Court: U.S. constitution invalid in Indiana

At least that’s the only reasonable interpretation to this awful ruling:

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…

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.

Despite a couple of bad political justices, I see this getting overturned when it surely gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.

6 Responses

  1. I agree with you in principle but the officer knows there are 2 people there and is allowed to ask the other one (the wife) if she is OK with the situation. The wife can also invite the officer in.

  2. It is agreed that his entry was illegal, and the wife did not invite him in. Given these facts, the man should have had the right to punch him in the face. If he pleased.

  3. Facts as you presented them are sketchy. Did the wife not invite the police in because she was intimidated by her husband? Was it a violent arguement or a mere raising of voices? Were they distubing the neighborhood? What time of day did this happen? Did he drag her inside yelling and screaming or did she appear to go willingly and tell the officers there was no trouble and could leave??
    All of these factors could be a legal reason why officers should act to intervene. If they did not and some violent act was committed behind closed doors could leave the officers liable for not doing their job.

    Facts man….just the facts…

  4. The issue here is not whether the police should have entered or not, they should have, regardless of what the husband said. The issue is whether he is guilty of assaulting a police officer.

    The court has said yes, you can’t, essentially, assault a police officer regardless of the reason.

    Most reasonable people would say that’s foolish, if the officer is trying to force his way into your home and you have done nothing wrong, you should be able to defend your home from them as much as you could from anyone else.

  5. This whole case got to where it did based upon the fact that the cop entered the home illegally. If his entry was actually lawful, there would be no reason for the husband to appeal in this way.

  6. There might be.

    It IS plausible that both the cop entered legally and the husband resisted legally. So neither would be guilty of a crime. That’s the underlying event for the ruling, as far as I can tell.

    The main issue I guess is that the courts decision says people have no right to stop the police entering their homes, even if that is illegal. This is solely in the interest of preventing any violence from occurring. The carte blanche application is the constitutional issue. Both dissenting justices said in some circumstances they would have supported the police action, such as domestic issues (which this was). Which might be a reasonable restriction.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: