Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

[Hermie]

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

This is the kind of thing that is going to tear it. I hope.
Really, what more is left for the governments to do to us?
In one way or another, in one place or another, every one of our Constitutional and Common Law
protections are violated. Made null.
Do they have to announce on the television, "You have no more rights, so shut up and sit down" ?!


[i]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.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."[

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.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

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.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

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

[General of Darkness]

INSANITY.

[Ares]

Being an Indiana native, I WILL not allow anyone, uniform or not in my domicile without a warrant. They can kindly go fuck themselves.

[Publico Pro Se]

The purpose of knocking is to announce the lawful authority of the entry.

[Hermie]

Good article from a great website regarding Constitutional law..

Nullification: Smacking Down Those Who Smackdown The Constitution.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

"In response to a recent article in the National Review by Allen C. Guelzo, a nullification denier and history professor at Gettysburg College, and two responding letters to the Editor,1 one “Celticreeler” posted an astute rebuttal you can read here.

The issue in the National Review article and letters is this: Guelzo denies that States have any right to nullify unconstitutional laws made by Congress. He looks at Art. VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution (the “supremacy clause”) which reads,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land… [emphasis added]

and concludes that any law made by Congress is the “supreme” law of the land; and everyone must obey, unless & until five (5) judges on the supreme Court say they don’t have to. He claims that only judges have authority to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress.

In her rebuttal, Celticreeler correctly points out that the phrase, “in Pursuance thereof”, “limit the federal government’s supremacy to laws that were made pursuant to the Constitution…”

She also reprints Guelzo’s reply to her letter to the Editor. And what he says in his reply is so at odds with the words of our Framers, that I am compelled to respond... "

Complete article: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

(I don't know what is causing the strikeout lines here.. not in original)

[Plastic]

I am also a native of Indiana and I will tell you this right now, I don't answer my door for anyone I am not expecting, ever. And god help the both of us if it is an officer who decides to kick in the door, he will get the double barrel full of buckshot, his partners outside "if I survive" get rounds from the battle rifle.

[po boy]

What is not laid out is that no warrant=no lawful evidence.

Don't answer the door.

[Book]

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."



By not resisting entry, we "consent".

:o

[Hermie]

"And god help the both of us if it is an officer who decides to kick in the door, he will get the double barrel full of buckshot,"

Shotgun slugs will go through most vests.

[Ponce]

Well, I for one have nothing to loose and everthing to loose if they come into my home......I'll be one of the first ones to get killed for doing something about it........money talks and bullshit walks... my money talks.

[sirgonzo420]

"public policy"


is not


Law


Besides, my house goes by my law.
My law says intruders are intruders, badges or not, and will be dealt with accordingly.

[willie pete]

i'm thinking someone will challenge this in the SCOTUS ..whatever good that might do ::)

reading the story, the cops had been called, so once that happens, they can come, and under the guisse of the law, do almost anything they want, gotta give some credit to 2 of the judges though, they were concerned it might impead the 4th Amend

[mrnhtbr2232]

Now the question is which states rush to the alter next. These kind of things always snowball with provocateurs in the middle stirring up shit and spinning it as wholesome good for society pablum. Obviously any sane person will retain final judgment on the matter.

[mick silver]

before long the will just ride around and pick a house to go in .............. lock down cannot be to far off

[midnight rambler]

Someone suggested to me that 'they' need to publish some booklet or pamphlet which outlines how us proles are supposed to behave.

[sirgonzo420]

Someone suggested to me that 'they' need to publish some booklet or pamphlet which outlines how us proles are supposed to behave.


Ya mean like this?


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dwVWjD5kRgQ/TWZPQ-ZYQxI/AAAAAAAABm4/LOSISAefWso/s1600/mao_book.jpg

[Gaillo]

Someone suggested to me that 'they' need to publish some booklet or pamphlet which outlines how us proles are supposed to behave.


A whole booklet? Nah... just a few catch phrases should do!

Obey. Go to work. Pay your taxes. Submit. Money is your God. Watch Tel-Avision. Do NOT question authority. Marry and reproduce. Buy. Be afraid. Stay asleep.

(Some of those stolen unashamedly from the excellent movie "They Live".)

[osoab]

This is messed up.

Scratch the plan to move to Indiana. >:(

Heading west I guess.

[sirgonzo420]

My law says intruders are intruders, badges or not, and will be dealt with accordingly.


According to Bouvier:


INTRUDER. One who, on the death of the ancestor, enters on the land, unlawfully, before the heir can enter.

So what is your policy on one who intrudes upon the heir?


It's even more strict!

[solid]

Obey. Go to work. Pay your taxes. Submit. Money is your God. Watch Tel-Avision. Do NOT question authority. Marry and reproduce. Buy. Be afraid. Stay asleep.


Yup, sums it up for most sheeple. ;D

Folks, I'm not sure if you realize how big of an issue this really is, regarding consent, search and seizure law..

This shit is scary. It tosses the constitution in the toilet..4th amendment...most people do not realize how big this is.

[osoab]

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

I think this ruling goes hand in hand with the other. All in the same week? Someone wants something to go down.

Does anyone have the background on how these cases progressed through the Indiana courts?

[BabushkaLady]

Folks, I'm not sure if you realize how big of an issue this really is, regarding consent, search and seizure law..

This shit is scary. It tosses the constitution in the toilet..4th amendment...most people do not realize how big this is.


They chipped away at the 4th quite a while back. I don't remember the case or year, but essentially a search of a vehicle could include a women's purse. It was no longer considered "her" property even if she was just a passenger in the vehicle.

I assume this will appeal up to SCOTUS--not that it makes a difference.

I do think most cops will know better then to just enter. One or two examples should do it . . .

[sirgonzo420]

The magna charta is much more important than the u.s. constitution




Wasn't the Magna Carta of 1215 nullified ab initio by the Treaty of 1213 with the Pope?

[BillBoard]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... You rent the money from the FED, you don't own shit., it is the Govt's house and not yours. There. I have the right, to this, I have the right to that, blah, blah, blah. You have the right to shut up and do as your master tells you to do.

[gunDriller]

if someone enters your home without your permission, you have the right to introduce them to your wood-chipper and to use their protoplasm to fertilize your garden.

it's almost as if the Powers That be in Indianapolis & elsewhere around the country are BEGGING for a Civil War.

how many of those 5 Indiana judges are Jews ?


for that matter, to what extent were the Talmud-worshippers behind the first Civil War ? we have been taught it was North vs. South - and that it was about slaves - but maybe there was more to it than that.

[sirgonzo420]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... You rent the money from the FED, you don't own shit., it is the Govt's house and not yours. There. I have the right, to this, I have the right to that, blah, blah, blah. You have the right to shut up and do as your master tells you to do.
I believe this is technically true, and anything resembling liberty in this day and age is usually just charade. It is a charade I use to my advantage wherever I can and quite often, I might add... but I do believe that the use of the FRN in the manner we use it is actually the chain that binds us. Where can there be freedom where all property is borrowed or rented?


According to 12 USC 411, FRNs shall be redeemed in 'lawful money' on demand.

[midnight rambler]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... You rent the money from the FED, you don't own shit., it is the Govt's house and not yours. There. I have the right, to this, I have the right to that, blah, blah, blah. You have the right to shut up and do as your master tells you to do.
I believe this is technically true, and anything resembling liberty in this day and age is usually just charade. It is a charade I use to my advantage wherever I can and quite often, I might add... but I do believe that the use of the FRN in the manner we use it is actually the chain that binds us. Where can there be freedom where all property is borrowed or rented?


According to 12 USC 411, FRNs shall be redeemed in 'lawful money' on demand.


But there's no accompanying CFR to go with it.

[sirgonzo420]

According to 12 USC 411, FRNs shall be redeemed in 'lawful money' on demand.


But there's no accompanying CFR to go with it.


Maybe not, but Title 12 still says what it says; is it completely meaningless?

Title 26 isn't positive law, but to say it isn't enforced would be a tad inaccurate.

[midnight rambler]

According to 12 USC 411, FRNs shall be redeemed in 'lawful money' on demand.


But there's no accompanying CFR to go with it.


Maybe not, but Title 12 still says what it says; is it completely meaningless?

Title 26 isn't positive law, but to say it isn't enforced would be a tad inaccurate.




Close to meaningless imo. No CFR = no enforcement by the Executive Branch.

[sirgonzo420]

Even so, FRNs in a loan aren't redeemed, and I haven't seen anyone buying their cars/computers/vegetables/etc. with redeemed FRNs. Soooo... 12 USC 411 seems like a moot point to me.


Maybe it is moot. Either way, 12 USC 411 still sits in the belly of the behemoth known as the United States Code, although slightly changed in its verbiage from its original incarnation as Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.

Anyways, the courts have ruled that FRNs are legal tender, while USNs are 'lawful money'.

I figure that FRNs can be used as FRNs or USNs, depending on whether or not they have been redeemed by demand.

[gunDriller]

if they have the right to kick our doors in, we have the right to kick their doors in.

[midnight rambler]

if they have the right to kick our doors in, we have the right to kick their doors in.


And by extension, if 'they' can put up cameras watching us, then we can put up cameras watching 'them'.

It's way past time to do so.

[Tumbleweed]

The mexican drug cartels seem to know how to handle the police and let them know when they do something they don't like. In this article it sounds like the police got the message.

Entire police force in Los Ramones, Mexico quits after gunmen attack headquarters
BY PHILIP CAULFIELD
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The entire police force in a small Mexican town abruptly resigned Tuesday after its new headquarters was viciously attacked by suspected drug cartel gunmen.

All 14 police officers in Los Ramones, a rural town in northern Mexico, fled the force in terror after gunmen fired more than 1,000 bullets and flung six grenades at their headquarters on Monday night.

No one was injured in the attack. Mayor Santos Salinas Garza told local media that the officers resigned because of the incident.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-10-27/news/27079377_1_drug-cartel-gunmen-zetas-police-officers