Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
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.”
The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him. Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence. Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Every day, it gets a little worse.












Pure stupidity. This will last until the first police officer looses his life because a homeowner gets scared and shoots or someones daughter gets raped because the homeowner assumed it was the police breaking into his home. A big can of worms only lawyers could love. This judge needs to be removed and jailed; what part of our Constitution is unclear to him?
If anyone comes through my door, I will do just what my father, the FBI Special Agent taught me to do. “Shoot first, ask questions later.”
All villains should put their hands together.
You describe this as ‘unlawful’ entry. Fair do’s.
In my ignorance I presume this to mean ‘against the law’ (or is there another meaning?)
Also, any evidence or goods seized are improperly (in law) taken, therefore also – presumably – inadmissible.
I’m also interested in two other matters:
Where did this judge qualify (presumably Indiana – ‘nuf said) and secondly
What is he drinking or smoking, seems to be good stuff to me.
What a bunch of retards.
If “someone” is breaking into your house, you can shoot them (sic) but if you actually “know” they are the police, then shooting them is illegal (sic).
sic = conditions apply.
Idiots. You don’t deserve a Bill of Rights.
Keep electing progressives and it will all be over soon:
http://uncoverage.net/2011/05/3-disturbing-court-rulings-this-week-reverse-racism-and-its-not-your-castle/
The information obtained from illegal entry should be inadmissible. Still, assault on a police officer is assault period.
I thought the following was the final decision but it rules on a different case. Rats. Looks like I will have to read VERY carefully to see what words they are defining. Ain’t it a bitch when you can’t (shouldn’t) just read anything you want to any which way you want to?
http://supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf
Have to read again, maybe a third time.
Fight back here
http://mycountrymyass.com/indiana.html