You've done it again.

The Fourth Amendment is alive and well. Anything found by such a search will be thrown out of court and a civil case against the officer or the police force can proceed.

Meanwhile, you feel that the proper response to such a search is to have a physical altercation in the threshold of your door with an armed and possibly stupid police officer. Maybe you'll use your Second Amendment firearm to shoot him in the face? Now you've got the whole police force at your door with a reason to create real havoc and by the end of the day, lots of people are dead.

Which is a better outcome?

The Economist did a recent article on 4th Amendment problems.

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=3856663&story_id=18681714

Also, still don't like the commment system here - I'd vote for Disqus or Intense Debate.

The Fourth Amendment is alive and well. Anything found by such a search will be thrown out of court and a civil case against the officer or the police force can proceed.

That is all well and good that it will be thrown out sometime down the road. The damage will have been done and no amount redress can walk that back.

I'll give you an example: Ten friends (guys and ladies, 17-23) are sitting around on a Saturday evening having a few beers (and there might be a joint available.) The cop shows up and tell them to turn the stereo down. He forces his way in without a warrant. He busts three 19 years olds for underage possession and consumption. Whoops their driver's licenses are now suspended. He busts the 18 year old for boffing his 17 year old gf. That's statutory rape and a listing on the sex offenders list. One of the people has a little more pot than he should. That's now a felony drug possession. He's probably not going to get that high paying job.

That isn't even the mention of the $10K+ in lawyers fees that it will cost the individuals.

Yes -- if they can suppress the illegal search it will go away. Want to take odds on the suppression being successful?

And that is if the parties involved are smart enough to know their fifth amendment rights and shut up. If they make any kind of statement -- that can be used against them as well.

That is all well and good that it will be thrown out sometime down the road. The damage will have been done and no amount redress can walk that back.

Thank you, Jim P. Exactly right.

Never mind that now they can use the resistance to the search itself as post-hoc justification for anything they find under the "inevitable discovery" doctrine.

If SCOTUS doesn't kill this dead, then the nation is done.

The effect of this ruling is a de facto ban on self defense in your home. You can never be sure whether the thug busting done your front door wearing a black vest with the words "police" on it is in fact the local Police SEAL team wannabes or just some thugs pretending to be police.

Lot of us are very damned upset over this crap.

And Bill is correct. Do a search and you'll find stories on a lot of home-invasion robberies where the bad guys yell "POLICE!" when they break in. Sometimes wearing jackets that say it. These idiot judges have basically said "You'll have to expect someone breaking in your door to be the police, and you're not allowed to resist."

ANYBODY illegally entering your home should expect to be treated as a burglar or robber or rapist. And that includes police.

Another one that has come to mind....

Way back when on Cops the cops had chased someone across a backyard and made the arrest on another property. The owners had sort of seen the action from their backdoor.

The guy was drunk and a little belligerent -- along the lines "I don't want to be involved. Get the f' off my property. Cops are all a bunch of idiots." But he was standing inside his own threshold and talking through the screen door. The cop challenged him to come outside and say the same thing. The guy was smart enough to know if he stepped outside, the cop was going to hit him with public intox, obstruction, etc. And the cop pretty much admitted he was looking to do it.

This has stuck with me over the years. But what if he could have burst in the house for no reason whatsoever?

I don't care who you are. Attempt to enter my house without my permission, and you're going to get shot.

And if I go down in the process, so be it.

This ruling has bugged me something fierce since I first read about it last week. It simply cannot be allowed to stand.

The Indiana AG is asking for a rehearing on this ruling, stating that it goes way beyond what his office had advocated for.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/21/indiana-attorney-general-seeks-reconsideration-of-fourth-amendment-ruling/

In the judges' own words..
“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

And to be clear, this isn't qualified as being pursuant to a search. They can break in for any reason. IIRC the case at the basis of this involved a domestic violence call. The couple told them that they'd resolved the argument and didn't want to pursue the matter.

So while you may be able to challenge the evidentiary basis of any charges resulting from the break in, you'd still have to pay for the adjudication of any civil claims concerning property damage and the physical assaults which will inevitably result from the break in.

WD why do you assume that all of these incidents will occur at the door step? Why not in your bedroom, or garage, or in your car? You're assuming that the victims will be aware of the entry and the reason. But what this establishes is that police can enter where ever and whenever they like. You might not even be home when they break in, and come home to find them. What happens if you come home to encounter a couple of cops screaming at your daughter in her bedroom, forcing her head down while they kick the shit out of her? That's how the police roll nowadays. They regard us as the enemy. If resisting means more violence, so be it. They'll kill you either way.

Article about poor saps who had public defenders.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011105190582

I live in the state where this law was passed and I am mad as hell about it. My boyfriend and I like to rough house a little bit just playing around sometimes. What if the cop in the little town I live in happens to hear me holler or something through an open window? That shouldn't give him the right to stop and demand to "check things out" in my home. I have nothing in my house to put me in jail, but my home is my private haven and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some nosy, ego-swollen cop in my house to question me about my man and mine's ways of showing affection. I'm with jimg here. I may not shoot someone, but I will do my best to keep him from getting in, whether they be a cop or a criminal. It pisses me off that all the Hoosiers I'm surrounded by don't seem to be bothered by this. I can't even get enough people behind a petition to revoke it to send in to legislators. What's next?

"“In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

Tikken,

The above quote that you offered puts things in a slightly different light. "reasonably resist" is a particularly troubling phrase. I'm glad the Attorney General is asking for a redo. That's sounds like a pretty poorly worded ruling.

But, my larger point stands. That point is that the Fourth Amendment has not been damaged by this.

"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 don't see anywhere in there that says, "... or you can kill the son of a bitch." Or even, "... or you can punch him in the nose."

You have legal recourse and that is how a reasonable person proceeds when his rights are violated. We are a society of laws and that's how it works. These laws are strong and they work.

Now, if they're kicking the crap out of your daughter, as in your 'jackboot thug' scenario, that's obviously another matter as immediate personal safety is at risk. Laws cover that as well.

Again, the Fourth Amendment is alive and well. You can all pretend all you want that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot to whittle away your rights. Rights do tend to be under constant fire, but it isn't anything new and it just isn't happening at any recently accelerated rate.

However, you are very correct to be keeping a vigilant eye out for any erosion of rights and I'm with you there. I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights and have been an ACLU member for nearly twenty years. You're simply off the mark in this particular case.

Reasonable resistance actually comes from British common law, which obviously predated the US constitution. It's regarded as a 4th issue because it's treated as an element of due process. But it doesn't protect conduct rising to the level of an assault. Typically it's been applied to evasion and obstruction. For instance, breaking away from restraints, blocking entrance, running away. The case that provoked this ruling involved an attempt to block entry by holding a door. This escalated into an assault, but it's the resistance to entry that was at question. So the court held that you can not prevent illegal entry by police.

A lot of the criticism in the legal community concerns the court's claim that the resistance to entry was illegitimate because it contravenes policy. Policy in legal terms is somewhat more specific than the lay meaning. It means interpretations and procedures defined by an administrative agency. So the court basically held that this longstanding right is null because a bureaucracy has chosen to nullify it. That's a rather radical proposition and if widely adopted would jeopardize all rights which some public agency chose to supercede.

Reasonable responses to the violation of our rights wistledick, MAY include legal remedies. They may also include violence, as per our Declaration of Independence, and the actions of our founders. While I would not as a matter of course, recommend violence, to simply accept an immediate violation of our rights as individual free citizens with the notion that we may correct the problem "later", at great personal financial cost which may not even be an option for the indigent or less well educated...effectively reduces us to the level of serfs. Appealing for justice from a system which revokes or grants rights with such capriciousness that the only ones who now are able to fully understand what is a violation are those who spend years seeking a dgree in the subject.

And whom may make significant sums pushing for their further reduction.

I do not advocate the overthrow of the government, but I do advocate that individuals defend themselves with all due vigor that an immediate threat warrents.

This case doesn't involve the 4th Amendment, let alone erase it.

Here's the Indiana Supreme Court's decision, for anyone who wants to read it. The nwi reporter did a respectable job, but there's more nuance to the decision that he doesn't address. From the article:

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.

The Indiana Supreme Court decision doesn't interpret the U.S. Constitution, the Indiana Constitution, or any statute or ordinance. Instead, it's addressing the "common law", or court-made law; in this particular case, rules developed by the courts in England 800 years ago regarding a right of resistance to unlawful entry. This common law right is not derived from the 4th Amendment, so the Indiana decision is not a 4th Amendment decision.

In terms of relative authority, common law is far down the list, ranking after the federal and state constitutions and statutes and the case law interpreting them. Basically, ancient common law is authoritative only when there is no contradictory constitutional or statutory law. Even then, an appellate court is not obliged to follow the common law unless previous decisions of that appellate court or a higher court have affirmed the common law rule in that jurisdiction.

Why does that matter? If the legislature or citizens of Indiana don't like the court's ruling, they can abrogate it by passing a statute restoring the common law right. It's that simple. The Indiana Supreme Court would have no authority to set aside any such statute.

Look at Indiana's holding:

Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.

The Indiana Supreme Court has never explicitly adopted the English common law rule; therefore the Court in this decision was free to accept or reject that rule as the law of Indiana. Given that freedom, the Court decided that it was bad public policy to allow resistance to police officers, specifically:

. . . allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case.

The chance of someone successfully preventing the police from entering his residence (lawfully or not) is poor. Recognizing a common law rule to violently resist unlawful entry doesn't prevent the unlawful entry-- it just makes the situation more violent. On the other hand, there are a number of non-violent remedies to unlawful entry, to wit:

(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

All of these remedies developed after the common law rule allowing resistance to unlawful entry, and together these remedies provide better protection without the threat of violence. For example, the exclusionary rule excludes evidence obtained by an unlawful entry. Previously, under the common law, such evidence was admissible against the defendant.

You can disagree with the Indiana Supreme Court's decision, but it's hardly apocalyptic.

To look at how Indiana's rule will apply consider Jim P.'s hypothetical:

I'll give you an example: Ten friends (guys and ladies, 17-23) are sitting around on a Saturday evening having a few beers (and there might be a joint available.) The cop shows up and tell them to turn the stereo down. He forces his way in without a warrant. He busts three 19 years olds for underage possession and consumption. Whoops their driver's licenses are now suspended. He busts the 18 year old for boffing his 17 year old gf. That's statutory rape and a listing on the sex offenders list. One of the people has a little more pot than he should. That's now a felony drug possession. He's probably not going to get that high paying job.

Assuming that this parade of horribles comes to pass, what does a right to physically resist unlawful entry by the police accomplish? In the case before the court, the defendant didn't stop the policeman's entry, and Jim P.'s partying friends wouldn't either. Policeman are trained daily to deal with physical confrontation, so anyone who tries to take them on with violence is at a distinct disadvantage.

Now what protection does the law afford from errant cops?

The policeman's entry was unlawful. Any evidence obtained by the policeman is not admissible in court to support a criminal charge, whether minor in possession, statutory rape or drug trafficking. The presumption under the 4th Amendment is that any search of a residence is unreasonable; therefore, the burden of proof is on the policeman and the prosecutor to show that the search was permissible under the 4th Amendment.

A loud stereo does not a permissible search make; the dispatch record for the cop would show that it was a noise complaint, and you'd have ten witnesses to rebut any police testimony that there were "exigent circumstances". So the police gain nothing by making an unlawful entry, and they'll be discouraged from doing so in other circumstances-- like when people have loud stereos and aren't committing crimes.

And that brings up a basic concept: The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule aren't intended to create a "free zone" in a residence where someone can break the law with impunity. Rather, they are intended to protect law-abiding citizens from unreasonable searches, and to that end, exclude evidence when a search is unreasonable, even when the search shows that the defendant was clearly engaged in criminal behavior.

In other words, you don't have rights to underage drinking, statutory rape and drug trafficking, no matter where you do it. Deal with it.

brian said:

If SCOTUS doesn't kill this dead, then the nation is done.

There's no 4th Amendment issue and SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the case; it's called "federalism".

Steve said:

So the court basically held that this longstanding right is null because a bureaucracy has chosen to nullify it. That's a rather radical proposition and if widely adopted would jeopardize all rights which some public agency chose to supercede.

No. For a court to invoke "public policy" does not mean that it is deferring to a bureaucracy. If the Indiana Supreme Court used a bureaucratic ruling as authority, it would cite that in its decision. It didn't

Courts may invoke "public policy" when confronted with making a rule without explicit guidance from constitution or statute. The classic example of this is the common law principle that courts will not enforce contracts involving illegal activities because doing so is against public policy. In the Indiana case, the court is saying the common law rule allowing physical resistance to unlawful entry is contrary to a public policy of avoiding violence.

What about peaceably resisting entry? I've known for some time that even if you have nothing to hide, or even if you called the police to the scene, you aren't supposed to let them into your home. The way this has carried out (in the few unfortunate circumstance I've had the police visit) has been for me to step outside, and for someone still in the home to lock the door behind me, including back doors and possibly windows, depending on the situation.
In the specific instance, I'm a 5'6" 140 ish lb female. I have no weapons on me, firearm or otherwise. In what way would I be "escalating the violence" of the situation? Unless the police is a woman, and alone, there is no way I could physically resist, and I know this; therefore I wouldn't try. I would, however do my damnedest to peaceably keep anyone from entering my home, even if they are police.
That right there is my 4th amendment right.
So, following the logic of the comments above, the police would still be allowed to what? Arrest me on my stoop for not allowing entry? Force their way into my home using physical force(and damaging my property, because the doors are locked)? If I'm not resisting arrest, and presumably not under arrest in the first place, what would the recourse be?
I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist about it, but it seems to me to be very near the denunciation of 4th amendment rights, which does supersede state law. I truly want to know, if I'm not escalating violence, which seems to be the only reason given for allowing illegal entry, what would the police action then be?

Jazzhands, I don't have a background in law like Dale obviously does, but I think I can field this one anyway.

I'm pretty sure that not inviting them in for coffee does not equal resistance.

Jazzhands wrote:

What about peaceably resisting entry?

That wasn't addressed by the Indiana Supreme Court in this decision. The general law is that you do not have to open your door or otherwise admit the police unless they have a valid warrant. So if the police don't show you a warrant, you have no obligation to open the door; but, under current Indiana law, if the police break in the door, you can not physically assault them.

I've known for some time that even if you have nothing to hide, or even if you called the police to the scene, you aren't supposed to let them into your home.

As lawyers say, annoyingly, "that depends". Generally, you don't want the police to enter your house (and they don't want to come in-- it's not as secure). But if you've called them to the scene, and your call included information suggesting that someone in the house was in danger (like, in this case, domestic violence) the police may have legal grounds to enter without a warrant. Letting them in may be preferable to them breaking the door.

So, following the logic of the comments above, the police would still be allowed to what? Arrest me on my stoop for not allowing entry?

No, not unless you physically assaulted them.

Force their way into my home using physical force(and damaging my property, because the doors are locked)?

The Indiana decision says that illegal entry is not a defense to a charge of assault on a police officer. That doesn't make the entry any more legal. You still have the right to pursue remedies other than physical violence, like a civil suit for damages or grievances against the police officer. Also, if they found any incriminating evidence, that evidence and anything else derived from it (like a confession) would be inadmissible.

The Justices mention some of the legal ways LEOs may enter, even by force, a residence. Most of which have been recognised for centuries. I can add at least one more recent - because I have gas heat, a company inspector may enter at any time and may call upon police for assistance if denied entry. This is to allow for an emergency, which could endanger a whole neighborhood.

But the Justices went MUCH farther. Saying they do not trust a (non-LEO) judgement call "in the heat of the moment," they say go on to say it is illegal for us to resist even if the entry is illegal. Oh, good. Extreme, but if a cop yells through the door that he is going to break in, kill me, and rape my wife, it is illegal for me to clobber him with a baseball bat as this armed intruder is coming through the door? Also extreme - asking for a warrant, violence or no, is at least temporary resistance: technically, the Justices have said for us to do so is illegal because we do not know it is legal for them to enter, and if it is not known to us to be legal we must not offer resistance because it may in fact be illegal entry, and therefore illegal for us to - stop, my head hurts. I do not see the Justices stating any exceptions, or even the possibility of one.

"As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.
... Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry..." it is not even necessary to decide if the entry was legal.

Which, in my opinion, it probably was. And even if the woman telling her boyfriend to let them in is NOT the same as her telling them herself she would let them in, I would believe the cops would reasonably believe it constituted permission.

John A wrote:

Extreme, but if a cop yells through the door that he is going to break in, kill me, and rape my wife, it is illegal for me to clobber him with a baseball bat as this armed intruder is coming through the door?

No, because you're now talking about self-defense against attempted murder and rape, NOT illegal entry.

Also extreme - asking for a warrant, violence or no, is at least temporary resistance

No, the Indiana case holds that illegal entry is not a valid defense to a charge of assaulting a police officer or forcibly resisting law enforcement, both of which involve physical violence. Merely asking for a warrant is not an assault, so you don't need a defense.

Can we get a few thousand people who oppose this judge to illegally enter his home and then see if he resists? Can he resist? I don't think he should. He should just let the courts sort it out later.

I'm not saying all at once. I'm saying at random times throughout the next year.

What makes a cop so special that this law should only apply to them.

I'm obviously not a law student. But I know lots of cops that are dumb as a box of rocks and I live in a community where the last batch of cops broke more laws in the past few years than the citizens that live here. I'm not kidding. The chief and 1/2 the department was fired and with new leadership and new cops, they're working to rebuild their reputation with the community.

Right Dale, because when the attempting rape and murder cop wakes up he is going to confess to attempting a crime right?

You seem waaaaaaay too invested in making everyone think this is just fine and no problem what so ever

And that brings up a basic concept: The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule aren't intended to create a "free zone" in a residence where someone can break the law with impunity. Rather, they are intended to protect law-abiding citizens from unreasonable searches, and to that end, exclude evidence when a search is unreasonable, even when the search shows that the defendant was clearly engaged in criminal behavior.

In other words, you don't have rights to underage drinking, statutory rape and drug trafficking, no matter where you do it. Deal with it.

The problem is that there is a confluence of the fed doing their best to steadily erode states rights (OVI, speed limit, seat belt, EPA regs, CPSC, health insurance, etc.) with the changes to fundamental decisions (4th, Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, ICE, etc.) that are leaving anyone that thinks will less options.

I can agree that the privacy of a home does not give a safe haven for crime. But the level of "crimes" has been lowered and re-regulated so much that you are practically in violation of some law for breathing.

How about serving my 18 year old child a glass of wine? How about smoking in a park in NYC? How about failing my driving test because I start the car before I put on my seat belt? How about being guilty of using my stock of incandescent bulbs?

The list goes on. Giving the state or fed more control without question is ludicrous.

lujlp wrote

You seem waaaaaaay too invested in making everyone think this is just fine and no problem what so ever

And you seem waaaaay too paranoid.

Don't people get it? If a cop breaks into my home because he screwed up and meant to bust the rapist next door (and in my area, they have been known to hit the wrong place a time or two) I'm supposed to let them break down my door and do whatever consequential damage to my home. I'm then supposed to spend money on a lawyer and further clog up the Indiana court system with a lawsuit to get my stuff fixed? Not everyone has the means to hire a lawyer and what public defender is actually going to go above and beyond to make sure you win against the cops? And furthermore, some cops are not the sharpest tools in the shed, just big dudes with guns. Why should they be allowed to judge what justifies random entry into someone's house? If anyone has read anything lately about the cops in Indianapolis, they don't have a rap for being smart, exactly, especially the one who decided to take his dose of Oxycontin before getting in his patrol car. Or how about the one who killed a motorcyclist because he got drunk at lunch and got in his car? The police that handled that couldn't even take him to the right place for his blood alcohol test, so now his result is inadmissable in court (that's being contested, but so far it looks like he will get away with it). I respect the police for the job they do, but they have to do it with some sense.

Jessica,

"Don't people get it?"

No. Apparently they don't. Even after an apparent lawyer has laid out a very clear explanation of why this ruling hasn't materially changed anything having to do with any of your rights and hasn't gone anywhere near your Fourth Amendment rights.

Read Dale's explanation again -- this time with your logic hat on instead of the one with the three corners and the tea bags hanging from it. Those tea bags tend to swing around in your field of vision and reading comprehension suffers. You may want to remove the tin foil one as well. It causes a glare on the monitor.

Don't make the poor guy go blue in the face further explaining something simple. He's already spent a lot of effort on your behalf.

"If a cop breaks into my home because he screwed up and meant to bust the rapist next door ... I'm supposed to let them break down my door and do ... damage to my home."

Again, what alternative are you suggesting? You think a better outcome would result if you blew his head off? Now, there are calls of "officer down" screaming through the radio, nobody will have any time to double check the warrant in the middle of all that, and the swat team swoops in. There's going to be a bit more damage to your house and you and possibly several other policemen are dead or severely wounded.

After all this, you (or your heirs) will still have the original matter of a front door that needs to be put back on its hinges plus many other new issues to deal with. Yep, somebody's going to need a lawyer. Oh yeah, and now that there was a gunfight at home-sweet-o.k. corral, it's going to be a bit difficult to assess which of the damages were from the original violation and which were from your reckless actions.

What really kills me is that your logic seems to be that you want to violently resist armed police so that you can avert the possibility of needing to secure the services of a lawyer and avoid becoming embroiled in the legal system. Does that make any sense to you?

By the way, before you opened up on the cops, there were tons of civil liberties groups that would be more than happy to take on your very easy case for free. There were also an army of paid lawyers willing to defer payment until your very large settlement from the city was handily settled. Not so much post-standoff. You're going to need the ghost of Johnny Cochran and you can't afford him.

Again, what alternative are you suggesting? You think a better outcome would result if you blew his head off?

How about the cops not busting people's doors down? Has anyone considered that possibility?

Yes Brian. Many people have entertained the fantasy of a Utopian society where police aren't necessary. Others have entertained the fantasy of police being infallible.

Neither group is living in the real world.

So, once the door is erroneously breached in our imperfect world of reality and knowing that such a situation isn't going to easily get un-fucked, which option would you take? The violent option or the one that roots itself in the real world?

And you seem waaaaay too paranoid.

Posted by: Dale

I've had a few psycologists tell me that as well, but its not like I could trust them, they were appointed by the courts.

The issue is that I stand at my doorway, open it to the extent of the chain-lock and the cop braces his hand on the outside of the door, or puts his foot in the jamb.

I then see it is a cop and say "Go f@#k yourself!!" and slam the door shut, nearly catching his hand or foot in the door. That would qualify as resisting violently under the current standards. Just the same as refusing to be patted down before being charged can constitute resisting.

So, once the door is erroneously breached in our imperfect world of reality and knowing that such a situation isn't going to easily get un-fucked, which option would you take? The violent option or the one that roots itself in the real world?

Well, since your solution isn't going to bring my dog back after the cops shoot it, what do you think?

So far as I am concerned, cops are too militarized, too overused, and too overzealous. They don't do any due diligence, they cover for each other when they fuck up, and they are the only people in America that can commit murder in front of witnesses and walk away.

I agree with Brian that cops are too militarized and overzealous. Not all are bad but there is a thin blue line that separates them from the rest of us.

What I find most disturbing is the indifferent and ignorant assumptions most Americans have as to their privacy rights. The rights people negligently take for granted are slowly being eroded away, one sentence, one decision at time.

Having read the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court, they got to the result the wrong way - instead of using the exigent circumstances exception to warrantless search & seizure to gain entry to the residence. Resisting an arrest, unlawful or not, isn't going to help you out. If anything, it only gives the cops a reason to keep restraining you. Even twisting away from the cops while being searched (in handcuffs) or failing to get into the back of the cop car have been grounds for 'hindering/opposing/resising or obstructing a police investigation' charge.

Also, the facts of the case in that the defendant Barnes had stood in the doorway (after being contacted out in the parking lot by the officers) and engaging in chin music while yelling "fuck you" to the cops with the door open, didn't help his case. If he had never gone out of the door, never opened the door - he wouldn't be resisting the officers by not opening the door (let along assaulting them.)

Oh, and to Jessica, I am a public defender and I run routinely run exams and trials for my clients. Not every criminal defense attorney who serves as a public defender is incompetent or uncaring.

Here is a newsflash of the growing popularity of Drug Forefeiture Laws. I note Michigan is one of the absolute worst states -- if your property is seized under suspicion of being connected to drug activity, you have to post a bond for your stuff. If cash money is seized not only do you have to post a bond for the money but you have prove that the cash is not part of the result of drug activities....

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/police-ignore-illegal-drugs-focus-on-seizing-cash/239349/

Ok Dale

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/05/joe_arpaio_deputy_accused_of_h.php

SZeems some local cops are moonlighting of gangs and cartels, given the cops are also working for organised crime are you still so blasey about them kickingin your door for no resaon?

Sorry, WhistleDick, but I'm no tea partier, just someone who thinks boundaries are being overstepped, and as far as reading comprehension goes, I'm the one that said I wouldn't shoot the police, but I will protest them coming in if I feel they have no right to be there. If they show up and tell me my neighbors called because I'm partying too hard and my stereo's loud, that's one thing. Even if they want to come in and check ID's if they think one of my guests looks too young, that's fine, too. THEY WERE CALLED to a distubance. In that case, I would comply. My point is, if I'm at home watching TV or reading and the police come banging on my door because they came to the wrong place, I think I have every right to protest their entry. Or, as in my example about my man and I playing around and a cop hearing me holler through my open window: if he stops and wants to check things out, I'm going to tell him to mind his own damned business.

Today someone asked how I tease my hair so I told him, he replied with so that's how those fluffy bastards do it

Most of the pressure comes from myself, not from others. I don't need a manager or a pundit to put pressure on me. I do all that myself before others do it.