana Supreme Court has deemed our 4th amendment constitutional right, as well as the Indiana state constitution section 11 null and void. According to Justice Stephen David:

"...under "modern" (post-patriot act) jurdisprudence, Indiana residence must submit to the violent forces of any and all unlawful intrusion instigated by law enforcement. The court justifies such intrusion as individuals having better access to courts, than at the elevation of the right to common-law."

And also:

"We believe however that a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incomoatible with (SIC) modern 4th amendment jurdisprudence."

 

[SmokinErb]

Oh, I got rhis bit of info here: http://smargus.com/indiana-supreme-court-threatened-after-allowing-warrantless-searches/

Saw it on the news and looked into it a bit. Sucks being in Indiana right now.

 

[GP73LPC]

unbelievable !!! What is happening to America?

here's another link...

http://www.redstate.com/lineholder/2011/05/15/the-indiana-supreme-court-did-what/

 

[SpasticGramps]

I think there was another thread about this, but yeah even the illusion of rights that we thought we had is beginning to be stripped away rather quickly.

As a society, we decided long ago that the Constitution wasn't that important and could be changed and molded as needed. We've asked for tyranny and tyranny is what we shall get.

 

[Guest 18340]

They're not saying the police are allowed to enter your home at will without a warrant, only that you can't shoot him in the face and kill the worthless fuck (resist) if they do enter your home illegally but rather take the matter to court.

 

[longearedfriend]

still

they enter your home just like that..

 

[Scoobs]

Welcome to America, home of the free (that's if you meet the requirements of the elite)

 

[Guest 18340]

still

they enter your home just like that..

How do you figure? If they blatantly enter your home "just like that" and a court finds it illegal then any attorney would have a field day having EVERYTHING tossed because it is fruit of the poisoned tree.
Again, it does not give them authority in any way/shape/form to enter your home illegally. Only that you can't resist and to take the matter up in court.
And read the whole case law that led up to that ruling.

 

[Littleleaf]

How many people here can afford a REAL lawer?
Because the ones they give you work for them.
I know I can't.......

 

[Guest 18340]

 

[s13sr20det]

How do you figure? If they blatantly enter your home "just like that" and a court finds it illegal then any attorney would have a field day having EVERYTHING tossed because it is fruit of the poisoned tree.
Again, it does not give them authority in any way/shape/form to enter your home illegally. Only that you can't resist and to take the matter up in court.
And read the whole case law that led up to that ruling.

where is it? in the link gp73 posted it says

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.

sounds like they can come in "just like that"

 

[Guest 18340]

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...urt-ruling-brings-threats?odyssey=mod|mostcom

 

[immaculate]

Meh, where's the anti-federalist argument when you need it? Oh wait, we aren't taught that argument and aren't allowed to study it as part of our education.

The constitution is what is wrong with this country. The constitution is what justifies rule by a central banking cartel by appearing to facilitate a democratic rule of law that really just ensures that each puppet on either side (red and blue), while appearing as different at face value, is really fighting for the same team. While the plebs argue in squalor over which one looks the prettiest. They feed the machine from the top and we argue about what comes out at the bottom, never realizing it's all coming from the same place, as radically "different" as appearances from each side may seem.

What was wrong with the AOC? That becomes clearer once you understand what the Constitution is really in place to do.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

What is or isn't a lawful entry can only be determined by the Judiciary

What is legal is influenced by the Judiciary rulings, process, and relates to statue as statues are themselves legal. Lawful is the term that is used when something is of the essential nature of Law, that is, spirit of the law, born in justice.

Lawyers know this. This is why David's opinion is so fucking absurdly terrifying.

Still from a practical perspective I find it hard to accept the idea of allowing citizens to resist (I think the connotation here is violently, even if in self defense) the police.

Within this country, this opportunity is formalized in the Second Amendment.

In theory, we should not have to endure anything from our government that we know to be illegal or unconstitutional.

This country was born in Rebellion, and it's Constitution is colored by the distrust of oppressive Government. It's theory is in stark contrast to yours, namely: given an opportunity, we will be forced to endure any and all things from our government. Hence the deliberate structural limitations in authority.

I will say that we can look back to [Natural Law] for guidance, but it should not without further reason overrule what legal framework has been laid already.

I apologize if this seems harsh, but both your understanding of law and reasoning are faulty here. The statements of the Declaration of Independence, it justifies dissolution of relationship based on unalienable right, are founded on Natural Law. This country is declines to suppose lineage or divine affiliation as authority of law, but stands on the idea that there are some things innate (natural) that cannot be taken away (unalienable).

It colors everything.

A government will always have to balance liberty and safety, perfection is impossible, but I think the extremes in either direction are sure failures.

This Nations founding bias is radically tipped in favor of individualism over collective. The federal government's constitutional limitations are to provide for interstate commerce, international treaties and defense. Everything else falls to the states. Everything else falls to the person. And most falls to the person. It's idea isn't to protect the collective from the individual, but the individual from the collective.

Franklin understood something lost on modern America. His oft cited quote is not an overstatement.

Everyone has the right to stand free.

No one is entitled to it.

You must stand free to be free.

And that, my bitches, is not an easy thing to do.

It never was, and never will be.

It takes perpetual diligence, and extends beyond the limits mortal will.

It requires that to live free you must be willing to die for that freedom.

It requires that you understand that this is not a metaphor.

Remember: before we became fat, we were bloody.

I don't think they are barring all unwarranted searches or seizures, just unreasonable ones.

The warrant is the mechanic to protect against unreasonable search. That's why it's called a 'warrant' (i.e. "authorization, sanction, or justification").

Sure, shit happens. Doors get kicked in, handcuffs are put on. But the cops have to follow the rules, because we are first and foremost (on the old papers, anyway) a nation of freemen. Legally, you cannot press charges on actions you never should have been aware of had you not unreasonably searched.

Yes, this limits police authority. It is fucking supposed to.

It is unfortunate that I don't see such change happening in any meaningful way due to such widespread apathy.

We only see what is in front of our eyes.

If you are serious, and not just playing around with the ideas of Law and Authority for fun--which is okay in it's own right--I would suggest there is a different view of being on this planet, operating Lawfully. And the collective apathy doesn't change your Natural Rights and their corresponding Obligations.