Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist illegal police entry into home

Eliot Rosewater

Bit of a bizzare one. Apparently the Indiana Supreme Court has opined that citizens of the state have no right to resist police entering their homes even if police do not have a warrant (i.e., entering illegally).

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in_indiana_no_right_to_resist_unlawful_police_entry_at_home/

Opponents of the ruling are citing the Fourth Amendment:

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.

It does seem a queer ruling in light of the constitution, but then my knowledge of American law is sparse to non-existent. Thoughts?

Overheal

Bizarre indeed. If police were [continued to be] disallowed from illegally entering a home under the 4th amendment, that would also reduce the risk of violence, as cited in the ruling.

But, the Supreme Court of Indiana is a court of Indiana Law. Perhaps they found no other legal precedent in the Indiana Constitution or State Law to find it unlawful. But, something like this is likely to reach the US Supreme Court and I imagine they would rule in favor of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, effectively overruling the lower Indiana SC's ruling. Unless I too am mistaken about State and Federal Law.

metrovelvet

Isnt there also a clause about reasonable suspicion/probably cause or something like that?

jackiebaron

Overheal wrote: »

Bizarre indeed. If police were [continued to be] disallowed from illegally entering a home under the 4th amendment, that would also reduce the risk of violence, as cited in the ruling.

But, the Supreme Court of Indiana is a court of Indiana Law. Perhaps they found no other legal precedent in the Indiana Constitution or State Law to find it unlawful. But, something like this is likely to reach the US Supreme Court and I imagine they would rule in favor of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, effectively overruling the lower Indiana SC's ruling. Unless I too am mistaken about State and Federal Law.

It's just another example of civil liberties being dismantled little by little. When detention without charge or trial was introduced people called it the slippery slope and they were denigrated as terrorist-sympathisers or some such crap. When warrantless wiretaps were introduced they said the same thing and were met with the cretinous "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to lose" crap. Eliot Spitzer was actually snooped on and it was made possible by the Patriot Act. So much for the government only using these powers to nail foreign men of Middle Eastern origin.

The Constitution of the US is no longer worth the paper it's written on.

Manach

It mentioned "public policy". Here that would a doctrine that allows a wider than normal interpretation of the law by the judge. Given the historical dislike of illegal searches, IFIR dating from their revolutionary period I'd be very surprised if this were not challenged at a higher circuit.