Indiana Court says police can enter homes without warrant?

  • News
  • Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date
  • #1
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13

Main Question or Discussion Point

INDIANAPOLIS | 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.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

What? What? Just... what? What?

Reading the fourth amendment...

Fourth Amendment said:
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.
I'm pretty sure these two decisions don't work with each other...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
I get that they are trying to avoid an escalation of conflict in the event the officer has a legitimate reason for entering the home. However, if the only recourse is civil action then I don’t think there is a sufficient deterrent in place to keep a police officer from unlawfully breaking into a person’s home. As to the case at hand a couple arguing does not seem like probably cause to me but I am not aware of all details.
 
  • #3
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291
You unilaterally declare independence, and then you whine that you aren't protected by Magna Carta? Toys, pram, throw out of ... :grin:
 
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
19,425
5,614
I don't see how it violates the 4th amendment, Char. Could you explain what you are seeing?

Or more affirmatively:

1. Who gets to decide if the police are acting illegally?
2. How forcefully should people be allowed to resist?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Entering a home without a warrant sounds like an unreasonable search to me. Especially the "any reason or no reason at all" part.
 
  • #6
Oltz
So this says a cop can walk into your house and into your bathroom while your daughter is showering just because he feels like it and you can do nothing to resist him?

Now I doubt he will stay a cop for long but he can still do it.

These new interpretations are just great...land of the unintended consequences
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
19,425
5,614
Please see the questions I added above....

It appears to me that you are completely missing the point. The issue of what is reasonable search is not in question here. This court case is about if you can resist when the police are doing something wrong.
 
  • #8
918
16
So, if a cop burgles my home and I resist, we both go to jail?
 
  • #9
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Now this is just my opinion, and unsupported at that, but I feel that any resistance short of incapacitating force (broken bone, basically anything semi-permanent, etc.) should be allowed if a police officer is trying to enter your house without a warrant.
 
  • #10
Oltz
Personally if I find you in my home with out my permission or a legal warrant you are likely to be shot if you are not gone in the amount of time it takes me to get and load a weapon.

I believe that fake badges and uniforms do exist.

I will defend what is mine to the extent of my ability.
 
  • #11
cmb
782
13
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.
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.
Isn't being called to an incident 'probable cause, by affirmation'?

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215
Ah! That old chestnut! Don't we all just long for those good ol' days. I trust you practice your long bow once a week (and shoot Welshmen on sight, after the hours of sunset) for fear of otherwise being arrested by the local Magistrate for failing your civic duty!

The point of the ruling is that there is due remedy against an unlawful entry by the Police, but that remedy is not to fight back. It is clearly wrong to cause a fight at the moment of incident. Any reasonable jurisprudence allows for complaints to be made, and heard, so that the aggrieved party is given audience to argue their case and seek a remedy.
 
  • #12
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
The point of the ruling is that there is due remedy against an unlawful entry by the Police, but that remedy is not to fight back.
Given the apparent lack of willingness of police and courts to arrest and prosecute fellow officers of the law (at least in my hometown), what is this due remedy?
 
  • #13
cmb
782
13
Given the apparent lack of willingness of police and courts to arrest and prosecute fellow officers of the law (at least in my hometown), what is this due remedy?
Of course, because the Police pursue criminal cases, and trespass is not [usually] a criminal action (unless there is criminal intent aforethought). If a Police officer enters your premises without probable cause then you may seek civil penalties and compensation.
 
  • #14
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
7,973
1,261
"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."

Isn't being called to an incident 'probable cause, by affirmation'?
No, the way that is supposed to read is that probable cause is needed for a warrant. As written, there is not other basis for a search except a warrant.

Of course, jurisprudence has added a lot of interpretation to this, e.g. hot pursuit doctrines.
 
  • #15
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Of course, because the Police pursue criminal cases, and trespass is not [usually] a criminal action (unless there is criminal intent aforethought). If a Police officer enters your premises without probable cause then you may seek civil penalties and compensation.
Oh. Fun. Law always manages to trip me up.
 
  • #16
IMP
21
1
INDIANAPOLIS | 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.
If the entry is unlawful you automatically have the right to resist. I am not sure who these guys think they are but that is almost comical.
 
  • #17
Oltz
Isn't being called to an incident 'probable cause, by affirmation'?



Ah! That old chestnut! Don't we all just long for those good ol' days. I trust you practice your long bow once a week, for fear of being arrested by the local Magistrate and put in the stocks.

The point of the ruling is that there is due remedy against an unlawful entry by the Police, but that remedy is not to fight back.

If you do not have a warrant I am supposed to trust you are the police if you say so

and if you actually read the quote you posted and bolded you will see that it actually means you can not even get a warrant with out probable cause granted because of sufficient evidence and that warrant is only good for the specific place items and person in question.


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.
, but upon is equal to with out in our current language so nobody and nothing can be searched with out a warrant AND that warranted has to be justified.

If showing up to every call was probable cause and I was a cop who wanted to search a suspected drug dealers house I could just have my wife call and say she heard something from out in the street and she was worried.

This has nothing to do with going into a home because somebody was screaming help.
 
  • #18
cmb
782
13
No, the way that is supposed to read is that probable cause is needed for a warrant. As written, there is not other basis for a search except a warrant.
It is not possible to determine if any suitable affirmations in law were received for this purpose. But in any case, it is not at all material in regards the [correct] ruling made and reported in the piece.

The remedy is a civil action. It would be an uncivilised society that claims it is OK to kill someone just because they made some form of mistake that caused them to be on your property without due cause. (Nor can you please 'self-defence' against someone whom you have no reason to believe is going to cause you harm.)

I am not 'pro Police'. Far from it - the inverse, in fact. I have had my own run-ins with our locals, but I simply plodded down a correct legal route and came out the better for it (both justice-wise, and financially!). If you don't play it cool, you have already lost. It's their game. Play your hand straight and make justified claims. Claiming you have a right to beat up someone in your house whom you know is not there to do you harm is daft.
 
  • #19
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
7,973
1,261
It is not possible to determine if any suitable affirmations in law were received for this purpose. But in any case, it is not at all material in regards the [correct] ruling made and reported in the piece.

The remedy is a civil action. It would be an uncivilised society that claims it is OK to kill someone just because they made some form of mistake that caused them to be on your property without due cause. (Nor can you please 'self-defence' against someone whom you have no reason to believe is going to cause you harm.)

I am not 'pro Police'. Far from it - the inverse, in fact. I have had my own run-ins with our locals, but I simply plodded down a correct legal route and came out the better for it (both justice-wise, and financially!). If you don't play it cool, you have already lost. It's their game. Play your hand straight and make justified claims. Claiming you have a right to beat up someone in your house whom you know is not there to do you harm is daft.
I said none of the things you imply. I simply explained that you were mis-construing the language of the 4th ammentment, and you were.
 
  • #20
Oltz
You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home. You also can shoot somebody and not kill them which would be the wise thing to do and how on earth do you know they are not in your home to do you harm?

If you are in my home with out my permission why would I believe a word you had to say with out some form of proof (i.e. a warrant) and if you were a cop in my home legally and I came home and said get out of my house or I will shoot you. You would say I have a warrant I would say ok go outside I will look at it and then allow you in if you refused to comply and refused to peacefully follow my requests prior to providing legal documents I am with in my rights to use force to vacate you as I have no reasonable assurance you belong.

If I were already home you would need a warant to get through the door. If you forced entry with out providing it I would defend myself.

Anyone who enters my house with out my knowledge or permission is assumed to be "there to cause harm".

This is a joke and will get thrown out very quickly.
 
  • #21
IMP
21
1
You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home. You also can shoot somebody and not kill them which would be the wise thing to do and how on earth do you know they are not in your home to do you harm?

If you are in my home with out my permission why would I believe a word you had to say with out some form of proof (i.e. a warrant) and if you were a cop in my home legally and I came home and said get out of my house or I will shoot you. You would say I have a warrant I would say ok go outside I will look at it and then allow you in if you refused to comply and refused to peacefully follow my requests prior to providing legal documents I am with in my rights to use force to vacate you as I have no reasonable assurance you belong.

If I were already home you would need a warant to get through the door. If you forced entry with out providing it I would defend myself.

Anyone who enters my house with out my knowledge or permission is assumed to be "there to cause harm".

This is a joke and will get thrown out very quickly.
X2

It will get throw out quickly.
 
  • #22
cmb
782
13
You can most certainly shoot somebody for being in your home.
That is patently absurd!

You may defend yourself against a person if you are in fear of them doing harm to you, but you are confusing retaliation with self-defence.

According to that sound-bite, you may invite into your house a door-to-door salesman, say to him 'you are in my house and I hereby rescind my invite. I hate being disturbed by you and you are now in my house', and shoot him dead.

You are a danger to society if you think you can shoot someone in your house simply because you choose to do so. You should be denied holding any guns, on the basis of a psychosis that you believe everyone you see is out to do you harm.
 
  • #23
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291
So, if a cop burgles my home and I resist, we both go to jail?
In the UK, if anybody burgles your home and you resist, you might both go to jail.

Note "might" not "will". We have this strange idea that it's better to let a judge and jury decide the outcome (for both people involved), rather than shooting first and thinking afterwards.
 
  • #24
nsaspook
Science Advisor
927
1,250
X2

It will get throw out quickly.
I'd say Officers who like our constitution should stop by that Judges house at random times on random days and enter just because they felt like it, using his ruling to say they can do so.
 
  • #25
863
4
You have the right to resist anyone else entering your home unlawfully, and police shouldn't get any special privileges.
 

Related Threads on Indiana Court says police can enter homes without warrant?

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
83
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
90
Views
6K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Top