The Libertarian Patriot
In a not-so-stunning decision, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement can enter a home against the wishes of a resident for any reason and the resident has no right to resist. Even the dissenting judges agreed with the ruling in principal but believed that the decision was too broad in it's scope.
I don't know what's worse, the majority's decision to blatantly disregard Forth Amendment protections or that the court as a whole agrees that in certain situations that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.
If this decision stands, we are just one step closer to a police state where any Constitutional protections are null and void.
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.
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.