Some ads are provided by Google
They are not endorsed by The New American
| Indiana Supreme Court Says Citizens Can't Resist Rogue Police | | Print | |
| Written by Thomas R. Eddlem | ||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 16 May 2011 00:00 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Justice Steven David wrote for the court in the decision that "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." Justice David acknowledged that he was overturning many centuries of common law precedent in favor of his "public policy" decision, admitting that "The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215." Fellow Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Rucker issued a blistering dissent, claiming: The common law rule supporting a citizen's right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, "the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home. Rucker added that 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. And that their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena." The consequences of the Barnes decision, if citizens indeed have "no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," are indeed frightening. If a policeman enters a man's house to rob him or rape his wife or daughter, under this decision, a citizen cannot legally resist him. Indeed, even shouting at the police officer to stop could be considered a crime of interfering with a police officer. The court ruled in the Barnes decision that protesting illegal police conduct verbally — without any physical resistance — constituted a crime according to a majority of the judges in the decision: "Barnes's speech in the present case is that of a person of interest refusing to cooperate with a police investigation and is not within the contours of political speech." Perhaps the egregious part of the Barnes decision is that it was made without any pretense of legislative or constitutional justification. To the contrary, every law and constitutional citation made by Justice Steven David reasserted the citizen's right to resist unlawful entry, and the court justified its decision on "public policy" considerations and a few activist court decisions. "In the 1920s," Justice David wrote, "legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers." What Justice David means by "legal scholarship" is activist judges who blatantly overturn long-held laws and centuries-old common law legal tradition without either constitutional or statutory authority from the legislature. Indeed, "public policy" considerations are an exclusively legislative responsibility, and are prohibited to the judicial bodies. Justice David concluded: "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action." Specifically, Justice David found not that anyone had amended the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or that the legislature had passed any new laws, but rather that Americans are the beneficiaries of "modern developments" that include: "(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." But, of course, the 21st century has seen numerous examples of government denying bail, indefinite detention without a habeas corpus hearing, and use of secret evidence in "military commissions" courts that the federal government created during the Bush administration and are now being created under the Obama administration. David's argument that modern remedies are available fails not only because these "modern" remedies are not universal, but more importantly because they are not based upon changes in the constitutions or laws of the land. Trackback(0)
Comments (11)
Pat Riot
said:
|
Citizens have "no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry [to their homes] by police officers," Indiana's Supreme Court 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed |
... What remedy do citizens have when the "courts" become lawless entities purporting to strike down citizens rights at a whim? This sounds like serious criminal activity here. Where's the FBI when you need them? Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) ..... Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both... Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs. |
L-Top
said:
|
... Perhaps some police officers who respect the rule of law and the rights of the American people (ie their oaths) could pay these tyrants pretending to be judges a visit at their homes... |
WickedBlog
said:
 |
I thought the US Supreme Court Would Overrule I have been following this story and had hoped that the US Supreme court would step in and fix this debacle to individual rights, protecting our constitution. That was before the US Supreme court ruled against a Kentucky Supreme Court today. The KY court had said search without a warrant was unconstitutional. The highest court in the land disagreed. You can see the discussion on both Indiana and Kentucky cases here: http://bit.ly/l6prl8 To say I'm disgusted would be an amazing understatement. |
Wiredog
said:
 |
... I read somewhere: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." But then, that was before we had bail, etc. I guess that doesn't mean anything anymore, either. |
T.J.
said:
|
... Well, on the bright side, Governor Daniels just ensured his defeat in the GOP presidential primaries. The neocons are dropping like flies  RP 2012 |
this is wrong!
said:
 |
Time to impeach.... Read this article. Let's get started! http://www.loupainter.com/Impeach.html @T.J. This has nothing to do with the governor. Separate branch of government. Ever hear of the 3 branches??? |
Time to impeach!
said:
|
Read this... It's time to impeach. Read this... http://www.corruptusjudicialsystem.org/impeach-roberts-petition.pdf |
NoMoreKoolAid
said:
 |
Sad Day In America This ruling now becomes precendent for every prosecutor in the land. This is a travesty and if we Americans do not stand up against this, we will deserve everything we get. Everything!!! |
