Indiana Court rules that defending your home against illegal police entry is illegal
 

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that:

1. Police no longer must announce their presence when serving a warrant before entering the home - even if the door must be kicked, exploded or shot down, and they no longer have to seek a judge's permission to enter without announcing their presence.

2. Police officers can enter your home without a warrant or immediate cause for search and entry.

3. if your home is illegally entered by a law enforcement officer you have no recourse but to file suite at a later date.

This opens a window for any officer, for any reason to enter your home and do with you and your family what they will while stripping you of your right to defend yourself, your family and your home from an illegal home invasion.

given that the average joe citizen who has not been suspected of a crime should be safe... but there is always that what if?

Personally, i think this creates a dangerous situation. If suddenly my door is being kicked down without any announcement my instinct would be one of defense. And i'm an innocent citizen.

I can only imagine what would be going through the mind of a person who has committed a criminal act.

I think the judgment should have been limited to cases involving domestic disturbance calls only.


Take your pick of sources

FOX NEWS http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-police-homes/

CHICAGO TRIBUNE http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2225708.story

Sounds like a constitutional matter.

Perhaps a certain judge needs to be reminded that Constitution trumps Law.
(Or is this to be one more tare, in the incremental shredding of USA's Constitution?)

Actually both sources suck as they give very little information on the case. How can any news media publish a story and not give the case citation or even the name of the defendant. :damn:

I would recommend

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...5121101shd.pdf

Which is the Indiana Supreme Court Decision

The Indiana Supreme Court decision is in conflict with several United States Supreme Court decisions on similar cases. I suspect a writ of certiorari to be forthcoming from the SCotUS.

I believe that the arrest of Barnes was appropriate and correct. However, I do not see how this case sets a precedent for overturning The US Supreme Court decisions of 1900 and 1948.

I would be willing to bet a Scobby Snack that Barns V State of Indiana will be overturned.

So, Indiana cops are pretty unreasonable - especially inner city and state patrolmen - and I've seen quite a few rogue cops that abuse their power.

Now they can break in and rob me - and theres nothing I can do about it.

You can blow their heads off. Without announcing who they are you could make a case of just defending yourself against unknown armed assailants.

We had a case like this years ago in my state. Cops made a mistake and entered the wrong house late at night. The man, being totally innocent saw several men coming up his driveway, he knew he had broken no crimes ever, so thought a gang, he ran to his room and got a shotgun. He had a wife and two kids in the house. He stated they busted down the door, then he shot from from the other side of the living room at the hallway..then they started screaming police entering the home,

Imagine how he felt, were they police, were they playing cops, totally dark. Long story the man was yelling stop, I don't know who you are, the cops yelling for him to come out...it finally settled out, but one cop injured.

The man was arrested, but later released and awarded a multimillion lawsuit. The cops info was terrible, as I recall they weren't even on the right street.

On some level, I understand the decision because I empathize with the idea that it would be better if the homeowner sought a civil remedy after the fact than if s/he resisted with force when it happened. It's certainly better from a public policy point of view. Waco comes to mind.

But "public policy" is exactly why I'm not comfortable with the decision. It's one more step down the path of courts making policy decisions instead of legal decisions. The straight-up legal answer to this is pretty simple: a police officer's authority is limited, and when an officer goes beyond those boundaries s/he no longer has the shield of that authority, and is in the same position as any other person.

EDIT: I think another reason I'm uncomfortable with it is that it represents a shift from an expectation that a citizen will submit to authority according to law to an expectation that a citizen will submit to another individual, regardless of law. That offends my values.

Back that truck up a second.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

tell it to the supreme court of indiana:shifty:

Before we get excited, this is not what the court ruling said. What the Indiana courts ruling said was that it was upholding the existing exemptions for a warrentless search. The police, in Indiana, can already enter and search your house without a warrent if specific factors apply. That is all the Indiana Supreme Court's decision said (page 5). The court's decision did not increase the number of exemptions nor did it remove the already existing requirement for a search warrant under normal circumstances.

This is why one should never rely on the media to report the facts, always go to the original source.

So the householder was the person who called the police to her home, the incident with the police and Barnes first started out in the street, the home barnes claimed he was defending was the one he was being thrown out of.
Whodathunkit, if you call the police to your house as an emergency they can come in, if the person causing the disturbance at that house acts like a jerk he gets arrested.

Defend...do you mean use force on the officers? As far as I know, Its an established precedent that you are not allowed to use force against another person unless you are threatened, even going so far as to not being able to shoot intruders like burglars unless you can prove there was danger to yourself or others. A Police officer entering you home Illegally isn't an offense that warrants force, so no, as crummy as it sounds I can see why you are not allowed to "defend your home" from somebody who is not putting your safety in danger.

thats the section of the Illinois law. I think the fact of the matter is, is that it would be very difficult to prove force was needed to defend yourself against a police officer. Since It says it has to be "necessary", which it was not, that is why its unlawful.

The issue is not defending against a police officer, but the fear of bodily harm to you or your family. If I'm innocent and wake up half asleep and hear someone beating down my door or walking through my home, that's a problem. That's why police need just cause..Believe me when a criminal hears the door being caved in and the word police, he knows what's happening, innocent people would have cause for suspect. One of the biggest scams of crooks is acting police.

Mistakes happen, but proper codes, warrants, etc, before entering homes. If not, watch how many police officers and home owners start getting shot.

In NC you can shoot someone if they break into your home and you feel threatened. The key is to say your threatened. In every case I've read, the fact someone entered your home implied enough threat. Now, we have had a few dumbarses goof things up for themselves..

Someone enters my home day or night, my family is here they're gonna get shot be damned. Now, if it was so obvious I could stop it without, sure, but if I feel the least threat of harm could be done to my wife or kids, I would..

Heck, my grandmother killed her husbands best friend in the 30's and shot him..They were supposed to be out of town, but came in late and were sneaking the car out of the barn pushing it down the road...she thought it was being stolen. They gave the guy a funeral, filed a report with the local Sheriff and that was it.

That varies from state to state. The problem is knowing whether you are threatened. If you catch someone in your home with your television in his hands you can be fairly certain you're not in enough danger to warrant shooting him out-of-hand, but you certainly are able to "detain" him by making him think you may shoot him anyway.

On the other hand if someone kicks in your door you can be pretty sure they have harmful intent, which makes it a problem if it's the representatives of the law doing the kicking. How do you know they're really the police? How do you know the police aren't there to just kill you? You don't.

Here in Utah the law pretty much allows you to shoot anyone who comes into your home without your permission.
Emphasis is mine. Notice how they hedged their bets. If you force your way in then you are a threat. If you sneak in, well, you're a threat anyway. If you sneak in and I think you may be a threat, then you're a threat. Basically, if I catch you in my home without my permission, Utah law says you're pretty much screwed. This applies to everyone, including cops.