11

Politics

Indiana Residents Must Submit, Says State Supreme Court

If you live in Indiana and the police happen to come to your abode … assume the position.

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. [emphasis mine]

Yeah. You read that right. Weep later. Read this first, then do what you must do.

Tags:

— Jim Lakely

Jim is the the director of communications at The Heartland Institute. Prior to joining Heartland, he was an ink-stained newspaperman for 16 years with many stops in "old media." Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.

  • Ben Mayer

     You have got to be kidding me.  Throw all these bastards in jail.  Sorry for the language but that is wrong.  These men are supposed to uphold the constitution and they are stomping all over it.

    • Tyler M.

      Ben, are you under the impression that if a police officer, mistakenly believing that the warrant he holds is valid (therefore making his entry unlawful), you have a constitutional right to shoot him (otherwise they justices wouldn’t be trampling the constitution)?

      You may be right, but I doubt it very much.  More likely, the right to self-defense is defined primarily by state common law, rather than by federal constitutional law.  I’ve linked to a short paper discussing the possibility that there is a constitutional (federal) right to self defense, which concludes that there probably is, but that the scope is largely up in the air. 

      My hunch is that the Indiana Supreme Court decision, being narrow in its scope, probably passes constitutional muster.  Of course, as Professor Lund’s paper should make clear, it isn’t so obvious that there is a federal constitutional right at all.  At least you can feel secure that you know what is and is not constitutional better than three Indiana Supreme Court Justices and a bunch of law professors!

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=912277

  • Michael J Keating

     So, can we assume this will be appealed to a federal court?

  • Rpbakeriii2001

     The judge needs to be impeached (was he an Obama/Dem appointee?).  

    • Tom

       No he is one of your  REPUBLICAN that think they know all !!!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/misterwax William R. Smith

    thanks for the ad invite Jim… will be accepted post haste!  keep in touch, Bill 

  • Caroline Andrews

     How did we come to this, in the United States of America?  I think I’ll avoid ever going back to Indiana.

  • Daniel

    So now all a robber has to do is get a fake badge to make you let them in because just in case they are actual cops you will get arrested if you resist. Yeah that makes me feel a lot safer after all no deceitful greedy criminal would think of that. Come on use some commen sense on this and think reverse this tradic stuip ruling. 

  • Tta2

    So resistance is bad because it could lead to increased violence?  What if a cop comes in and tries to rape you?  Resisting would lead to an increase in violence, so I guess you shouldn’t resist? 

  • Info

    The real question is whether such invasion is a federal civil rights violation and whether cops will be fined, fired, and imprisoned for it. This is where an ACLU can be helpful.

  • Tyler M.

    This is a tough one, I think.  But the idea that the Indiana Supreme Court somehow overruled the Fourth Amendment, or ruled that it does not apply, is ridiculous.  The Fourth Amendment does not give you a right to shoot a police officer (or anyone else) who enters your house unlawfully.  There is a right to self-defense in certain situations, but that has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment.

    The reason this is a hard case is because I suspect that, in the ordinary situation, an unlawful entry by police is not driven by a police desire to willy-nilly violate your rights because they have nothing else to do.  Instead, the entry is believed by the officer to be lawful, but mistakenly so.  For example, the warrant the officer believes justifies his actions may be invalid. In this situation, not allowing violence makes perfect sense.  On the other end of the spectrum, if an officer knows he is violating the law, then force might be justified in some circumstances, and this ruling could raise some problems (in that it might discourage some lawful self-defense).  But at the same time, there will often be legal recourse.  If the unlawful entry produces evidence against you, the Fourth Amendment likely means the State will not be able to use it at trial.  You could also sue the officer for trespass (though damages are often minimal), or (potentially) for a violation of your civil rights, and get money damages.

    What troubles me the most about the articles you linked to, I think, is the the hope that the justices who made the decision will be impeached or removed by election.  Electing judges is a dirty business.